Politics Louisiana abortion law: Fury as Democratic governor says he will sign bill banning terminations into law

H/T Yahoo News.

It is good to see Governor John Bel Edwards(D-LA)standing up for the unborn instead of just wanting to murder them.

Politics

Louisiana abortion law: Fury as Democratic governor says he will sign bill banning terminations into law

Advertisements

Dershowitz: Mueller’s Critics Were Right; He’s Biased Against Trump, And He Just Proved It

H/T The Daily Wire.

Even Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz now sees the bias against President Trump Robert Meuller had.

In an op-ed for The Hill, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who leans left but has frequently found himself arguing against President Trump’s critics, says he can no longer defend Robert Mueller as non-partisan after his controversial final statement as special counsel Wednesday.

Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan,” Dershowitz writes. “I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.”

Dershowitz, whose new book makes the case against Democrats moving forward with impeachment plans against Trump, begins by quoting the most eyebrow-raising of Mueller’s comments Wednesday: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

That statement, writes Dershowtiz, is “worse” than the infamous statement delivered by then-FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton’s private email server in the summer of 2016, in which he said, “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

In that moment, Comey went “beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton,” says Dershowitz.

But what Mueller did, was actually more egregious, Dershowitz argues. “He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump,” he writes. “By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings.”

Dershowitz underscores that what Mueller did was something that “virtually everybody” agrees is out of bounds: he suggested that the subject might be guilty despite insufficient evidence to make the case. Anyone who tries to argue that somehow Mueller and the investigation is a “special case,” he stresses, is simply “wrong.”

Dershowitz concludes that the only logical explanation for Mueller’s actions is that he was deliberately attempting to “help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action.”

In an op-ed for The Daily Wire Wednesday, Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro comes to the same conclusion. “Mueller’s investigation never should have included obstruction by Trump,” Shapiro writes in response to Mueller’s statement.

“Unlike the election interference investigation, which began as a counterintelligence investigation inside the FBI, the obstruction investigation began as a criminal investigation — and a criminal investigation that Mueller admits he never had the authority to conclude,” Shapiro argues. “He is a member of the executive branch. He is not an independent counsel. He is not a legislative investigator. A criminal investigation that cannot possibly result in charges is a conflict in terms. Mueller never should have agreed to such an investigation under the law, and Mueller’s own standard makes that clear.”

Blumenthal: ‘Most American People Will Never Read the Mueller Report — That’s Why We Do Need Hearings Now’

H/T Breitbart.

No, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Delusional-CT) we do not need to read the Mueller Report as we already know it is bull sh!t.

Thursday on MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) argued that given most Americans will not read Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, they needed “to see the movie,” which Blumenthal said would come in the form of congressional hearings.

“I read every word of the Mueller report,” Blumenthal said. “In fact, I read it twice. Most American people will never read the Mueller report. They need to see the movie because they`re not going to read the book. And that`s why we do need hearings now. And I agree completely with Senator Warren that president needs to be held accountable. We share that goal, and that accountability is going to come through an impeachment proceeding or alternatively, through the courts and a criminal prosecution after he leaves office. And my hope is also in the court of public opinion, at the ballot box in 2020.”

The Connecticut Democrat went on to call on his call colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to have Mueller testify before his committee.

 

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak Vetoes National Popular Vote Bill

H/T Breitbart.

I think Gov. Steve Sisolak(D-NV)understands that without the Electoral College Nevada would lose her voice in presidential elections. 

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) on Thursday vetoed a bill which would have pledged the state’s six electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Assembly Bill 186, which recently passed the Senate on a 12-8 vote, would have seen Nevada join with 14 other states in an agreement to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The Assembly had voted in favor of the measure 23-17.

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose,” a statement via Sisolak reads. “I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue. As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

Earlier this year, Colorado, Delaware, and New Mexico signed laws joining the compact, while Oregon and Maine are mulling bills of their own. Had Sisolak signed the measure, the group would have a total of 195 votes.

Several White House hopefuls, including South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), have voiced support for eliminating Electoral College, however, supporters of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact believe their strategy is more pragmatic than passing a constitutional amendment.

Breitbart News Senior Editor Joel Pollak wrote of the measure:

Under a national popular vote system, it would be possible for Nevada — or one of the other swing states — to vote for the candidate who lost the national popular vote, only to see its Electoral College votes awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. In a close election, that could elect a president — against the will of Nevada voters — who otherwise would have lost the election under the present system.

Moreover, the “national popular vote” would, critics say, reward candidates for concentrating their time and resources on the most densely populated parts of the country. It would also create an incentive for fraud in the jurisdictions most susceptible to it. California, with its new system of “ballot harvesting,” in which unregistered activists may deliver an unlimited number of mail-in ballots, would be a prime candidate, as rival campaigns competed to stuff ballot boxes. The “national popular vote” idea gained popularity among Democrats after the 2016 presidential election, when Republican Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote (though he won it outside California).

