“The patients were not sent to nursing homes,” Cuomo says of his order mandating that COVID-positive patients be granted access into nursing homes (his order even prohibited requiring COVID testing prior to readmission). Dude is shameless.
Turns out the Democrat who wrote a book on and got an Emmy for his covid leadership is a total fraud who was responsible for the single worst decision causing the most avoidable deaths of the entire pandemic, and then he covered it up
“New York state legislators and other officials have demanded investigations into Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s coverup of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes.
Cuomo warned them not to threaten him with subpoenas because, try not to laugh, it’s a crime. He also defended the policy.
Melissa DeRosa, Cuomo’s secretary, set off a firestorm last week when she “apologized to Democratic lawmakers for withholding the state’s nursing home death toll.”
DeRosa said the administration “froze” because they feared President Donald Trump’s DOJ would use the numbers “against” them.
Democrats immediately called for a “full investigation” and threats to rescind his emergency powers.”
Cuomo used his Monday press conference to play the victim and deflect blame.
Yes, the man who instilled a policy that led to old people dying in nursing homes chided those who want the truth.
“You can’t use a subpoena or the threat of investigation to leverage a person,” lectured Cuomo. “That’s a crime. It’s called abuse of power, it’s called extortion.”
“Melissa DeRosa, an aide to Governor Andrew Cuomo, has admitted that, in an attempt to cover up evidence that might put Cuomo’s administration in trouble with the Department of Justice, the administration withheld the true New York toll of nursing home deaths due to the Wuhan coronavirus. She reportedly told New York Democrats that “we froze” out of fear that the true numbers would “be used against us” by federal prosecutors.
This sounds like an admission to one or more federal crimes.
18 U.S. Code § 1505 provides:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States. . .shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . .or both.
I think that’s what DeRosa said the Cuomo administration did.
18 U.S. Code § 1001(a) provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact. . .shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . .or both.
This provision, too, seems to be in play.
18 U.S. Code § 371 provides:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
From what DeRosa has admitted, it sounds like the Cuomo administration’s attempt to conceal the coronavirus nursing home death numbers from the DOJ involved two or more people. Thus, 18 U.S. Code § 371 seems also to apply.”
“More than half of Republican voters think the US needs a new mainstream third party, according to a recent poll.
A recently released Gallup poll found that there has been a surge among Republican voters who think the US needs a new third party to better represent Americans’ interests.
According to the poll, between 63 and 70 per cent of Republicans supported a new party. In September, only 40 per cent of Republicans shared that view.
The results appear to be a direct response to Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 US election and the perception by his supporters that Republicans did not do enough to advance his false claims that his loss was the result of massive voter fraud.
Reuters reported that more than 120 Republicans met virtually last week to discuss the potential formation of a centre-right third party to counter Mr Trump’s far-right wing political movement in the US. However, several prominent Republicans, including Rep Liz Cheney, told the outlet that such a move would be untenable following the discussion.
At the same time, Trump voters from several Republican states are breaking off and forming “Patriot parties” to reflect their loyalty to the former president above all else.
In addition to wanting a new party, 68 per cent of Republicans said they would prefer Mr Trump to continue leading the party, and most wanted the Republican party to become more conservative.”
“Lotta unhappy Republicans out there. And it matters which ones are unhappy.
“More conservative” and “more moderate” is a poor way to address the dividing line within the party, which falls along Trump and populism, not “conservatism.” My guess is that the group that answered “more conservative” meant “more like Trump” or “more populist/authoritarian,” not “more in favor of lower spending” or whatever. If I’m right then the spike in interest for a third party among righties isn’t an anti-Trump thing. (Which makes sense, since many anti-Trumpers doubtless stopped identifying as Republicans awhile back.) It’s a pro- Trump thing, as MAGA types confront the prospect of four years in which the party is led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and respond, “No thanks.”
Or rather, it’s both. It’s mainly a phenomenon among Trump fans who feel no strong interest in the GOP when their guy isn’t formally in charge of it but secondarily it’s a function of the party’s remaining anti-Trumpers feeling disgusted by the Capitol riot and the impunity for the former president that followed it. That’s different from the previous three chapters of third-party interest too. During the Bush years it was chiefly one group, righties who’d soured somewhat on the war, that was driving the third-party interest. During the tea-party years it was one group, small-government populists, that was driving it. During Trump’s candidacy in 2016 the party began to pull apart into two groups, MAGA and Trump skeptics, but by the time he became president the latter group had come around. Republican interest in a third party slipped to its lowest point in years.
