Did Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler Read Federalist No. 65?

Posted on December 3, 2019December 3, 2019 by Denise Simon

While Nancy Pelosi has been ‘prayerful’ during this impeachment inquiry process, Congressman Adam Schiff, HPSCI Chairman has been touting the Constitution and poor old Congressman Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary remains lost as he was forced to give up control of the impeachment process after the stupid hearing with Corey Lewandowski. Meanwhile.

Whitaker will testify before House panel after tense back ...

Nadler, a lawyer himself has previously railed against impeachment during the Clinton scandal, has invited 3 Constitutional lawyers as witnesses for his first impeachment hearing and the Republicans were only granted 1 witness. Seems Nadler needs several law classes and he and the others meaning Pelosi and Schiff should actually read Federalist No. 66. More on that later.

Nadler has called: Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor. His position on impeachment and argument is that President Trump can be impeached even without evidence of a crime. He published an article in The New Yorker in May of 2017 stating his argument which is all the actions of the president are a pattern and can be collectively be used in sum as impeachable. Feldman has also called for Special Counsel to be assigned to investigate Rudy Giuliani and AG William Barr.

Another Nadler witness is Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford. Her concentration including being on the faculty at Stanford is voting rights and political processes. Karlan was on the Obama short list to be a Supreme Court Justice while her resume includes being an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and was a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Outside of being known as snarky, she often quotes poetry in her classes. Karlan was one of the 42 legal scholars that signed a letter before Trump took office urging him to change his views on several issues and was very critical of his rhetoric.

The last Nadler witness is Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. Gerhardt penned an article in the Atlantic stating that impeachment proceedings are fully legitimate. Gerhardt is also a CNN legal analyst and was once the deputy media director for Al Gore’s senate campaign. Further, Gerhardt counseled Clinton on judicial selections and was special counsel to Senator Patrick Leahy on the nominations to the Supreme Court of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The only witness the Republicans were allowed to invite was Democrat and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Turley appears to be an okay feller when it comes to Constitutional law. He has provided testimony often on The Hill. He is often the ‘go-to’ person for being a Constitutional originalist and protector of separation of powers within government. Turley has called out the Democrats several times including over the Russia investigation. In a recent interview, Turley had this summary on the impeachment:

The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record….did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo….so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?…

Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate.

Meanwhile back to Federalist No. 65:

Hamilton argued that the Senate was the body to hold the impeachment trial and not the Supreme Court where evidence of misconduct of public men was a violation of public trust, meaning that society is a victim of that violation. That misconduct would contain injuries to society itself. In Federalist No. 66, Hamilton went on to further argue that the impeachment proceedings would seldom fail to agitate the passion of the whole community and divide parties into less friendly factions stating it would become a condition and test of political strengths between warring political tribes.

It is no wonder that President Trump reminds the nation often of his accomplishments as they are hardly injurious to society, in fact just the opposite.

Gov. Newsom Takes Control of California Pension Fund

Posted on December 3, 2019December 3, 2019 by Denise Simon

$700 billion….the California governor wants full control of that for climate change programs, for road/transportation programs and to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Remember, the largest California boondoggle is the high speed rail system that is likely the worst and most corrupt program across America.

Earlier this year, President Trump pulled nearly a $1 billion of Federal money for the high speed rail project in California that was to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and be completed by 2033. This rail system was to only cost $77 billion and now the project construction has been reduced substantially in size where the estimated costs are in the $20 billion range. The estimated costs have jumped from $77 billion to as much as $98.1 billion.

High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ...

The California Governor is still on the hook and he wants to have financial management over the State’s pension fund.

California Pension Fund Urged to Divest from Gun Sellers ...

In part: Newsom’s order directs the state’s Transportation Agency, pension funds and the department that manages government contracts to reconsider how they spend the public’s money with an eye toward investing in projects that could help Californians prepare for climate change.

The executive order “is the governor saying ‘I am prioritizing this in a mainstream way across the government. The state as a major investor and asset owner needs to take climate change really seriously,’” said Kate Gordon, director of the governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

The order references funds that taxpayers typically think of as restricted, such as money earmarked for road improvements and for pension systems that have a financial obligation to earn as much as cash as possible to provide retirement security for millions government employees.

Newsom’s order happened to follow Caltrans’ release of a report describing decisions to adjust funding for highway projects that had been pledged to the Central Valley. The timing created an impression that the Newsom administration was tinkering with taxpayer-approved transportation plans.