Though the initiative has picked up steam, National Popular Vote President Barry Fadem concedes it is unlikely they will hit 270 votes by the 2020 election.

“I think people are just really tired of the system that means every vote does not count and that six to eight states decide who is elected president,” said Fadem.

State Sen. Keith Pickard (R), who voted against the bill, said the joining the compact would have diminished Nevada’s voice for future presidential elections.

“I think it’s totally irresponsible for us to consider giving away what little influence we have on the national stage to the more populous states which will ultimately control the election,” Pickard stated.

Buttigieg brother-in-law rips candidate, accuses campaign of misrepresenting family’s past

H/T Fox News.

How much more stuff is Mayor Pete lying about?

Democratic 2020 presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg’s brother-in-law is accusing the campaign of misrepresenting his family’s past for political gain — something that he says has led to death threats against him.

Rhyan Glezman spoke to The Washington Examiner after a Washington Post article described how his younger brother Chasten Buttigieg, now married to Pete, left his family home and was rejected by his brothers after coming out as gay.

“A mayor from a small city and his husband, a child who grew up with nothing and his parents kicked him out … it makes a perfect political story for the campaign,” Glezman told the Examiner at his church in Clio, Michigan where he is a pastor. “To me that’s very sad. If that’s all you have to stand on, you’re not fit to be president of the United States.”

The Post reported that Chasten was met with silence when he told his family he was gay, with one of his brothers uttering: “No brother of mine…” The Post doesn’t report that Chasten was “kicked out,” as Glezman suggested, but that he packed his bags and left.

“I felt like I just could not be there,” Chasten told the Post. “So, I left.”

The Post reported that while his parents eventually reached out and reconciled with him (and walked him down the aisle at his wedding), that wasn’t as easy with his brothers — with younger brother Dustin saying “we never got over it.”

But Rhyan told the Post that while he is opposed to gay marriage, he still loves his brother: “I just don’t support the gay lifestyle.”

He echoed that sentiment to the Examiner: “You can’t change that. Just because we have a disagreement doesn’t change that.”

Glezman said that while Chasten left the house after coming out, “there was nothing on the family end that said he had to leave.” He also rejected the idea that the family was poor, and claimed Chasten is playing the “victim card” for political gain.

The Post article details how their father, Terry Glezman, grew up poor and that the Glezman’s “made a living and not much more” during most of Chasten’s childhood.

The story makes it look as if he came from nothing, a poor family,” Rhyan claimed. “Chasten had everything, from cell phones paid for, car insurance paid for.”

Buttigieg campaign national press secretary Chris Meagher told Fox News that the Examiner story “misrepresented what Chasten said actually happened.”

Glezman says the reaction to the reports have included hateful messages online, including one that he said he should “go out to woodshed and kill myself.” He told The Examiner that he voted for President Trump in 2016, and although he has voted for Democrats in the past, he wouldn’t be voting for his brother-in-law.

“That’s not because he’s gay,” he said. “When you want to rewrite the Electoral College, when you want to change the makeup of the Supreme Court, when you want to have open borders and not have any process there, his extreme view on abortion … those are things that are very important to me.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend., Ind., started his presidential bid strongly, going from a relatively unknown candidate to a Democratic star within a few months.

But in recent months his polling numbers appear to be dipping as more candidates enter the race. A Quinnipiac University poll this month found Buttigieg’s support at 5 percent, down from 10 percent in the group’s April poll. A Fox News Poll this month showed Buttigieg polling at 6 percent.

Pelosi continues to resist impeachment, but says ‘nothing is off the table’

H/T CNN.

San Fran Nan knows there will be a heavy political price to pay if the House brings Impeachment charges and fail to remove President Trump from office.

She saw the price the Republicans paid after the failed impeachment trial.

Washington (CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler resisted pressure from the left to open an impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, following special counsel Robert Mueller’s announcement he’s closing his office and would not provide information beyond his already public report in any appearance before Congress.