But now, post-Trump and post-insurrection, we may have meaningful interest in a third party among those same two groups, adding up to nearly two-thirds of Republicans overall willing to abandon ship if a more attractive option came along.”
“RICHARD BURR PUTS “SENATE PRECEDENT” ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION
Today, Sen. Richard Burr joined six other Republicans in voting to convict President Trump of an impeachable offense. I understand the vote of the other six and consider it defensible, though not how I would have voted.
Unlike the other six, however, Burr previously voted that the trial should not proceed because it is unconstitutional to impeach a president who is no longer in office. But now, Burr has voted to do that unconstitutional thing.
Burr tried to explain away the contradiction this way:
When this process started, I believed that it was unconstitutional to impeach a president who was no longer in office. I still believe that to be the case. However, the Senate is an institution based on precedent, and given that the majority in the Senate voted to proceed with this trial, the question of constitutionality is now established precedent. As an impartial juror, my role is now to determine whether House managers have sufficiently made the case for the article of impeachment against President Trump.
This makes no sense to me. Burr has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he still believes that it’s unconstitutional to impeach a president who is no longer in office, then Burr has violated that oath by voting to convict on the article of impeachment.
“Senate precedent” — the opinion of a majority of Senators — doesn’t determine what is and what is not constitutional. Every Senator is bound by an oath to exercise his or her independent judgment on questions of constitutionality.
The Senate passed Obamacare. Clearly, a majority thought it was constitutional. That vote would not bar Senators from voting to repeal Obamacare on constitutional grounds.
Senate worship is an occupational hazard, at least for Republican members. But for a Senator to allow a majority to substitute its judgment for his on a matter of constitutional law is carrying the joke too far.”
Don’t be upset Canadians, we all have our idiots……
See…..
If she wanted to say, “the plan we inherited was nowhere near ambitious or thorough or detailed enough,” fine. Fauci and Sloaui or Perna or others might dispute that, but we can have that argument.
But Harris has to cling to the already-debunked claim that there was no plan.
You say there’s “no plan.” When you took office, the Trump Administration’s Operation Warp Speed was so successful over 15 MILLION Americans had already been vaccinated! Do you expect people to believe this happened with “no plan?” #plandenier
I realize you, the Democrats, and the media will never give President Trump the credit he’s due for Operation Warp Speed. But by spreading #misinformation you’re also demeaning the thousands of career civil servants and men and women in uniform who made this possible! #plandenier
Your #misinformation insults the Army Materiel Command and companies like FedEx, UPS, CVS & Walgreen’s and their employees. You may not believe strongly in free markets but our partnership w/private sector is how we’ve vaccinated more citizens than any other country!#plandenier
“New York Times Union Hijacked By Woke Activists, Employees Say”
“Following the drama surrounding the resignation of a New York Times veteran science reporter, employees inside the company have said the union designed to protect them is now more concerned with being “woke” than protecting employees.
Several Times employees spoke to the Washington Free Beacon, detailing the problems within the New York Times Guild, the employee union.
“The people I’m supposed to go to if I have a problem with management are the same ones who might try to get me fired,” one union member told the outlet. “The union is the last place I would go for support.”
That sentiment is a far cry different than a statement put out by the union last June, in which it declared: “Journalists are not expendable. Employers are attempting to undermine our collective strength and security.” The Guild went on to say that it was “fighting to preserve our right to due process and to ensure fairness and equity — particularly for our BIPOC colleagues — by maintaining this essential safeguard against unjust [discipline.]” (Side note: while the Times union demands a right to due process, the paper has actively attacked attempts to provide those same rights to college students.)
While the union said last year that it would protect its members, it seems to have changed its tune after allegations of racism were lodged against Donald McNeil, a four-decade veteran of the news paper who resigned earlier this month.
Employees who spoke to the Free Beacon described how Times union members signed a letter to management “demanding a more thorough investigation of his conduct after an initial probe led to a wrist slap.,” the Free Beacon reported. McNeil had been disciplined for his alleged behavior on a “Times Journeys” expedition to Peru to study health care in the region. The trips have been around since 2012, but as Times media columnist Ben Smith explained on Sunday, they became complicated to manage — particularly in the summer of 2019, after The Times began hosting teenagers.”