Newsom’s executive order won’t change the restrictions lawmakers placed in the 2017 law that levied new taxes and fees on fuel and vehicle registrations to pay for road repairs, according to the state transportation agency. That law is projected to raise about $5 billion a year for roadwork.

But, the executive order could lead the California agency to adjust its plans for other funds, steering money to public transportation and other projects in dense communities near jobs to “reduce vehicle miles traveled.”

Newsom’s administration estimates the state has about $5 billion a year in transportation funds that could be redirected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More details here.

Meanwhile, The Institute for Energy Research this past August took a hard look at the Green New Deal. After a careful study of the GND, there would be a required $10 tax increase on a single gallon of gas. Additionally, in order to eliminate gas powered vehicles in favor or electric vehicles, gasoline prices would have to increase to $13 per gallon.

Consider the financial consequences to the nation’s economy and the cost of moving goods in the transportation sector…

The Green New Deal would cripple the U.S. economy by requiring carbon taxes ranging from $200 to $1000 per metric ton to spur replacement of current technologies in the transportation and electric generating sectors. If the United States were to implement carbon taxes of this nature, Americans would be devastated financially. And, given that the United States emits about 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions compared to China which emits 28 percent of the world total, U.S. reductions would have little impact on global atmospheric concentrations. According to China’s commitment to the Paris Climate agreement, the country will not begin to reduce carbon dioxide emissions until after the year 2030.

Most Americans would find $13 per gallon gasoline unacceptable. The impacts on households and businesses of all kinds would be enormous. A quadrupling of gasoline prices would plunge the U.S. economy into a deep recession. Policymakers should understand the consequences of their proposals.

While the impeachment process is going on in the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi was attending a UN climate change summit in Madrid. While there she declared that the United States was still in the Paris Agreement, in spite of President Trump exiting the United States from the non-binding agreement.

Gotta wonder where this is all going and where the collaboration is in the Pelosi orbit or that of Governor Newsom. Better ask some harder questions to those Democrat presidential candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina and beyond.

London Terror Attack Outrage

Posted on December 2, 2019December 2, 2019 by Denise Simon

In part: Usman Khan, 28, was jailed in 2012 for his role in an al Qaeda-inspired terror group that plotted to bomb the London Stock Exchange and the US Embassy and kill Boris Johnson.

The members of Usman Khan’s Al Qaeda-inspired gang who plotted to blow up the London Stock Exchange and kill Boris Johnson. From left to right: Mohammed Moksudur Chowdhury, Mohammed Shahjahan, Shah Mohammed Rahman. Middle row: Mohibur Rahman, Gurukanth Desai, Abdul Malik Miah. Bottom row: Nazam Hussain, Usman Khan, Omar Sharif Latif

Giving a statement outside Scotland Yard, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said Usman Khan was subject to an ‘extensive list of licence conditions’ on his release from prison and that ‘to the best of my knowledge he was complying with those conditions’.

A furious political row began today after it was revealed that Khan was released automatically from prison last year – though he was still tagged and monitored.

Khan, born and raised in Stoke-on-Trent, originally received an indeterminate sentence for public protection with a minimum of eight years behind bars after his 2012 arrest, meaning he would remain locked up for as long as necessary, to protect the public.

Passing judgment at the time, Mr Justice Wilkie said: ‘In my judgment, these offenders would remain, even after a lengthy term of imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately protected by their being managed on licence in the community, subject to conditions, by reference to a preordained release date.’

But this sentence was quashed at the Court of Appeal in April 2013 and he was given a determinate 16-year jail term instead, meaning he would be automatically released after eight years.

It has been speculated that the attack may have been revenge for the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

It has also emerged today that he was a student and ‘personal friend’ of hate preacher Anjem Choudary. Khan spent years preaching on stalls that were linked to al-Muhajiroun, the banned terror group once led by Choudary.

As part of the plotting which led to his 2012 arrest, Khan’s group planned to set up a training camp in Kashmir, where his family had land.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that it was a ‘mistake’ to release Khan from prison and has vowed to crack down on early releases for inmates. The PM visited the scene of the attack today with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick, and Home Secretary Priti Patel.

When first sentenced, yesterday’s attacker Khan was handed an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) with a minimum term of eight years by Mr Justice Wilkie in February 2012.

