Lincoln above after being told the names and shown pictures of the 22 Democrats running for president.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They know what they are doing but don't know the risks they are taking making fools of themselves. Only time will tell. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Truth finally coming out regarding Benghazi and it is as I always thought. A treasonous cover up. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Off to beach followed by bus man holiday. Stay well.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) What Nadler Really Wants
His strategy clearly aims at provoking a confrontation for political purposes.
By Kimberley Strassel
Don’t think this week’s headlines about contempt of Congress and impeachment are about anything so serious as contempt of Congress or impeachment—never mind the “constitutional crisis” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday. This is red-meat politics.
The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. It demands Mr. Barr turn over an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, as well as “all documents obtained and investigative materials created by” Mr. Mueller’s office.
Chairman Jerrold Nadler also threatened to hold former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt if he doesn’t testify. Mrs. Pelosi spent all week meditating on the prospect of impeaching President Trump, accusing him of “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction,” and even declaring him “self-impeachable,” whatever that means.
Mr. Nadler insists the point of his subpoena fusillade is to obtain “evidence” as part of his “investigation” into “abuses of power” by Mr. Trump. This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by Mr. Nadler’s dogged, daily efforts to make sure he does not obtain any information of value.
Already, on April 18, Mr. Barr made available to senior members of Congress the opportunity to view a version of the report more complete than the one released to the public. It contains the minimum redactions required by law—only 1.5% is redacted material, compared with about 10% for the public version. Mr. Nadler could have weeks ago obtained a flurry of new detail about Mr. Mueller’s investigations and evidence. But neither he nor any other Democrat has visited the Justice Department to view the fuller report.
Mr. Nadler instead issued a subpoena that included a poison pill, a demand that guaranteed noncompliance. Mr. Barr cannot provide secret grand-jury material; it is illegal. Mr. Nadler, a lawyer, knows this. He could have issued a subpoena assuring him tons of new material; he instead deliberately issued one that assures him none.
He did it again this week, turning down offer after offer from the Justice Department to give him most of what he claims to want. Justice offered to expand the list of Democrats who may read the minimally redacted report. It offered to bring the material to Congress. It even offered to accommodate prioritized requests for additional documents, based on a committee review of the less-redacted report. Mr. Nadler said no each time.
Mr. Barr offered to testify last week in front of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Nadler insisted Mr. Barr be grilled by congressional staff members. No cabinet member has been subjected to such treatment in the Judiciary Committee’s 206-year history, and Mr. Barr rightly refused—as Mr. Nadler presumably wanted.
Equally revealing is Mr. Nadler’s focus on Mr. McGahn. The last place you go to ferret out information is the White House lawyer, whose work is protected by executive privilege. If Mr. Nadler were truly interested in new evidence, he’d grill people who were central to key events in the Mueller report but not subject to that exception.
Even if the White House allows Mr. McGahn to testify, Mr. Nadler will get nothing beyond what he’s already read in the report. As all previous White House counsels have done, Mr. McGahn would respond to any question about matters not already public by asserting privilege. Beyond having Mr. McGahn provide a dramatic public reading of those sections of the report in which he’s mentioned, there is no value to this exercise.
Most telling was Mr. Nadler’s rush to hold a contempt-of-Congress vote. That’s not how Congress obtains information. House Republicans, starting in mid-2017, spent more than a year using contempt threats to pry documents out of the Justice Department about the FBI’s Russia investigation. They never got all they wanted, but they got a lot. Mr. Nadler’s contempt resolution, by contrast, immediately begins a protracted court fight—guaranteeing he gets nothing for months, even years.
What does Mr. Nadler want, if not information? He wants the fight; he wants a show. Mrs. Pelosi prefers to avoid impeachment, for fear of public blowback. But she and her team need desperately to feed the angry progressive masses, to demonstrate that they are taking it to the Trump team. That’s what’s behind the shouts of obstruction and lawlessness and the dramatic show votes. Mr. Nadler chose to explain this purportedly serious contempt vote on that most unserious TV destination of Democratic base voters—MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.” There Mr. Nadler railed that Mr. Trump is acting like a “king” or “dictator.”
The rage-on strategy holds electoral risks for the Democrats. Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Nadler and other committee chairmen come from safe districts and don’t have to worry about re-election. But the more red meat they throw, the more the base will demand impeachment—and the more swing voters will wonder what, if anything, Democrats have to offer beyond this fraudulent show
1a) A ‘Constitutional Crisis’
Nancy Pelosi stages a phony impeachment war.
The Editorial Board
America is in a “constitutional crisis.” Trump Administration officials have “decided that they’re not going to honor their oath of office.” President Trump is “almost self-impeaching” and “is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice.”
All of these are quotes in the last 48 hours from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will soon have to hire a lexicographer to come up with new ways to say that Mr. Trump is committing impeachable offenses. How many synonyms are there for “obstruction”?
Unless, that is, all of this is political theater. Mrs. Pelosi’s rhetoric keeps getting more fluorescent precisely because she doesn’t want to impeach Mr. Trump. She knows most of the country opposes impeachment following the report by special counsel Robert Mueller that found no evidence of collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign. But millions of Democratic voters still favor it, so Mrs. Pelosi needs to feed the beast at MSNBC.
In other words, this isn’t a constitutional crisis. It’s a political pinch for House Democrats caught between the rage of their base and the wishes of most voters to settle political disputes via elections. If you believe what you’re saying, Madame Speaker, then get on with impeachment, which is the proper constitutional remedy for the offenses you allege. Otherwise, do the country a favor and drop the pretense.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)truth just became public....
2)truth just became public....
Subject: The Benghazi truth just became public....
THE REAL REASON BEHIND BERGDAHL'S RELEASE!
(BERGDAHL WAS RELEASED IN EXCHANGE FOR 5 TALIBAN GENERALS IN ORDER TO COVER UP THE OBAMA/HILLARY STINGER MISSILE SALES TO LIBYA.) BENGHAZI AND THE MATCHING SERIAL NUMBERS....
So , here's the REAL story: Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to secretly retrieve US made Stinger Missiles that the State Dept. had supplied to Ansar al Sharia in Libya WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission.
Sec State Hillary Clinton had brokered the Libya deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi, but some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military.
On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile. The helicopter didn't explode, but it had to land and an ordnance team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in Qatar by the CIA.
Obama and Hillary were in full panic mode, so Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Sti n ger Missiles. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to multiple rescue teams during the siege of the US Embassy.
It was the State Dept., NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies because Gen. Petraeus at CIA would not approve supplying the deadly missiles due to their potential use against commercial aircraft. So then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus when he refused to testify in support of Obama’s phony claim of a “spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video that insulted Muslims.”
Obama and Hillary committed TREASON!
THIS is what the investigation was all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of the YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not.
Furthermore, the Taliban knew that the administration had aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission, so they began pressuring (blackmailing) the Obama Administration to release five Taliban generals being held at Guantanamo.
Bowe Bergdahl was just a useful pawn used to cover the release of the Taliban generals. Everyone knew Bergdahl was a traitor but Obama used Bergdahl’s exchange for the five Taliban generals to cover that Obama was being coerced by the Taliban about the unauthorized Stinger Missile deal.
So, we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised, as well and a Sec. of State that is a serial liar, who perjured herself multiple times at the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft were called upon for help in Benghazi, because the administration knew that our enemies had Stinger Missiles; and if used to down those planes, would likely be traced back to the CIA cache in Qatar and then to the State Dept.’s illegitimate arms deal in Libya.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment