Is Amash the Latest Fool on the Hill?

by Daveda Gruber:

There are many fools on Capitol Hill and a GOP Representative, within the last 48 hours, has just become the newest “Fool on the Hill”.

Justin Amash made statements that President Trump “engaged in impeachable conduct”. It did not take long for another Republican to rise up to challenge Amash in the upcoming primary election.

Amash has served as the representative for Michigan’s Third District since 2011. Amash tweeted his statements on Saturday after reading a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Amash is not fond of Trump and he made that clear when on May 18, 2019 he tweeted this:

On Monday morning Michigan state Rep. Jim Lower announced that instead of seeking a third term in the state legislature, he will run against Amash for their party’s nomination for the 2020 election.

Lower, according to the Detroit Free Press, said, “Congressman Justin Amash tweets yesterday calling for President Trump’s impeachment show how out of touch he is with the truth and how out of touch he is with people he represents.”

Lower has described himself as “pro-Trump” and he was going to announce his plan to challenge Amash on July 4. Lower accused Amash of siding with left-wing Democrats against Trump and it was Amash’s tweets that inspired Lower to announce his run to challenge Amash sooner.

Lower, as you can see reported in this video below, said, “Amash has not only failed to support President Trump as the President works to make the United States stronger and safer, he has now united with radical liberals like Democratic Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib to try and bring down our President.”

The feelings that Amash has for Trump have brought Trump’s regard towards Amash out into the open.

Trump tweed this:

Needless to say, not all Republicans have stood by Amash’s opinions.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was on “Sunday Morning Futures” this weekend and said, “This is exactly what he wants, he wants to have attention.”

McCarthy also expressed doubt over Amash’s Republican leanings in general. He said, “You’ve got to understand Justin Amash. He’s been in Congress quite some time. I think he’s asked one question in all the committees that he’s been in. He votes more with Nancy Pelosi than he ever votes with me. It’s a question whether he’s even in our Republican conference as a whole.”

 

Leaving on a Jet Plane with a California Dream?

by Daveda Gruber:

U.S. Border Patrol agents are being overwhelmed by the number of illegal migrants entering the U.S. and many cross over the border in Texas. Hundreds of migrant families will not stay in Texas but be flown to the state of California.

As many as three flights a week were scheduled to begin on Friday. The flights will fly 120 to 135 people to San Diego from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

The flights will continue indefinitely.

Border Patrol’s interim San Diego sector chief Douglas Harrison called it a “contingency operation” that would see at least three flights a week making the trip.

Each flight would cost the government around $6,000. Harrison said, “We don’t have an end date. We’ve got to give the people in Rio Grande Valley some relief.”

The Border Patrol says it is detaining around 8,000 people at a time in the Rio Grande Valley. That is double its maximum capacity. A 500-person tent was opened earlier this month but that’s not enough to care for these illegal migrants. .

Agents in the Rio Grande Valley will collect biographical information and do a medical screening before sending migrants to San Diego on flights contracted by ICE, Harrison said. Migrants will go from San Diego International Airport to a Border Patrol station. There they will be fingerprinted, interviewed and most likely screened again for medical problems.

The process of screening and interviewing one person typically takes several hours. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will decide whether to release or detain the families in San Diego.

Border arrests have surged since the summer to 98,977 in April which is nearly three times what they were a year earlier. Nearly seven of every 10 came as families or were children traveling alone. The Rio Grande Valley was by far the busiest passage point. The next busiest is El Paso, Texas.

The next move is said to be similar flights to Detroit, Miami and Buffalo, N.Y. The people going on these flights will not have a California dream come true.

I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you are on, this is a crisis that is happening now.

Will it take a heavy influx of illegal migrants in blue states to see that there is a real crisis at the southern border? I’m pretty sure that some people cannot be convinced because they refuse to see the problem and they are blinded by hatred for those of us who can see the truth.

What Did Bernie Say is a Constitutional Right?

by Daveda Gruber:

When it comes to the Constitution, I stand by the document one hundred percent. Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democrat 2020 Presidential runner from Vermont, insists that he stands by abortion being a  “constitutional right.”

On Wednesday Sanders made the statement as an seeming comeback to the virtual abortion ban just approved in Alabama.

It is no surprise that Sanders believes that abortion is a right of the woman to choose no matter what the situation is.

Alabama’s legislature passed a bill that would make performing an abortion a ‘class A felony’ at any stage of pregnancy. There are almost no exceptions.

Democratic presidential candidates have all made similar arguments to give women the right to choose as they are totally against the Alabama bill. If the bill becomes law, it will go into effect in six months.

Sanders tweeted this out:

Have you ever read the Constitution? I never saw anything in the Constitution that makes abortion a “constitutional right.”