It was those teenagers – none of whom were black – that made the allegations against McNeil, which ranged from vague claims that the reporter “made racist and sexist remarks throughout the trip” to the main allegation that McNeil repeated the “n-word” when asking for clarification from a student about whether a classmate should have been disciplined for using the word in a video when they were 12. McNeil said he asked the student what context the other student used the slur, repeating it while doing so.
The Times union didn’t directly call for McNeil’s firing, but prominent members did, according to those who spoke to the Free Beacon. The members who spoke to the outlet said reporter Davey Alba and cultural critic Amanda Hess led the charge to fire McNeil even after he had already been disciplined.”
1. 11 Feb – 7,000 National Guard troops are requested by the Swamp to remain deployed in Washington, D.C. (with LIVE ammo!) through the Fall of 2021. This actually requires Congressional approval, b/c it is longer than a 30-day deployment.
2. 13 Feb – Corporate Media sources state that this is because Trump won’t concede.
3. 14 Feb – By the graves of 14 innocent children who were murdered by a homicidal maniac, Biden declares the most sweeping infringement on the 2nd Amendment ever.
Coincidence?
There are now 21,500 National Guardsmen in the city – they have arrived from all 50 states and three territories, building up to a force of 25,000 by Wednesday in what the Guard calls Operation Capitol Response. The dozens of vehicle checkpoints, miles of protective fencing and concrete barriers, and the sight of armed guardsmen has given D.C. the look of a fortress.
And of course Hack Tapper nods along with the lies.
Jamie Raskin (who forgot to comb his hair before going on TV) says the impeachment was a “dramatic success” even though it was an abject failure in every sense of the word. But these people think they can just write history however they want. pic.twitter.com/boF1K0PGKE
“On January 13, 2021, The National Pulse called the almost ubiquitous, false reporting about the events at the Capitol on January 6 “The Insurrection Lie.” This was contrary to some other conservative media outlets, such as National Review, which published a piece on January 17 calling the events at the Capitol “impeachable.”
Our view, groundbreaking at the time, has been vindicated in the ensuing month. Tucker Carlson last week called the media’s reporting on the events a “lie.” Following is an update to our coverage based on recent disclosures.
Ritualizing The Lie.
On January 13, we reported:
A Capitol Police officer died of a stroke the day after the riot; but it is not known what may have happened during the melee that would provide a causal connection. His brother stated that he had communicated with the officer after the event: “He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape.” Sometime after the riot, he returned to his division office and collapsed. It has been reported that the Capitol Police initially issued a statement denying that a police officer had died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. Based on available facts (which may change) it is speculative to say at this time that he was murdered or slain. His family has made a plea that the death not be politicized.
Update: The National Pulse has since reported that early reports Officer Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher were false, and the New York Times has backed away from the claim. Revolver has done a deep dive into these events, raising further questions about the cause of death.
Based on available facts, it is reasonable to conclude that Sicknick’s death was not caused by the protest. Nevertheless, against the family’s wishes, the death has been used politically. Sicknick became only the fifth person to receive the distinction of lying in honor at the Capitol Rotunda. Alarmingly, this was done to ritualize the unsupported claim that he was slain by rioters. Democrat House impeachment managers alleged an “armed insurrection” based on the false assertion that Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher. The United States Capitol is surrounded by razor wire and secured by military units on the premise that its previous security was breached by armed insurrectionists who murdered a police officer.
It is a lie.
Creating the Lie.
On January 13, we reported:
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” On January 6, 2021, hundreds of thousands of citizens traveled to the nation’s capital to exercise their Constitutional right to peacefully protest. This was their grievance: Seventy-five million had cast their ballots for Trump on election day. Then, in the wee hours, when Las Vegas oddsmakers were calling a Trump victory, counting inexplicably stopped, and a disproportionate number of Biden votes appeared. The Biden votes were primarily from Democrat-controlled cities: Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Milwaukee. They were culled from mail-in ballots, an accommodation hurriedly retrofitted into the voting system because of a pandemic. The election’s statistical anomalies were mind boggling, including Republican dominance down ballot, Trump’s significant support among minority voters, and his victory in all traditional bellwethers. In June, Attorney General Bill Barr sat for an interview in CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and warned of fraud with mail-in voting. He said: “People trying to change the rules to this, to this methodology – which, as a matter of logic, is very open to fraud and coercion – is reckless and dangerous and people are playing with fire.” Some of the new voting procedures were ordered by state governors and health officials even though Article II of the Constitution delegates rule-making for elections exclusively to state legislatures. The Washington protesters had reason to ask: Did someone pull a fast one?
