When Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate earlier this week the Democrats promised they would continue to investigate him, this defeat was only the beginning. They had hoped the next phase of the plan would begin today with a court decision on a lawsuit filed by the Democrats accusing Donald Trump of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution but alas that was not the case because the DC Court of Appeals threw the case out. Here is more:
A federal appeals court has rejected a lawsuit from Congressional Democrats who accused President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by receiving profits from foreign governments’ spending at his luxury Washington hotel and other businesses.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision did not address the legality of Trump’s business dealings, but held that the more than 200 Democratic senators and House members who banded together in 2017 to bring the suit against the president lacked legal standing to do so.
The unanimous ruling from an ideologically diverse three-judge panel suggested that if the House or Senate had formally authorized the suit, it may have been allowed to proceed, but the lawmakers acting as plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to pursue it on their own.
“Only an institution can assert an institutional injury,” the court wrote in its brief, 12-page decision.
As you can see the court only ruled that the Congress did not have standing to sue the President so we can rest assured that this is not the end and we can fully expect some institution to step up and try this again. Even so the fact this came from the DC Court of Appeals is a good sign that Donald Trump is having success at remaking the lower courts.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Senate requests Hunter Biden’s travel records
There has been some speculation that some establishment politicians would rue the day they opened up an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump’s Ukraine call because there was a chance it could open up a can of worms they would rather leave unopened.
Since the inquiry began we have learned that Ukraine has funneled millions of dollars to John Kerry’s family, Adam Schiff has connections to a Ukrainian arms dealer, and Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney have ties to Ukraine as well. (Is it any wonder why Mitt Romney decided to vote to find Donald Trump guilty? Or why Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi want so desperately to get him out of power?)
And of course there is the man without whom there never would have been an impeachment inquiry in the first place because there would have been no potential crime which needed investigation.
Of course I am talking about Hunter Biden and now it looks as if the chickens might eventually come home to roost now that the Senate is no longer distracted with the impeachment. According to this story the Senate is investigating Hunter Biden for possible conflicts of interest and has requested the former Vice-President’s son’s travel records.
These two Senators chair the Finance Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee respectively so hopefully we will someday get to the bottom of just how corrupt the Biden family was, and still hopes to be if Joe Biden can win in November.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Well, if this story is true you can add another Biden name to the list of people who benefited from good ole Uncle Joe being in the White House. This time her name is Ashley and she just happens to be Joe Biden’s daughter.
Joe Biden’s soon to be son-in-law decided to start a healthcare company (interestingly enough on its own considering what Barack Obama’s signature legislation was) and Joe Biden helped him to get a White House meeting. Here is more:
Former Vice President Joe Biden went to great lengths to boost his son-in-law’s health care company while in the White House, briefing investors on the firm’s merits and even arranging access to the Oval Office.
In June 2011, Biden arranged a private meeting for two StartUp Health executives with then-President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. At the time of the meeting, the company had been around for only a few weeks. It had yet to finalize its business plan, let alone develop a website.
The meeting was all the more surprising since StartUp Health was not proposing any new or radical ideas for health care, at least not to the degree of warranting a meeting with the nation’s commander-in-chief.
“Their status as a health care incubator was hardly unique,” Schweizer writes in Profiles in Corruption. “In fact, there were thirty-one similar companies operating in the state of California alone, and another eleven in the state of New York.”
As Schweizer outlines, the only significant factor that set StartUp Health apart from others in its field was that its chief medical officer, Howard Krein, was engaged to Biden’s daughter, Ashley.
One day after StartUp Health’s executives met with Obama in the Oval Office, the company got a bigger boost from the administration when it was featured at a health care tech conference put on by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). How the company managed to score HHS attention, while still in the stages of infancy, remains unclear, but it is likely Biden played a role.
Regardless, the back-to-back events gave StartUp Health a launch trajectory unavailable to other companies in the health care field, let alone other industries. Biden’s influence ensured that StartUp Health set out with “the winds to our backs,” as one of the company’s co-founders succinctly put it.
So Barack Obama signs Obamacare into law, Joe Biden’s son-in-law starts a healthcare company and gets access to the White House before the company really is a company, this gets the company featured in a tech conference the very next day, and the company is off and running while others without this advantage are left in the dust. ANd according to the article that was not it because StartUp continued to enjoy “unparalleled access to the White House during the Obama presidency.” It’s good to know the king…
I guess we now know why Joe Biden thought Obamacare was a big F’n deal…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Is John Kerry going to jump in the 2020 race?
If the recent polls are accurate Bernie Sanders could be poised to win the Iowa caucus tonight and this has the Democratic establishment very worried. As we have been discussing here, the Democratic leadership is very worried the voters might actually chose the Vermont socialist because they do not believe he has any chance of winning the general election.