This was overturned by the Court of Appeal in April 2013, when the indeterminate sentence was quashed. Instead, he was handed 16 years in jail with an extended licence period of five years.

At the time he was jailed, Khan had spent 408 days on remand and this was taken into account when considering his release date.

He was eligible for release after serving half of his 16-year jail term, less the time he had already spent on remand.

Khan was obliged to adhere to the notification provisions of the 2008 Counter Terrorism Act for a total of 30 years.

He was released from prison after agreeing to wear an electronic tag and be monitored by authorities.

Speaking before chairing a meeting of the Government’s emergency committee Cobra on Friday night, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he had ‘long argued’ that it is a ‘mistake to allow serious and violent criminals to come out of prison early and it is very important that we get out of that habit and that we enforce the appropriate sentences for dangerous criminals, especially for terrorists, that I think the public will want to see’.

Chris Phillips, a former head of the UK National Counter Terrorism Security Office, said today: ‘The criminal justice system needs to look at itself.

‘We’re letting people out of prison, we’re convicting people for very, very serious offences and then they are releasing them back into society when they are still radicalised. Much more here.

*** Just for consideration, there are an estimate 74 more cases of those just like Khan walking the streets of Britain. With the numbers of returning ISIS fighters to Europe….well it is easy to predict more attacks. ISIS may no longer have caliphate territory but the internet is for sure the headquarters for continued and successful militant Islamic fighters. Europe….hear the clarion call.

Time to Place a Terror Status on Drug Cartels

Posted on December 2, 2019December 2, 2019 by Denise Simon

President Trump has long pledged to sign off on declaring drug cartels as terror organizations going back to at least March of 2019.

Mexican security forces on Sunday killed seven more members of a presumed cartel assault force that rolled into a town near the Texas border and staged an hour-long attack, officials said, putting the overall death toll at 20.

The Coahuila state government said in a statement that lawmen aided by helicopters were still chasing remnants of the force that arrived in a convoy of pickup trucks and attacked the city hall of Villa Union on Saturday.

The reason for the military-style attack remained unclear. Cartels have been contending for control of smuggling routes in northern Mexico, but there was no immediate evidence that a rival cartel had been targeted in Villa Union.

Earlier Sunday, the state government had issued a statement saying seven attackers were killed Sunday in addition to seven who died Saturday. It had said three other bodies had not been identified, but its later statement lowered the total deaths to 20.

The governor said the armed group — at least some in military style garb — stormed the town of 3,000 residents in a convoy of trucks, attacking local government offices and prompting state and federal forces to intervene. Bullet-riddled trucks left abandoned in the streets were marked C.D.N. — Spanish initials of the Cartel of the Northeast gang.

Given the recent deaths in two attacks, momentum is building and what is taking so long? Frankly, it comes down to the trade deal(s) between the United States and Mexico which has been approved by Mexico, Canada and the Unites States but not ratified yet by our own Congress.

For some context on how easy it is to apply sanctions regarding ‘countering narcotics trafficking’ there is a law titled the King Pin Act. Recently updated this past June, The Foreign Narcotics King Pin Designation Act has 32 pages, two columns of named individuals or organizations.

In part of this law for reference includes:

THE KINGPIN ACT

On December 3, 1999, the President signed into law the Kingpin Act (21 U.S.C. §§
1901-1908 and 8 U.S.C § 1182), providing authority for the application of
sanctions to significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations
operating worldwide. Section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act blocks all property and
interests in property within the United States, or within the possession or
control of any U.S. person, which are owned or controlled by significant foreign
narcotics traffickers, as identified by the President, or foreign persons
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the
Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and the Secretary of State, as meeting the criteria as identified in the Kingpin
Act.

On July 5, 2000, OFAC issued the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions
Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 598, which implement the Kingpin Act and block all
property and interests in property within the United States, or within the
possession or control of any U.S. person, which are owned or controlled by
specially designated narcotics traffickers, as identified by the President, or
foreign persons designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation
with the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Secretary of State, as meeting the following criteria:

• Materially assists in, or provides financial or technological support for or
to, or provides goods or services in support of, the international narcotics
trafficking activities of a specially designated narcotics trafficker;

• Owned, controlled, or directed by, or acts for or on behalf of, a specially
designated narcotics trafficker; or

• Plays a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.

III. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS

E.O. 12978

E.O. 12978 blocks the property and interests in property in the United States,
or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, of the persons listed in the
Annex to E.O. 12978, as well as of any foreign person determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, to be a specially designated narcotics trafficker.