Update: Since our report, Time Magazine has helpfully answered our ultimate question, “Did someone pull a fast one?” – with a resounding (1) yes they did, and (2) they are proud of it. As we had surmised, the stratagem centered on mail-in ballots. In Time’s words:
Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears…. This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”
The peaceful protestors on January 6 were people who believe Democracy should be self-executing, without a well-funded consortium of the credentialed elite conspiring to assure an outcome. The Constitution permits citizens who hold even controversial political views to assemble and speak their mind. Many who peacefully assembled in Washington D.C., though, are being harassed as insurrectionists. They are being purposely conflated with those who breached the Capitol and there is a witch hunt to identify any who question the election. In a fiery speech, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell lumped the protesters together as a “mob.” This is outrageous behavior on the part of the powerful against ordinary citizens who simply asserted their Constitutional rights.
Doubling Down on The Lie.
On January 13 we reported:
President Trump addressed the protesters and called on the assembled to march “over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” At the moment the President was uttering the words “peacefully,” though, a different more sinister group had already gathered at the Capitol, a full 45 minute walk away. Whatever happened there is not yet fully understood. Given the proclivity of federal law enforcement to act politically against Trump, it unfortunately may never be. Some things, though, are certain. We know, for instance, that many of the troublemakers were not Trump supporters. We know, too, that Capitol Police waved at least some Trump supporters into the building. We know that a Trump supporter was shot in the Capitol…. President Trump has saluted the protesters and denounced those who entered the Capitol to engage in violence. The distinction he made is no different than claims made by democratic mayors in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Dallas over the summer who supported BLM protests in their cities, but condemned troublemakers. Similarly, Senator Kamala Harris spoke about those riots on the The Late Show With Stephen Colbert in June:
“But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.”
Those who reported that her statement supported riots have been fact checked by Reuters, USA Today, the AP, and others, on the premise that common cause with protests should not be cast as support for any rioting that ensues. If that is the media standard made venerable by the ritual of fact-checking, shouldn’t President Trump be judged accordingly?
Update: Since that was published, we have learned that President Trump will not be judged by the Kamala Harris standard.
Even though he called for the protestors to behave “peacefully and patriotically” at the Capitol, he has been tried in the United States Senate for inciting an insurrection. Who exactly did he incite? He cannot be responsible for those inside the Capitol who were not his supporters. Indeed, he was addressing his supporters at a venue 45-minutes away when the breach occurred. Nor can he be blamed for those who were waved into the building. The Senators who heard the impeachment case bear greater responsibility for failed security on the premises. Nor can he be responsible for any of his supporters who went too far and did something inappropriate. That is the lesson from this summer’s riots when any troublemakers were carefully separated from the larger cause.
If the federal government is permitted in this instance prosecute an entire movement because someone marginally associated got out of hand, it is the end of political movements. That is why distinctions between movements and troublemakers have always been made. We discussed the need for such distinctions on January 13:”
“Petition Calls Romney ‘Agent For The Establishment Deep State,’ Demands Censure”
“An online petition is calling on the Utah Republican Party to censure Sen. Mitt Romney for voting to convict former President Donald Trump during last week’s impeachment trial.
The petition is being circulated by Utah Republicans, primarily via social media, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. The document refers to Romney as an “agent for the Establishment Deep State.”
Romney “misrepresented himself as a Republican” and “prioritized his personal and political vendetta against President Donald J. Trump ahead of the Constitution of the United States, the interest of We, the People, and the advancement of the Republican Platform” by voting for conviction, the petition claims. ”
Some Utah Republicans are circulating a petition to censure Mitt Romney that includes this: "Whereas, Senator Williard Mitt Romney appears to be an agent for the Establishment Deep State." https://t.co/tauXUyWgkp
Wandering Views 
Cuomo is getting dragged hard, as he should be, for the nursing home deaths on his watch.
