;
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beto endorses eliminating Electoral College so Democrats can screw American voters living in smaller states and re-insure they will control America until they destroy what is left of our republic, at which time there will be no further reason to seek continuing power because we will have become another Venezuela.(See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Republicans fear if Trump is successful in getting Obama Care overturned they will not be able to come up with a substitute. Thus, they are opposed to Trump's legal actions. (See 2 below.)
What any health care bill should include is: portability, pre-existing condition coverage and an individual policy that covers only disastrous care with a very low deductible.
Then let that type of legislation function for several years and make any modifications at a later time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just what I wrote in a previous memo.
The radical left of the Democrat Party have Biden right where they want him because they are "Kissed Off" that he is running amd ahead in the polls (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cynical Nadler. If the entire Mueller report was to be released, as Nadler demands, the Attorney General would be in violation of the law and he knows this. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
O’Rourke Endorses Abolishing Electoral College
Former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke joined a growing list of 2020 Democrats by endorsing the abolition of the Electoral College on Monday.
O'Rourke, who previously said there was "a lot of wisdom" behind eliminating the Electoral College, endorsed the idea outright while addressing the annual We the People Membership Summit in Washington, D.C.
"Let's abolish the Electoral College," O'Rourke told the audience in response to question about gerrymandering and the popular vote. The event was hosted by organized labor and prominent liberal groups like the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and the Center for Popular Democracy Action, a dark money group funded in part by George Soros.
O'Rourke justified his call for eliminating the Electoral College by comparing the institution to slavery.
"This is one of those bad compromises we made at day one in this country," he said. "There are many others we can think of and they are all connected, including the value of some people based on the color of their skin. There is a legacy and a series of consequences that have persisted and remain with us to this day."
"In this conversation about how we repair the damage, how we make things right, and how we keep from committing the same injustice going forward is squarely connected to the reason that we are all convened here today and that is fixing our democracy," O'Rourke continued. "So yes, if we get rid of the Electoral College, we get a little bit closer to one person, one vote in the United States of America."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) was the first 2020 Democrat to endorse abolishing the Electoral College in March during a CNN town hall. Since then other Democratic White House aspirants, including Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, have come out in favor of eliminating it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) GOP Lawmakers Quietly Root Against Trump on Obamacare
Senate Republicans are privately rooting against President Trump in his court battle to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
GOP lawmakers worry that if Trump wins, Congress won’t be able to pass anything to replace ObamaCare — and they’ll pay for it at the ballot box.
Republicans generally agree that President Obama’s signature health care law has serious flaws, but they realize getting rid of it while Democrats control the House would leave a vacuum in place of protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions, insurance subsidies and expanded Medicaid.
“If you’re looking strictly at political outcomes, it could be argued that a lot of members don’t want to see this struck down because they don’t want to deal with the fallout,” said a senior Republican senator.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Joe Biden’s Identity
Reckoning
He may have been VP, but he’s old, white, male and heterosexual.
By The Editorial Board
Spare a sympathetic thought for Joe Biden. He may have unmatched government experience as Vice President (eight years) and Senator (36 years), but he’s also old, white, male, a heterosexual with no apparent gender ambiguity, and he’s also not a socialist. This failure to check any box of modern progressive identity politics may end up disqualifying him as a Democratic presidential nominee even though he probably has the best chance to defeat Donald Trump.
Mr. Biden hasn’t even announced whether he’ll run for President, but he’s already being hazed for his past as an insufficiently woke pale male. The latest charge from Lucy Flores, a former candidate for office in Nevada, is that before a campaign event in 2014 the veep put his hands on her shoulders from behind, smelled her hair and kissed her on the head.
Ms. Flores calls this “disqualifying” for a presidential candidate, though there are dozens of photos on the internet of Mr. Biden doing something similar to any number of women. He isn’t harassing them. He’s merely acting like the handsy Joe Biden everyone has observed in public for decades.
Yet his presidential competitors are piling on as if he’s an old letch. “I believe Lucy Flores. And Joe Biden needs to give an answer,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who lied about her Native American heritage.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota-not-so-nice, said she has “no reason not to believe” Ms. Flores, though she has no reason to believe her either since she wasn’t there.