The concern runs so deep that the Democratic National Committee is discussing a change to the superdelegate rules in order to screw Bernie Sanders over once again. The Democratic National Committee has also changed the debate requirements for qualification so that Michael Bloomberg will make the stage because the committee is not enthralled with the “big three.”
And then yesterday a rumor started circulating that John Kerry might actually throw his hat in the ring in order to stop Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. The former Massachusetts Senator and failed Presidential candidate is denying the report. Here is more:
Kerry told the outlet that he was “absolutely not” considering a last-minute entry into the race, calling the situation a “complete and total misinterpretation based on overhearing only one side of a phone conversation.”
“A friend who watches too much cable called me wondering whether I’d ever jump into the race late in the game if Democrats were choosing an unelectable nominee,” he told NBC News.
“I listed all the reasons I could not possibly do that and would not — and will not under any circumstances — do that,” he added.
He also immediately denied the report on Twitter.
“As I told the reporter, I am absolutely not running for President. Any report otherwise is fucking (or categorically) false),” he originally tweeted before deleting the tweet and reposting another version without the expletive.
John Kerry sounds pretty adamant about not throwing his hat in the ring and I actually believe him but I wanted to write about this story because I find one aspect of his denial very interesting.
Nowhere in his denial when he was explaining the conversation he had with a friend about the possibility of the Democratic voters nominating an unelectable candidate did John Kerry actually come to Bernie Sanders’s defense.
You would think he would have told his friend he did not need to jump in the race because Bernie Sanders is a good candidate if he thought it was true but he did not. I think this is yet another example of how the establishment actually feels about Bernie Sanders.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Ilhan Omar’s campaign paid over $500,000 to her lover’s firm
Back in August we found out that there was an FEC violation complaint filed against Ilhan Omar for allegedly funneling campaign money to a firm the man she was having an affair with worked for.
A complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Wednesday alleges freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) illegally used campaign money to help carry on an extramarital affair with a Democrat consultant whose firm she paid tens of thousands of dollars.
Federal campaign finance records show that Omar’s campaign has paid nearly $230,000 since 2018 to the E. Street Group, a political strategy firm of which the lawmaker’s alleged married lover, Tim Mynett, is a partner of.
But that was then and this is now, since that story broke her campaign has doubled that amount. Here is more:
The Washington Free Beacon reported Saturday that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)’s congressional campaign paid over $500,000 in 2019 to a firm run by her alleged boyfriend, political consultant Timothy Mynett.
The Free Beacon, citing FEC campaign filings, noted that Omar’s campaign apparently paid the E Street Group $215,000 in the fourth quarter of 2019, bringing the total paid to the firm to $525,000 last year.
The expenses cover services such as “Digital Communications Consulting” and “Digital Advertising.”
I guess she is not going to let a little thing like a campaign finance complaint stand in the way of making sure her lover is well taken care of.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Elizabeth Warren is upset at DNC debate rule change that benefits Michael Bloomberg
There were only three candidates who met the criteria to make it onto the next debate stage until the Democratic National Committee changed the individual donor rule in order to get Michael Bloomberg onto the stage.
Joe Biden is still wondering around aimlessly wondering what is happening around him, but the other two candidates are not happy about this development. We have already discussed Bernie Sanders, and the Democratic National Committee’s latest attempt at stealing the nomination out from under him, and now Elizabeth Warren is speaking out against the rule change. Here is what the Senator from Massachusetts had to say:
“The DNC didn’t change the rules to ensure good, diverse candidates could remain on the debate stage. They shouldn’t change the rules to let a billionaire on,” she said on Friday.
“Billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to play by different rules—on the debate stage, in our democracy, or in our government,”
So says the millionaire who does not have to play by the same rules we do…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, February 2nd open thread: ‘A View To a Kill’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Duran Duran performing “A View To a Kill” from Live Aid back in 1985. I am not sure he meant to hit the note he does at the 2:54 mark.
In light of recent developments with the Democratic National Committee you cannot blame Bernie Sanders for seeing shades of 2016, when the Democratic establishment pulled the rug out from under his nomination, because it is happening again. While the Democratic voters do not see they are being played again Bernie Sanders has caught on and he is not too happy about it.
As America’s Watchtower covered here, the Democratic National Committee is in the process of changing the criteria for making the debates so that Michael Bloomberg, who appears to be the Democratic establishment’s pick, can qualify for the debate and Bernie Sanders is irate. Here is more:
Faiz Shakir, campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), ripped the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday for the debate requirements for future debates, which effectively open the door for Michael Bloomberg (D) to participate.
The DNC modified the requirements for upcoming Democrat debates, increasing the polling threshold but ditching the donor requirements, giving Bloomberg the chance to qualify. Until this point, that has remained an impossibility due to the existing donor requirements and the billionaire’s decision to forgo outside donations and instead self-fund his campaign.