———-
Cuomo continues to lie and blame everyone but himself….
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1361408436806819846
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1361407745191198725
———
———–
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do it. Decency requires it.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/cuomo-warns-ny-legislature-not-to-threaten-him-with-subpoenas-over-nursing-home-covid-19-deaths/
“New York state legislators and other officials have demanded investigations into Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s coverup of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes.
Cuomo warned them not to threaten him with subpoenas because, try not to laugh, it’s a crime. He also defended the policy.
Melissa DeRosa, Cuomo’s secretary, set off a firestorm last week when she “apologized to Democratic lawmakers for withholding the state’s nursing home death toll.”
DeRosa said the administration “froze” because they feared President Donald Trump’s DOJ would use the numbers “against” them.
Democrats immediately called for a “full investigation” and threats to rescind his emergency powers.”
Cuomo used his Monday press conference to play the victim and deflect blame.
Yes, the man who instilled a policy that led to old people dying in nursing homes chided those who want the truth.
“You can’t use a subpoena or the threat of investigation to leverage a person,” lectured Cuomo. “That’s a crime. It’s called abuse of power, it’s called extortion.”
Excuse me, sir.”
LikeLike
Yes.
“DID ANDREW CUOMO VIOLATE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW?”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/did-andrew-cuomo-violate-federal-criminal-law.php
“Melissa DeRosa, an aide to Governor Andrew Cuomo, has admitted that, in an attempt to cover up evidence that might put Cuomo’s administration in trouble with the Department of Justice, the administration withheld the true New York toll of nursing home deaths due to the Wuhan coronavirus. She reportedly told New York Democrats that “we froze” out of fear that the true numbers would “be used against us” by federal prosecutors.
This sounds like an admission to one or more federal crimes.
18 U.S. Code § 1505 provides:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States. . .shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . .or both.
I think that’s what DeRosa said the Cuomo administration did.
18 U.S. Code § 1001(a) provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact. . .shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . .or both.
This provision, too, seems to be in play.
18 U.S. Code § 371 provides:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
From what DeRosa has admitted, it sounds like the Cuomo administration’s attempt to conceal the coronavirus nursing home death numbers from the DOJ involved two or more people. Thus, 18 U.S. Code § 371 seems also to apply.”
LikeLike
Nice.
It’s our party now. So get onboard, or just git.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/majority-republican-voters-support-forming-214819639.html
“More than half of Republican voters think the US needs a new mainstream third party, according to a recent poll.
A recently released Gallup poll found that there has been a surge among Republican voters who think the US needs a new third party to better represent Americans’ interests.
According to the poll, between 63 and 70 per cent of Republicans supported a new party. In September, only 40 per cent of Republicans shared that view.
The results appear to be a direct response to Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 US election and the perception by his supporters that Republicans did not do enough to advance his false claims that his loss was the result of massive voter fraud.
Reuters reported that more than 120 Republicans met virtually last week to discuss the potential formation of a centre-right third party to counter Mr Trump’s far-right wing political movement in the US. However, several prominent Republicans, including Rep Liz Cheney, told the outlet that such a move would be untenable following the discussion.
At the same time, Trump voters from several Republican states are breaking off and forming “Patriot parties” to reflect their loyalty to the former president above all else.
In addition to wanting a new party, 68 per cent of Republicans said they would prefer Mr Trump to continue leading the party, and most wanted the Republican party to become more conservative.”
LikeLike
More here….
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2021/02/15/gallup-republican-interest-third-party-soars-20-points-63/
“Lotta unhappy Republicans out there. And it matters which ones are unhappy.
“More conservative” and “more moderate” is a poor way to address the dividing line within the party, which falls along Trump and populism, not “conservatism.” My guess is that the group that answered “more conservative” meant “more like Trump” or “more populist/authoritarian,” not “more in favor of lower spending” or whatever. If I’m right then the spike in interest for a third party among righties isn’t an anti-Trump thing. (Which makes sense, since many anti-Trumpers doubtless stopped identifying as Republicans awhile back.) It’s a pro- Trump thing, as MAGA types confront the prospect of four years in which the party is led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and respond, “No thanks.”
