Nancy Pelosi has been against impeaching Donald Trump and this has not been sitting well with the rank and file Democrats. Nancy Pelosi has been trying to keep her caucus in line but the calls for impeachment have only grown louder in the last few days and the Speaker of the House is in danger of losing control of the Democratic party, many of whom opposed her reelection as Speaker of the House in the first place.
It is now being reported that amidst all this turmoil Nancy Pelosi has called for a special caucus meeting tomorrow to discuss impeachment. A few websites are now reporting this, such as this one, but they are offering no further details at this time so we are left to wonder what this might mean.
Does this mean Nancy Pelosi is going to make one last effort to reign in her party or does this mean she is going to cave in to her underlings? We will not know until tomorrow but with the Democrats on the verge of a civil war over this issue it could make for an interesting day.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Since the Mueller report was released Democrats have seized on the news that Don McGahn testified that the President asked him to fire Robert Mueller as proof that Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice and they have been trying to get him to testify in front of the Congress.
Jerry Nadler has threatened to hold Don McGahn in Contempt, however today the Justice Department handed down an opinion which states Mr. McGahn cannot be compelled to testify in front of the Congress. Here is more:
The Justice Department says former White House counsel Don McGahn can’t be compelled to testify before Congress about the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation.
The department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion Monday finding that McGahn would have “immunity” as a former presidential adviser. It could clear the way for McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena ordering him to testify by Tuesday.
This is certainly not going to sit well with the Democrats and their voters but they should be reminded that this decision is the same decision the Justice Department issued back in 2014 when Barack Obama was President.
The Justice Department issued a similar opinion in 2014 that found that close presidential advisers have “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas.
So I just have one thing to say to the Democrats who feel the Trump administration has something to hide and are using this as more proof and that is, how does it feel? Now you know what conservative voters have been complaining about for years. You can no longer claim Donald Trump is trying to hide something in one breath and then in the next breath exclaim that Hillary Clinton was never found guilty of anything.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Devin Nunes has already made several criminal referrals to the Department of Justice in regards to the “spygate” scandal and the alleged FBI FISA warrant abuses and now, according to this story, he is probably going to send an obstruction referral to the Justice Department as well. And no, this is not the obstruction charge against Donald Trump that the left so desperately wants to see. Here is more:
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said on Sunday that he may send another criminal referral to the Justice Department.
During an interview on Fox News, Nunes said notes about a meeting between Trump dossier author Christopher Steele and a State Department official were withheld from the House Intelligence Committee during its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election that wrapped up last year.
“It’s likely now, as we do our investigation as to why we didn’t get this information that we’ve just been discussing from the State Department two years ago when we should have received it, there could be another referral coming on obstruction a congressional investigation,” he said.
I believe it is called “projection” when you accuse another of doing what you are actually guilty of doing yourself and the democrats seems to have an incurable case of it. Maybe this dose of reality is the medicine they need…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
While the Democratic leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi, are dialing back the impeachment talk the frenzy is growing within the Democratic party to bring articles of impeachment against the President. And now the first Republican Congressman is claiming Donald Trump should be impeached because of how he defines “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Here is what Michigan Representative Justin Amash had to say via Twitter today:
Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.
Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.
In fact Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.
Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.
Never-Trumper Mitt Romney, of all people, is the only Republican to date who has spoken out against Justin Amash, claiming that while it took courage to say what he did he is wrong. Here is more on that:
Sen. Mitt Romney said Sunday that he disagrees with Rep. Justin Amash on the Michigan Republican’s recent comments that President Donald Trump’s conduct has met the “threshold for impeachment.”
“My own view is that Justin Amash has reached a different conclusion than I have. I respect him, I think it’s a courageous statement,” Romney told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
“The American people just aren’t there,” he added. “The Senate is certainly not there, either.”
“I just don’t think that there is the full element that you need to prove an obstruction of justice case,” Romney said. “I don’t think impeachment is the right way to go.”
While initially saying the “threshold for impeachment” has not been met Mitt Romney’s reasoning is a little odd and may reveal what he is really thinking. The American people and the Senate are not there when it comes to impeachment therefor we should not impeach? So, under this reasoning, does Mitt Romney feel impeachment should be on the table if and when the Democrats are successful in turning the American people against the President? It sounds like rather than basing his opinion on the facts he is basing it on the polls. That is not surprising coming from Mitt Romney.
I find it odd that no other Republicans have come out against Justin Amash, but them again the Republicans’ support for the President has not been solid from the beginning so why should we expect anything different now?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, May 19th open thread: ‘Time Bomb Benny’
“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.
I am digging deep into the archives of my younger days to bring you The Weathermen and their song “Time Bomb Benny.” Sorry, no live footage of this one.
Dispute opens between Comey and Brennan over who pushed the Steele dossier to the FISA court
Now that William Barr has officially opened an investigation into the alleged FISA warrant abuses by the FBI and has appointed a special prosecutor to oversee it some people are getting a little nervous and are beginning to turn on each other in order to protect themselves.
According to this story a rift is beginning to open up between James Comey and John Brennan over who was responsible for pushing the discredited Steele dossier. Here is more:
A high-level dispute over which senior government officials pushed the unverified Steele dossier amid efforts to surveil the Trump campaign has broken out into the open again, after it emerged that Attorney General William Barr appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if the FBI and DOJ’s actions were “lawful and appropriate.”
Sources familiar with the records told Fox News that a late-2016 email chain indicated then-FBI Director James Comey told bureau subordinates that then-CIA Director John Brennan insisted the dossier be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, known as the ICA.
But in a statement to Fox News, a former CIA official put the blame squarely on Comey.
“Former Director Brennan, along with former [Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper, are the ones who opposed James Comey’s recommendation that the Steele Dossier be included in the intelligence report,” the official said.
It looks like this is about to get very interesting and the investigation really has not gotten underway yet. It looks like after all their conniving their roosters might finally be coming home to roost.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Joe Biden has a bit of a Ukraine conflict of interest with his son Hunter Biden, if you have not heard this story you can read some of the backstory here. Basically while he was Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold money from Ukraine but after a Ukrainian prosecutor dropped the charges against the company Hunter Biden worked for the threat went away.
If you scroll down to almost the end of this article you will see how Joe Biden recently replied to a question on this issue. Here is what he had to say:
“We never once discussed it when he was there,” the former vice president said of his son. “There’s not a single bit of evidence that’s been shown in any reporting that’s been done that he ever talked about it with me or asked any government official for a favor. … I have great confidence in my son. He’s a man of great integrity.”
That’s a very interesting and nuanced answer isn’t it? First of all, Joe Biden would not need to talk to his son about interceding on his behalf in order for him to do so. And secondly it is even more interesting that he said there was no “evidence” that any favor was asked for, he did not state outright that there was no favor asked for. If he were 100% innocent why would he not come right out and deny any wrongdoing instead of pointing out there was no evidence of wrongdoing?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Happy Mother’s Day!
“Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.” (Proverbs 31:28-29 NIV)
“Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.” (Proverbs 31:31 NIV)
Happy Mother’s Day to you all! Here is Johnny Cash singing “There’s a Mother Always Waiting at Home”
America's Watchtower 