Here is what Faiz Shakir Tweeted about these developments:
I do find it funny that a millionaire is complaining about a billionaire being coddled to, like either of them can relate to an ordinary citizen better than the other…
The Democratic National Committee is making up some lame excuse for the rule change that does not make any sense if the party was happy with its candidates: The three candidates who qualified for the debate before the rule change are Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. And yet the committee has decided it wants somebody else on the stage so what does that tell you?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Gone are the days when the Democrats and the Republicans hand-pick their nominees in the cliched smoke-filled room, but one thing that 2016 showed to us is that the Democratic party still hand-picks its nominee while giving the Democratic voters the illusion they are participating in the process. The voters wanted Bernie Sanders but the party wanted Hillary Clinton so guess who got the nomination?
They say that history repeats itself and here we go again because it looks like a scenario much like 2016 is playing out before our eyes and the Democratic primary voters do not seem to have caught on yet.
Once again the voters seem to be flocking to Bernie Sanders and once again the party is going to do whatever it takes to stop him. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two of the most prominent names in the Democratic party, have already voiced concerns about the Vermont socialist winning the nomination and it is being reported that the former President is set to come out publicly against him.
And that is not all, just in case lip service alone does not work it is being reported the Democratic National Committee is working on changing the superdelegate rules for the convention once again in order to stop Bernie Sanders.
It is obvious the Democratic establishment is not nearly as enthralled with Bernie Sanders as the voters are but whom does the establishment want to see win the nomination?
For a possible answer to that question we might not need to look any further than another rule change the Democratic National Committee is reported to be working on–this time to the criteria for making it onto the debate stage. Here is more on that:
The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February.
Candidates will need to earn at least 10 percent in four polls released from Jan. 15 to Feb. 18, or 12 percent in two polls conducted in Nevada or South Carolina, in order to participate in the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas. Any candidate who earns at least one delegate to the national convention in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary will also qualify for the Nevada debate.
The new criteria eliminate the individual-donor threshold, which was used for the first eight debates, including next week’s debate in New Hampshire. Bloomberg, the self-funding billionaire, has refused to take donations from other individuals, which has thus far precluded his participation in any of the debates since he joined the race late last year.
According to the article linked above there are only three candidate who have met the criteria and while Michael Bloomberg is not one of them at this point we all know the polls can be manipulated to squeeze him in. (Interestingly enough, and on a side note, these rules would make the debate stage much more white, straight, and male.)
I think it is obvious the Democratic establishment is not enamored with any of the candidates to this point and it looks like they want to open the pathway for somebody else, and Bloomberg just happens to have billions of dollars at his disposal and he is not afraid to use it. The Democratic party appears ready to help him spend it and all of you Bernie Sanders supporters who did not fall in line the last time are about to be abandoned by the party yet again.
The Democrats do not care who the people want, they believe they are smarter than the voters and they are going to make the choice for the people, and in the end they know the voters have nowhere else to go.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
The DNC to consider rule changes to stop Bernie Sanders again
While Democratic caucus-goers and primary voters love Bernie Sanders he does not share the same affection with the Democratic party insiders. We all remember how the Democrats in the establishment stole the primary from him in 2016 because they preferred Hillary Clinton and they did not care whom the voters preferred.
And the disdain for the Vermont socialist has not waned in the ensuing years, earlier this year Hillary Clinton actually revealed what we had already figured out and that is that nobody in the Democratic party likes the guy and there are reports that Barack Obama is so worried about Bernie Sanders and his radical policies that he is preparing to publicly rebuke him in the hopes of trying to slow down his momentum and sway the voters to look elsewhere.
When the two biggest leaders of the Democratic party have a problem with you then you have a problem and it is now being reported that a group of committee members are going to look at changing the rules again in order to stop Bernie Sanders. Here is more:
A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.
In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.
The decision to relegate superdelegates — now called “automatic delegates” — to the second ballot in a contested convention consumed the DNC for nearly two years after the 2016 election. Superdelegates overwhelmingly sided with Hillary Clinton, infuriating Sanders’ supporters.
The rule change was widely viewed as a major victory for the Democratic Party’s left flank. At the time, Perez called the delegate overhaul “historic,” while progressive Democrats and many moderates lauded its appeal to young voters skeptical of centralized party power.
Here come those superdelegates again! After Bernie Sanders supporters complained about the superdelegates after the 2016 election the Democrats appeased the voters by getting rid of the superdelegates by changing their name to “automatic delegates.” How hilarious is it that the Democratic voters fell for a simple name change as a solution and now it is coming back to bite them again.
The Democrats are supposedly worried about the integrity of the 2020 election and the possibility a foreign country will interfere to help them lose in November and at the same time they are working behind the scenes to take the vote away from their own primary voters because they feel they know what is better for the voters than the voters do.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 