Or rather, it’s both. It’s mainly a phenomenon among Trump fans who feel no strong interest in the GOP when their guy isn’t formally in charge of it but secondarily it’s a function of the party’s remaining anti-Trumpers feeling disgusted by the Capitol riot and the impunity for the former president that followed it. That’s different from the previous three chapters of third-party interest too. During the Bush years it was chiefly one group, righties who’d soured somewhat on the war, that was driving the third-party interest. During the tea-party years it was one group, small-government populists, that was driving it. During Trump’s candidacy in 2016 the party began to pull apart into two groups, MAGA and Trump skeptics, but by the time he became president the latter group had come around. Republican interest in a third party slipped to its lowest point in years.
But now, post-Trump and post-insurrection, we may have meaningful interest in a third party among those same two groups, adding up to nearly two-thirds of Republicans overall willing to abandon ship if a more attractive option came along.”
LikeLike
One less “principled conservative” in the Senate soon.
I’m kidding, he’s not. He claims he supports the constitution, but when it matters, he abandons it. Thankfully he’ll be gone in a year.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/richard-burr-puts-senate-precedent-above-the-constitution.php
“RICHARD BURR PUTS “SENATE PRECEDENT” ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION
Today, Sen. Richard Burr joined six other Republicans in voting to convict President Trump of an impeachable offense. I understand the vote of the other six and consider it defensible, though not how I would have voted.
Unlike the other six, however, Burr previously voted that the trial should not proceed because it is unconstitutional to impeach a president who is no longer in office. But now, Burr has voted to do that unconstitutional thing.
Burr tried to explain away the contradiction this way:
When this process started, I believed that it was unconstitutional to impeach a president who was no longer in office. I still believe that to be the case. However, the Senate is an institution based on precedent, and given that the majority in the Senate voted to proceed with this trial, the question of constitutionality is now established precedent. As an impartial juror, my role is now to determine whether House managers have sufficiently made the case for the article of impeachment against President Trump.
This makes no sense to me. Burr has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he still believes that it’s unconstitutional to impeach a president who is no longer in office, then Burr has violated that oath by voting to convict on the article of impeachment.
“Senate precedent” — the opinion of a majority of Senators — doesn’t determine what is and what is not constitutional. Every Senator is bound by an oath to exercise his or her independent judgment on questions of constitutionality.
The Senate passed Obamacare. Clearly, a majority thought it was constitutional. That vote would not bar Senators from voting to repeal Obamacare on constitutional grounds.
Senate worship is an occupational hazard, at least for Republican members. But for a Senator to allow a majority to substitute its judgment for his on a matter of constitutional law is carrying the joke too far.”
LikeLike
Idiots.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1361480641674625032
LikeLike
Don’t be upset Canadians, we all have our idiots……
See…..
———–
LikeLike
——–
LikeLike
The problem is from the top down leftists run everything. Your bias is obvious and horrible, and it’s not at all new.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-york-times-union-hijacked-by-woke-activists-employees-say
“New York Times Union Hijacked By Woke Activists, Employees Say”
“Following the drama surrounding the resignation of a New York Times veteran science reporter, employees inside the company have said the union designed to protect them is now more concerned with being “woke” than protecting employees.
Several Times employees spoke to the Washington Free Beacon, detailing the problems within the New York Times Guild, the employee union.
“The people I’m supposed to go to if I have a problem with management are the same ones who might try to get me fired,” one union member told the outlet. “The union is the last place I would go for support.”
That sentiment is a far cry different than a statement put out by the union last June, in which it declared: “Journalists are not expendable. Employers are attempting to undermine our collective strength and security.” The Guild went on to say that it was “fighting to preserve our right to due process and to ensure fairness and equity — particularly for our BIPOC colleagues — by maintaining this essential safeguard against unjust [discipline.]” (Side note: while the Times union demands a right to due process, the paper has actively attacked attempts to provide those same rights to college students.)
While the union said last year that it would protect its members, it seems to have changed its tune after allegations of racism were lodged against Donald McNeil, a four-decade veteran of the news paper who resigned earlier this month.
Employees who spoke to the Free Beacon described how Times union members signed a letter to management “demanding a more thorough investigation of his conduct after an initial probe led to a wrist slap.,” the Free Beacon reported. McNeil had been disciplined for his alleged behavior on a “Times Journeys” expedition to Peru to study health care in the region. The trips have been around since 2012, but as Times media columnist Ben Smith explained on Sunday, they became complicated to manage — particularly in the summer of 2019, after The Times began hosting teenagers.”