The names of persons and entities listed in the Annex to E.O. 12978 or
designated pursuant to E.O. 12978, whose property and interests in property are
therefore blocked, are published in the Federal Register and incorporated into
OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List)
with the OFAC program tag “[SDNT].” The SDN List is available through OFAC’s web
site: http://www.treasury.gov/sdn.

THE KINGPIN ACT

The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property within the United
States, or within the possession or control of any U.S. person, of the persons,
identified by the President, or foreign persons designated by the Secretary of
the Treasury, after consultation with the previously identified federal
agencies.

So, what is the problem? Actually it is likely the top government officials of Mexico would be sanctioned and the government itself would fall. The other suggestion is U.S. domestic banks would be implicated as well as some city officials in the United States including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Newark and Miami.

The consequences are huge but it is time.

HPSCI Minority Report, No Evidence of Impeachment Grounds

Posted on December 2, 2019December 2, 2019 by Denise Simon

In part:

House Republicans delivered a point-by-point rebuttal Monday to Democrats’ impeachment efforts, claiming in their own report that the evidence collected in the inquiry to date does not support the accusations leveled against President Trump — or rise to the level of removal from office.

“The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” Republicans said in a 123-page report, timed to be made public ahead of the majority Democrats’ impeachment report.

The dueling narratives are emerging following two weeks of House Intelligence Committee hearings, where witnesses detailed their own knowledge of efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch political probes as U.S. aid was withheld over the summer. The committee is set to vote on Democrats’ final report Tuesday – likely to be another party-line moment – before transmitting that document to the Judiciary Committee, which holds its first public hearing Wednesday.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif.; Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul, R-Texas, penned the minority report, which has been reviewed by Fox News. In it, they broadly defend the president’s actions in the face of accusations he withheld military aid and a White House meeting as leverage to pressure Ukraine to launch a probe involving the Bidens. More here.

***

Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act must pass both Houses of Congress and then have the President’s signature. For the last few years, military aid for Ukraine has been included as Ukraine has been fighting a hot war with Russia. Most recently, President Obama did fulfill the aid to Ukraine but it was all non-lethal aid as his reasons were to not further inflame tensions between the United States and Russia. The 2018 NDAA for Ukraine amounted to $350 million of lethal and non-lethal aid including training, technical assistance among other requests.

It should be noted that Ukraine maintains a military attache at the Pentagon that coordinates planning, war-gaming, training, aid and cyber with our own military experts assigned to Ukraine.

EXPLAINED: How Ukraine Uses U.S. Military Aid (Think ... photo

The 2019 NDAA has $250 million for Ukraine under what is titled the USAI ( Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative). Two other key details of this aid include the assignment of an executive agent responsible for overseeing the aid process. Additionally, the Department of Defense must sign off on the fact that the a small segment of corruption passes a standard set by the Unites States of which those details are is unclear before aid can be released. The DoD and the State Department certified twice that Ukraine had made sufficient reforms to decrease corruption and increase accountability.

Sufficient reforms?

By the way, the 2020 NDAA has $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine.

Yet….that does not settle any other parts of corruption in Ukraine. This is where the major disputes come from between the Democrats and Republicans. Corruption includes sham elections, money-laundering, banking financial fraud and theft and most recently the concerns of the Ukraine naval ships seized by Russia in the Kerch Strait. (Sidebar: Russia did return those 3 naval ships after almost a year and they were stripped of all weapons, equipment and even toilets.They were in such bad shape they had to be towed)

President Trump has long been demanding other nations step up to fulfill their NATO obligations and further he has had major concerns that other countries are not making any substantial contributions to Ukraine. This was the reason for the hold by the Office of Management and Budget to hold for a few weeks the full release of military aid to Ukraine as told in testimony by Mark Sandy who is the national security associate deputy at the OMB. Sandy included in the closed door testimony that there were several requests for additional information on what other countries were contributing to Ukraine and that information was provided to the Trump White House in early September. Trump officially released the aid on September 11. Aid had to be fully released by September 30 according to the law.

With a new president taking office in Ukraine it does stand to reason that the United States take a second look at conditions and the relationship between the United States and Ukraine given that the new president Zelensky was elected on combating corruption in Ukraine.

With all the new conditions and the slow moving parts of our own government, the Minority report of the HPSCI on the impeachment inquiries having no basis does have legitimate points.