In fact, the U.S. Constitution does not specifically address abortion. Now, abortion-rights activists argue that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution includes a “right to privacy” that allows women to decide whether to have an abortion. The Supreme Court has basically endorsed abortion as referred to in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

I still do not understand how a right to terminate a pregnancy and in that decision end a baby’s life and that be considered the right to privacy? Privacy to commit murder?

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is also a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate, tweeted:

On Wednesday New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said on MSNBC, “This is an outrage and it’s nothing short of an attack on women’s basic human rights and civil rights and it’s something that women of America are going to have to fight against with everything they’ve got.”

In the United States, over 92% of abortions are the result of unintended pregnancy. I’d like to introduce a couple of novel ideas. Women can abstain from the activity that produces a pregnancy, use measures that prevent pregnancy or have an operation to prevent a pregnancy. Also, men can do this too. A vasectomy is easy to get.

If Alabama and other conservative states hope to ignite legal fights and eventually overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, conservative justices must continue to be added to the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Trump has done a fine job with Supreme Court Justices, so far, and that could put an end to the right to abortion except for extraordinary circumstances.

Isn’t it time for Americans to stop murdering their children? Shouldn’t we give the unborn a right to live?

Will John Durham be the Man to Drain the Swamp?

by Daveda Gruber:

Now that Robert Mueller’s Russian Probe has ended, some are excited to hear the news that an investigation is underway to examine the investigation.

It was a matter of time, but I knew that it would be coming. Attorney General William (Bill) Barr had assigned John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to conduct the inquiry into the alleged misconduct and alleged improper government surveillance on the Trump campaign in 2016.

Also being investigated is if any Democrats were the ones who improperly colluded with foreign actors.

Durham is known as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor or so sources have called him. He’s been alleged to have been working on his review for weeks now.

The story being revealed is that Barr is working “collaboratively” on the investigation with a few others. They include FBI Director Chris Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

Durham is working directly with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Horowitz is currently reviewing allegations of misconduct of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants that were issued.  He is also looking into the role of FBI informants during the early stages of the investigation.

Durham will focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016 which includes the use and assignments of FBI informants and alleged improper issuance of  FISA warrants.

On Tuesday President Trump praised Barr for appointing Durham although he claims that he did not request that Barr do so.

On Tuesday Trump told reporters from the White House lawn, “I think it’s a great thing that he did it. I am so proud of our attorney general that he’s looking into it.”

Barr testified on April 9 and said, “I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016.”

Barr had assembled a “team” to investigate the origins of the investigation and it has been alleged that Durham had been working on the investigation for weeks but it is not known if he was part of the original team assembled by Barr last month.

In fact, Barr’s appointment of Durham comes after he testified last month that he believed that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016.

Barr said, “I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated…Spying on a political campaign is a big deal.”

Barr did later clarify in the hearing when he said,  “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred; I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.”

Back to Durham. In his career Durham has led numerous public corruption probes. This includes organized crime, government misconduct and financial  fraud matters.

Durham was appointed by AG Janet Reno in 1999.  He was appointed to investigate law enforcement corruption in Boston. Under AG Eric Holder, Durham was selected to investigate matters relating to the destruction of videotapes by the CIA and the treatment of detainees by the CIA.

On paper Durham looks like the right man for this new investigation. Will Durham be the man to lead to the arrest of those who have escaped justice, so far? Only time will tell but if I were to bet on this, I’d be betting against Democrats at this time.

Maybe the D.C. Swamp will finally start to get drained? I’ll be paying attention.

Who’s too Old for the Job?

by Daveda Gruber:

Are there people running for the White House in 2020 who are too old? Someone seems to thinks so. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinks that some, including President Trump, may be too old for the job.

At seventy-five, Gates is currently the chancellor of the College of William & Mary. He appeared on CBS’ “Face The Nation” and the interview proved to reveal his thoughts on age and the presidency.

Gates said that the ages of presidential candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders could be a “problematic” issue for the two.

The aging white males have been in politics for nearly their whole lives and Biden is currently 76 and Sanders is 77. They will be older in 2020.

Gates, in a pre-taped interview, said, “I’m not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in your 60’s. The thought of taking on those responsibilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting.”

Gates served as defense secretary for both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

He also said that he thinks that President Trump may be too old to be in office. Trump is now 72 and he was the oldest person to be sworn in as president at age 70.

Gates said, “When you’re talking about being the president of the United States, the ability to do the job in every respect has always got to be a consideration.”

Gates is a Republican and remembers Ronald Reagan who was 72 when he was elected to his second term in office. Gates spoke of Reagan and said that he was “a pretty great president.”