It was those teenagers – none of whom were black – that made the allegations against McNeil, which ranged from vague claims that the reporter “made racist and sexist remarks throughout the trip” to the main allegation that McNeil repeated the “n-word” when asking for clarification from a student about whether a classmate should have been disciplined for using the word in a video when they were 12. McNeil said he asked the student what context the other student used the slur, repeating it while doing so.
The Times union didn’t directly call for McNeil’s firing, but prominent members did, according to those who spoke to the Free Beacon. The members who spoke to the outlet said reporter Davey Alba and cultural critic Amanda Hess led the charge to fire McNeil even after he had already been disciplined.”
LikeLike
1. 11 Feb – 7,000 National Guard troops are requested by the Swamp to remain deployed in Washington, D.C. (with LIVE ammo!) through the Fall of 2021. This actually requires Congressional approval, b/c it is longer than a 30-day deployment.
2. 13 Feb – Corporate Media sources state that this is because Trump won’t concede.
3. 14 Feb – By the graves of 14 innocent children who were murdered by a homicidal maniac, Biden declares the most sweeping infringement on the 2nd Amendment ever.
Coincidence?
There are now 21,500 National Guardsmen in the city – they have arrived from all 50 states and three territories, building up to a force of 25,000 by Wednesday in what the Guard calls Operation Capitol Response. The dozens of vehicle checkpoints, miles of protective fencing and concrete barriers, and the sight of armed guardsmen has given D.C. the look of a fortress.
LikeLike
Whistling past the graveyard, huh clown? 🙂
And of course Hack Tapper nods along with the lies.
——–
https://twitter.com/Rehcra14/status/1361502923772018691
LikeLike
Lies is all they have.
“The Insurrection Lie II: False Reports From January 6th Continue To Unravel.”
https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis/the-insurrection-lie-false-reports-january-6th/
“On January 13, 2021, The National Pulse called the almost ubiquitous, false reporting about the events at the Capitol on January 6 “The Insurrection Lie.” This was contrary to some other conservative media outlets, such as National Review, which published a piece on January 17 calling the events at the Capitol “impeachable.”
Our view, groundbreaking at the time, has been vindicated in the ensuing month. Tucker Carlson last week called the media’s reporting on the events a “lie.” Following is an update to our coverage based on recent disclosures.
Ritualizing The Lie.
On January 13, we reported:
A Capitol Police officer died of a stroke the day after the riot; but it is not known what may have happened during the melee that would provide a causal connection. His brother stated that he had communicated with the officer after the event: “He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape.” Sometime after the riot, he returned to his division office and collapsed. It has been reported that the Capitol Police initially issued a statement denying that a police officer had died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. Based on available facts (which may change) it is speculative to say at this time that he was murdered or slain. His family has made a plea that the death not be politicized.
Update: The National Pulse has since reported that early reports Officer Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher were false, and the New York Times has backed away from the claim. Revolver has done a deep dive into these events, raising further questions about the cause of death.
Based on available facts, it is reasonable to conclude that Sicknick’s death was not caused by the protest. Nevertheless, against the family’s wishes, the death has been used politically. Sicknick became only the fifth person to receive the distinction of lying in honor at the Capitol Rotunda. Alarmingly, this was done to ritualize the unsupported claim that he was slain by rioters. Democrat House impeachment managers alleged an “armed insurrection” based on the false assertion that Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher. The United States Capitol is surrounded by razor wire and secured by military units on the premise that its previous security was breached by armed insurrectionists who murdered a police officer.
It is a lie.
Creating the Lie.
On January 13, we reported:
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” On January 6, 2021, hundreds of thousands of citizens traveled to the nation’s capital to exercise their Constitutional right to peacefully protest. This was their grievance: Seventy-five million had cast their ballots for Trump on election day. Then, in the wee hours, when Las Vegas oddsmakers were calling a Trump victory, counting inexplicably stopped, and a disproportionate number of Biden votes appeared. The Biden votes were primarily from Democrat-controlled cities: Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Milwaukee. They were culled from mail-in ballots, an accommodation hurriedly retrofitted into the voting system because of a pandemic. The election’s statistical anomalies were mind boggling, including Republican dominance down ballot, Trump’s significant support among minority voters, and his victory in all traditional bellwethers. In June, Attorney General Bill Barr sat for an interview in CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and warned of fraud with mail-in voting. He said: “People trying to change the rules to this, to this methodology – which, as a matter of logic, is very open to fraud and coercion – is reckless and dangerous and people are playing with fire.” Some of the new voting procedures were ordered by state governors and health officials even though Article II of the Constitution delegates rule-making for elections exclusively to state legislatures. The Washington protesters had reason to ask: Did someone pull a fast one?