Even Bernie Sanders stuck a shiv in Mr. Biden by saying he had “no reason” to doubt Ms. Flores, though Mr. Sanders presided over a 2016 campaign staff that was a hothouse of sexual harassment.
Mr. Biden released a statement saying he never—“not once”—believed that he behaved inappropriately toward women, while adding that “if it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully.” But the damage was done as the Democratic press corps now indulges in another round of MeToo analysis of the supposed sins of the patriarchy.
The Flores flap follows Mr. Biden’s attempt to apologize, 28 years later, for chairing the Judiciary Committee hearings into Anita Hill’s accusations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.
“I wish I could have done something. I opposed Clarence Thomas’s nomination, and I voted against him,” Mr. Biden said last week. “But I also realized that there was a real and perceived problem the committee faced: There were a bunch of white guys.”
The real problem is that there was ample reason to doubt Ms. Hill’s last-minute political hit that lacked corroborating testimony. But Ms. Hill’s sainthood is now part of Democratic dogma and Mr. Biden feels obliged to bow before it. Even that may not be enough, as Democratic celebrities are now demanding that Mr. Biden apologize to Ms. Hill in person. Why not do it live on MSNBC?
At his current pace, Mr. Biden’s campaign might devolve into one long self-abasement tour. In February he called his successor as Vice President, Mike Pence, “a decent guy.” When the actress Cynthia Nixon assailed him on Twitter , Mr. Biden apologized. “You’re right, Cynthia,” he said. “There is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.”
Mr. Biden’s instinct for cross-party compromise is a quality that would appeal to non-Trumpian Republicans in a presidential election, but that’s now disqualifying on the identity-politics left.
Mr. Biden may also have to apologize for his opposition to forced busing in the 1970s, his opposition to reparations for slavery, his 1993 support for harsher criminal sentences, and his support for George W. Bush’s Iraq war, among many other offenses against the new left orthodoxy. None of this festival of regret will make Mr. Biden look like a strong leader.
It's all enough to wonder why Mr. Biden would even want to run again. He’s lost twice before, in 1988 and 2008, but he left the Vice Presidency with a reservoir of goodwill for his service and sympathy for the loss of his adult son to cancer. If he can’t win by running as the “white guy” he is, then he ought to retire with his political dignity intact.
Appeared in the April 2, 2019, print edition.
4) Chairman Nadler’s Cynical Argument By Jim Geraghty
Today in the New York Times, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler writes an op-ed demanding the full release of the entire Mueller report by tomorrow. He never quite gets around to mentioning what’s holding up the release of the Mueller report, which is the need to remove information related to grand jury deliberations or other ongoing investigations that have been referred to other offices.
As noted in one of last week’s Morning Jolts, there are good reasons why prosecutors generally don’t release grand jury information. In his letter to Congress, Attorney General William Barr specifically cited Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which provides that government attorneys and the jurors themselves, among others, “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” Barr didn’t make this rule up, it’s not obscure or optional, and Nadler knows darn well about its importance. Barr stated in a letter to Nadler and the judiciary committee that the special counsel’s office is assisting in identifying portions that are grand-jury testimony or relate to ongoing investigations or prosecutions.
But because the Democrats prefer a narrative of a sinister cover-up, Nadler just averts his eyes and pretends the rules on grand jury testimony don’t exist.
Late last week we heard that Mueller’s report is more than 300 pages. Barr thinks he’ll have the redactions finished by the middle of this month. Maybe that strikes you as too much time, or too little time, or maybe it seems just right. But if Barr had done as Nadler seems to want, and skipped the redaction process entirely, he would be violating federal law and perhaps lousing up other investigations and prosecutions of other federal law enforcement offices. (No doubt some House Democrats would probably want Barr removed from office for recklessly releasing grand-jury information.) The guys who claim to be standing for the rule of law are demanding that the law be violated.
Separately, Nadler asks, “[Barr] declined to charge the president with obstruction in part because there was no underlying crime to obstruct. Did he discuss that conclusion with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who, while a federal prosecutor, routinely charged individuals with obstruction without charging the underlying crime?”
Right in Barr’s letter, it says:
After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Nadler closes his op-ed with a perfectly cynical statement that “if President Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal, then perhaps it should have been.” Nadler is demanding the immediate release of the report . . . and he’s already decided what he concludes from its findings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
;
No comments:
Post a Comment