I agree. I believe that Reagan was a great president.

Besides the diversity that White House hopefuls on the Democratic side have in their group, they have the oldest candidates, as well. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is the youngest white male at thirty-seven and Sanders is the eldest at age seventy-seven.

In my opinion, which is the same as other Republicans, I do not feel that Trump is too old. He has a lot of energy and he is doing a great job for America.

Personally, I’ll be voting for Trump and not any of the Democratic runners have my attention in a positive way. All I see is Socialism and Creepiness coming from the left.

 

Nadler Leading the Pack Against Barr but Holder Contempt Vote was Shameful?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., led his pack of Democrats to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress.

The contempt charge has been led by Nadler and has Barr allegedly accused for not handing over documents related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe ˗˗ declaring the move necessary as the country enters a “constitutional crisis.”

Nadler also alleged that Barr acted as President Trump’s personal attorney.

Watch this video put out by MSNBC:

Oh my, things have certainly changed since 2012. In that year the shoe was on the other foot. House Republicans took the same step against then-AG Eric Holder for refusing to hand over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

Remember Fast and Furious? Of course you do. All of us have recollections of where DOJ officials tracked thousands of guns smuggled across the border and then did nothing to stop them.

Well, Nadler was so against Holder being held in contempt that he tweeted this:

And they did. Over one hundred members of Congress walked out of Congress over the vote to hold the Obama-era DOJ leader in contempt.

Donald Trump Jr. noticed the “irony” that Nadler had displayed and tweeted  about it:

The House Minority Leader, at that time in 2012,  Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argued House Republicans were more politically motivated in attacking Holder than driven to get to the bottom of the failed operation.

Pelosi said, “What is happening here is shameful.”

You can’t make this stuff up. In the year 2012 Pelosi was so against Holder being held in contempt and she made sure she put her two cents in. Watch these video clips and how Pelosi felt about Holder being held in contempt of Congress:

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, wrote an op-ed for FOX News and said that the White House ‘stonewalling’ Congress represents an attack on ‘the essence of our democracy’ – as though stonewalling were some new phenomena. Where was Nadler’s righteous indignation when the stonewalling came from a Democratic White House?”

In an article by Politico, it was written that Fast and Furious has finally come to a conclusion and both sides said they maintained their disagreements but were dropping their appeals and the underlying lawsuit.

A settlement in a seven-year legal battle between the House and the Justice Department over records related to a gun-running investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious was publicly announced Wednesday just as similar clashes continue to intensify between the House and Trump administration.

The deal ends a lawsuit the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee filed in 2012 after the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to release some records the panel demanded about the probe, during which law enforcement officials watched but did not intervene as up to 2,000 weapons were illegally sold.

The fight over the records ended more than a year ago, but a proposed settlement ran aground last fall after U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson signaled that she would refuse to wipe out her rulings in the case.

Both the Obama administration and the House objected to aspects of her decisions, but the executive branch had the larger grievance, as Jackson rejected the Justice Department’s longstanding position that courts have no proper role in resolving battles between Congress and federal agencies over access to records.

In the settlement filed Wednesday, both sides said they maintained their disagreements with Jackson’s decisions but were dropping their appeals and the underlying lawsuit.

 “The Parties agree that because subsequent developments have obviated the need to resolve those issues in an appeal in this case, the District Court’s holdings should not in any way control the resolution of the same or similar issues should they arise in other litigation between the Committee and the Executive Branch, and hereby waive any right to argue that the judgment of the District Court or any of the District Court’s orders or opinions in this case have any preclusive effect in any other litigation,” the agreement says.

Is this a big coincidence that Nadler is being held in contempt of Congress but “Fast and Furious”  just finally got an agreement worked out on both sides agreeing not to use an appeal?

If we don’t pay attention and we are not “a fly on the wall in Congress” who knows what we’d miss.

In my humble opinion, I don’t see Barr being hurt by any of these allegations by the Democratic side of Congress. He has only gone by the rule of law and has not broken it.

Is Christopher Wray Splitting Hairs with William Barr?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Tuesday FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress. Wray disagreed with Attorney General William Barr and applied a different term than Barr who used the word “spying.”

When asked if FBI agents engage in “spying” when they follow FBI policies and procedures, Wray told lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee “That’s not the term I would use. Lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes, and to me the key question is making sure that it’s done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities.”

In a hearing last month Barr stated, “I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. …Spying on a political campaign is a big deal.”

The statement was later clarified during the hearing by Barr when he said, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred; I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.”

Even President Trump has alleged that the bureau engaged in spying against Trump associates during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Barr’s remarks were broadly criticized by Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., accused Barr of “peddling conspiracy theories.”