Update: Since our report, Time Magazine has helpfully answered our ultimate question, “Did someone pull a fast one?” – with a resounding (1) yes they did, and (2) they are proud of it. As we had surmised, the stratagem centered on mail-in ballots. In Time’s words:
Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears…. This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”
The peaceful protestors on January 6 were people who believe Democracy should be self-executing, without a well-funded consortium of the credentialed elite conspiring to assure an outcome. The Constitution permits citizens who hold even controversial political views to assemble and speak their mind. Many who peacefully assembled in Washington D.C., though, are being harassed as insurrectionists. They are being purposely conflated with those who breached the Capitol and there is a witch hunt to identify any who question the election. In a fiery speech, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell lumped the protesters together as a “mob.” This is outrageous behavior on the part of the powerful against ordinary citizens who simply asserted their Constitutional rights.
Doubling Down on The Lie.
On January 13 we reported:
President Trump addressed the protesters and called on the assembled to march “over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” At the moment the President was uttering the words “peacefully,” though, a different more sinister group had already gathered at the Capitol, a full 45 minute walk away. Whatever happened there is not yet fully understood. Given the proclivity of federal law enforcement to act politically against Trump, it unfortunately may never be. Some things, though, are certain. We know, for instance, that many of the troublemakers were not Trump supporters. We know, too, that Capitol Police waved at least some Trump supporters into the building. We know that a Trump supporter was shot in the Capitol…. President Trump has saluted the protesters and denounced those who entered the Capitol to engage in violence. The distinction he made is no different than claims made by democratic mayors in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Dallas over the summer who supported BLM protests in their cities, but condemned troublemakers. Similarly, Senator Kamala Harris spoke about those riots on the The Late Show With Stephen Colbert in June:
“But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.”
Those who reported that her statement supported riots have been fact checked by Reuters, USA Today, the AP, and others, on the premise that common cause with protests should not be cast as support for any rioting that ensues. If that is the media standard made venerable by the ritual of fact-checking, shouldn’t President Trump be judged accordingly?
Update: Since that was published, we have learned that President Trump will not be judged by the Kamala Harris standard.
Even though he called for the protestors to behave “peacefully and patriotically” at the Capitol, he has been tried in the United States Senate for inciting an insurrection. Who exactly did he incite? He cannot be responsible for those inside the Capitol who were not his supporters. Indeed, he was addressing his supporters at a venue 45-minutes away when the breach occurred. Nor can he be blamed for those who were waved into the building. The Senators who heard the impeachment case bear greater responsibility for failed security on the premises. Nor can he be responsible for any of his supporters who went too far and did something inappropriate. That is the lesson from this summer’s riots when any troublemakers were carefully separated from the larger cause.
If the federal government is permitted in this instance prosecute an entire movement because someone marginally associated got out of hand, it is the end of political movements. That is why distinctions between movements and troublemakers have always been made. We discussed the need for such distinctions on January 13:”
LikeLike
Even his base, full of fellow Mormon cultists know he’s wrong, and a tool of the left.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/15/report-censure-petition-calls-romney-agent-establishment-deep-state/
“Petition Calls Romney ‘Agent For The Establishment Deep State,’ Demands Censure”
“An online petition is calling on the Utah Republican Party to censure Sen. Mitt Romney for voting to convict former President Donald Trump during last week’s impeachment trial.
The petition is being circulated by Utah Republicans, primarily via social media, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. The document refers to Romney as an “agent for the Establishment Deep State.”
Romney “misrepresented himself as a Republican” and “prioritized his personal and political vendetta against President Donald J. Trump ahead of the Constitution of the United States, the interest of We, the People, and the advancement of the Republican Platform” by voting for conviction, the petition claims. ”
LikeLike