Both Democratic leaders pledged to continue the House’s various investigations into alleged wrongdoing by President Donald Trump and maintained all options — including impeachment — remain on the table. But, Pelosi noted, only about 15% of House Democrats are “outspoken on impeachment” at this time.
“Nothing is off the table,” said Pelosi.
She later reiterated what she has said before, that impeachment must come after all the facts are known.
“You don’t bring an indictment, or you don’t bring an impeachment unless you have all of the facts,” she said.
But one Democratic House member told CNN’s Jim Acosta there is growing pressure on Pelosi to launch impeachment proceedings. Members are “growing more restless,” this representative said.
And a couple new Democratic voices joined the chorus calling for impeachment: Reps. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Betty McCollum of Minnesota.
In Mueller’s first public comments on the investigation since he was appointed special counsel two years ago, he emphasized that Justice Department guidelines did not allow him to charge a sitting President, and as a result his office did not determine whether the President had committed obstruction of justice. Mueller said the probe could not clear Trump and that charging the President was not an option his office could consider.
“If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said. “We did not however make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.”
In his report of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the President’s efforts to undermine that investigation, Mueller leaves behind a road map that Congress could use to impeach Trump. But it is unclear whether Mueller will also come before the House and submit himself to questioning about the probe. Pelosi said that it would be “useful” for Mueller to testify, adding Congress could get some “clarification” and “confirmation” from him.
Nadler would not say whether he would subpoena Mueller’s testimony.
“Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we need to hear today,” Nadler said during a news conference.
After Mueller’s announcement that he would retire from the Justice Department, Nadler and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the panel, each said the special counsel confirmed their contradictory views of the report’s conclusions.
“In his statement this morning, special counsel Mueller reaffirmed his report, which found substantial evidence that Russia attacked our political system and that the President sought to obstruct Mueller’s investigation over and over again,” said Nadler.
“He also confirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the President of the United States of obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the President accountable.”
But Collins said Mueller found “there was no collusion and no obstruction” and urged the country to “move on” from the investigation to other issues.
“Relitigating the 2016 election and reinvestigating the special counsel’s findings will only further divide our country,” said Collins. “I appreciate special counsel Mueller highlighting the grave threat Russian interference in our elections poses to our democracy.”
Pelosi has said that impeachment would be divisive for the country. She’s said that Trump is “taunting” Democrats to impeach him in stonewalling their various investigations to rally his political base ahead of the 2020 elections. And she again urged her members on Wednesday to stick to the party line of advocating for investigations rather an impeachment.
“The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy,” said Pelosi.
But some Democrats have bucked their leaders in the past few weeks, as Attorney General Bill Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn defied subpoena requests to testify before the House Judiciary committee. Mueller’s public remarks compelled Sen. Cory Booker, a presidential candidate, to announce his support for impeachment proceedings to begin in the House.
“We have one remaining path to ensure justice is served,” said Booker. “It is our legal and moral obligation to hold those who have committed crimes accountable.”
Even if the House voted to impeach Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to convict him on any charge such as obstruction of justice.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the special counsel team turned over its report to Barr, who found Trump didn’t obstruct justice even though Mueller detailed multiple potential instances of it. One of the key episodes the special counsel cited in the investigation, for example, was in 2017 when the
President told McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn refused.
“Without an underlying offense or collusion, and the overwhelming cooperation by the Trump White House with the Mueller investigation, the attorney general’s decision on obstruction is sound,” said Graham. “It will be the final word in my view.”
“As for me, the case is over,” said Graham.

Biden Pledges To Defeat National Rifle Association

H/T Bearing Arms.

All I can say is Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden better bring his “A” game to the fight with the NRA.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. That’s not surprising since he’s a former vice president and was part of the Obama administration, which Democrats seem to view as a positive for some insane reason. However, if he wanted to keep that status, he’s going to have to beat the anti-gun war drum.

Luckily for him, he was ready to do just that.

Former Vice President Joe Biden pledged on Tuesday to “defeat the National Rifle Association” as part of his 2020 campaign promise to fight for school safety.

“As President, he will secure passage of gun legislation to make our students safer, and he knows he can do it because he’s defeated the National Rifle Association twice before,” Biden’s plan, released on Tuesday, read.

It stated part of the plan to “defeat” the NRA included supporting legislation that banned “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

His plan came after a slew of school shootings that prompted Democrats to call for gun control laws. Biden’s planned seemed more moderate than other 2020 candidates’ — specifically Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., — in that he focused on working through Congress rather than substantially expanding executive authority in the ways others proposed doing.

Of course, Biden didn’t mention that we had an “assault weapon” ban for a decade and it accomplished jack squat.

He should know. He was part of the Congress that passed it. He was also there when the measure sunset and discussions were had about possibly renewing the law. It was pointed out then that the law didn’t do anything.

At the time, anti-gunners pointed to a decrease in the crime rate and tried to claim credit for it. The problem was, the crime rate had been dropping for years before the “assault weapon” ban and continued at the same rate after the ban went into effect. Further, that crime rate continued to drop after the ban sunset.

In other words, it didn’t do a damn thing.

Now, either Biden knows this, in which case he’s pandering, or he doesn’t, which means he’s an idiot. Of course, pandering doesn’t preclude stupidity.

If there’s at least one good thing about Biden’s proposals, it’s that he’s acknowledging the limits of executive power. If we’re going to get saddled with federal gun control laws, they have to come through Congress. That’s how the Constitution lays out the legislative process. Congress passes laws, the president signs and enforces those laws. Presidents don’t get to make them up on their own.

Further, as noted in the quote above, Biden’s proposal is less bombastic, more moderate. That’s likely to play better with moderate members of the Democratic Party, voters who are feeling more and more alienated by the liberal extremism that’s taking hold of it. These are voters who don’t like “assault weapons” typically but also aren’t interested in radically changing the firearm landscape.

Not that what Biden is proposing is any better. Gun control is gun control, and we don’t need any of it.

It should be interesting to see what role gun control plays in the primary process. We’ll learn an awful lot about the hearts and minds of Democrats in the process.