Throw Schiff Out Of Office. Why Have Elections? Deflation More Likely Than Inflation.

Buy American- Rebuild America and Throw Schiff Out of Office

And:

Deliver Us from Evil Democrats By Lloyd MarcusDemocrats are masters of deceiving and bullying the public into surrendering to anti-God cultural norms.  More

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All the Adam Schiff Transcripts

Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion.

The Editorial Board

Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy—Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Electors are free to decide Why have elections?

‘Faithless’ Electors Are Faithful to the Constitution

The Supreme Court should strike down state laws that try to constrain Electoral College voters’ choice.

By Sai Prakash

The Supreme Court Wednesday takes up the rights of a despised class—“faithless” electors. Under the U.S. Constitution, electors vote in the Electoral College to decide who will serve as president. More than a dozen states punish electors if they fail to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state’s popular vote. But states lack authority to command presidential electors. States may no more direct electors to vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump than tell citizens for whom to cast their Election Day ballots.

In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the state removed a Democratic elector after he cast a ballot for John Kasich rather than Hillary Clinton. His vote was suppressed, and his replacement dutifully voted for Mrs. Clinton. In Chiafolo v. Washington, the state fined four electors $1,000 for backing someone other than Mrs. Clinton.

The faithless electors in both cases acted with the aim of denying Mr. Trump an electoral majority and throwing the election to the House. The plan fizzled as dark horses received only seven votes (three for Colin Powell and one each for Mr. Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders and Faith Spotted Eagle). Long shots initially garnered 10 votes, but Colorado and Minnesota each removed one faithless elector, and Maine disallowed the vote of a defiant elector.

Faithless electors agitate many Americans, who understand electors to be mere agents, bound to the outcome of the state popular vote. Consider the fury of one Federalist in 1796: “Do I chuse Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be president? No! I chuse him to act, not to think!”

With that standard in mind, 32 states have laws that constrain presidential electors. Most oblige electors to accord with the state popular vote but don’t impose any penalty for disobedience. But 15 states do punish faithless electors, either with a fine or suppression of votes and removal.

The Supreme Court has never decided the fate of faithless electors. In Ray v. Blair (1952), the justices concluded that states could force electors to take party pledges as a condition of service. But it didn’t address the question of whether the Constitution allows electors to choose for themselves.

The court should nullify state laws that impinge upon the discretion of presidential electors. While the states appoint electors, they lack the power to remove them or control their votes—as was true for state-appointed U.S. senators before the 17th Amendment. Once selected, presidential electors have the constitutional right to vote as they please.

The Framers created the electoral system because they decided that well-informed elites could best judge who ought to serve as the nation’s chief executive. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, “election [of the president] should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation. . . . A small number of persons . . . will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

For good reason, the Constitution uses the same term, “electors,” to refer to ordinary voters as well as voters in the Electoral College. “Elector” and “voter” are synonymous and voters in democratic regimes enjoy the freedom to choose. Further, the Constitution notes that electors are to “vote by ballot.” This language refutes the claim that states can dictate whom to vote for, on pain of disenfranchisement or fine. Like everyday citizens, presidential electors were to deliberate and make a choice.

Of course, it has not worked out that way, for there is little deliberation in the electoral conclaves. The vast majority of electors faithfully track voter preferences in their states. Given this custom, citizens can be forgiven for supposing that when they cast votes every four years, they elect the president.

But the Constitution doesn’t require a popular vote to select presidential electors. What it does demand is that electors be free to choose and not be punished for their votes. The justices should remain faithful to the Constitution, even if doing so won’t always satisfy the will of the voters.

Mr. Prakash is a law professor and Miller Center fellow at the University of Virginia and author of “The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The market is beginning to act as I thought it would because doubt about a V recovery is spreading.  Yes, there is a recovery out there as America reopens, China recovers and Europe staggers on its feet but deflation is more likely to threaten than inflation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++