Trump allies have noted that there is documented evidence that the FBI obtained surveillance warrants to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page. There have been numerous reports disclosed that reveal the use of an informant and others to gather information during the early days of the probe.

A source has brought to light that in his remarks, Barr was not trying to fuel conspiracy theories or play to the conservative base.

The source said, “When he used the word spying, he means intelligence collecting.” He also noted Barr’s history as a CIA analyst in the 1970s. “He wasn’t using it in a pejorative sense, he was using it in the classic sense.”

On Tuesday when he was asked directly by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., whether he believes the FBI spied on the 2016 Trump campaign, Wray deferred his response to the ongoing investigation by Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Wray said, “I want to be careful about how I answer this question here because there is an ongoing inspector general investigation. I have my own thoughts based on the limited information I’ve seen so far but I don’t think it would be right or appropriate to share those at this stage because I really do think it is important for everybody to respect the independent inspector general’s investigation, which I think this line of questioning starts to implicate, and I think it’s very important for everybody to be able to have full confidence in his review.”

Later on he added, “I don’t think I personally have any evidence” of illegal surveillance into the Trump campaign in the 2016 election, but he said that he has been in “close contact” with Barr about helping him get to bottom of how the Russia investigation began.

You can see/hear Wray speak here:

In my humble opinion, the investigation should lead right to the Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign via the Steele Dossier.

Would You Pay to See Them?

by Daveda Gruber:

Bill and Hillary Clinton are still relevant to some of the American people but apparently people don’t want to spend a whole lot of money to see the couple speak on their political views.

The Clintons are on a speaking tour of thirteen cities but they don’t seem to be drawing in crowds who want to spend big bucks to see the couple.

When the tour was announced in November, the best tickets were going for the hefty price of $1,785, which was a far cry from the 54% drop in price of $829.

On Friday the cheaper seats could be had for as little as $20 at Seattle’s WaMu Theater where the Clintons were speaking.

Organizers had to slash listed prices and even offer discounts through Groupon to boost sales. The Seattle Times reported that the official prices for the former first couple’s appearance ranged from $66.50 to $519.

The performance by the Clintons lasted about ninety minutes and was presented as an interview of Hillary and Bill by actor Bradley Whitford.

The former First Lady and former Secretary of State said, “I really believe that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis. This is a test for our country.”

She also said to  the crowd in Seattle that Barr “would rather be the president’s defense lawyer than the chief law enforcement officer of our country.”

She wasn’t done yet. Hillary continued by saying that the Mueller’s report “not only decisively proves, but goes chapter and verse about how the Russians — in the words of the report ˗˗ conducted ‘a sweeping and systemic interference in our election.”

She topped that up with a dig at President Trump by saying, “And then you wake up and your president is spending an hour on the phone with Vladimir Putin, who was the mastermind of the interference and attack on our election.”

In my humble opinion, the tickets could have been free and I don’t believe that many people would have gone to sit through what the Clintons have to say about anything.

I venture to say that the only way to get a large crowd to view the couple would have to guarantee that at least Hillary would be carried away in chains and shackles at the end of the performance. Now, that would call for a standing ovation.

Trump and Putin Discuss World Affairs and Mueller Probe

by Daveda Gruber:

On Friday President Trump had a conversation with none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders discussed the crisis in Venezuela, nuclear agreements, North Korean denuclearization, Ukraine and trade.

The call between Trump and Putin spoke for a little over an hour. Besides the other important world issues, they discussed special counsel’s Russia investigation.

The president spoke to reporters from the Oval Office about some of the details of the call.

Trump said that the U.S. would “probably start something up shortly between Russia and ourselves,” and that “China would be added down the road.”

The Russian state news agency Tass reported that Trump and Putin spoke about the New START treaty which is the last major arms-control treaty remaining between the U.S. and Russia.

The treaty that was signed in 2010 expires in 2021. That treaty restricts both the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads on a maximum of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles and strategic bombers.

Tass reported:

WASHINGTON, May 3. /TASS/. The US aims to improve relations with Russia and expand bilateral trade, US President Donald Trump said on the outcomes of the phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We also discussed trade. We intend to do a lot of trade with Russia, we do some right now, and it’s up a little bit,” Trump said. “And getting along with Russia and China is a good thing.”

Earlier on Friday, Trump and Putin have held a phone call, during which they discussed “the current state and prospects of bilateral relations with a focus on economic cooperation”, the Kremlin press service informed. The presidents also discussed North Korea, Venezuela, Ukraine, and nuclear disarmament.

Trump said China “very much” wants to be a part of that potential nuclear deal.

Trump took to Twitter to give his thoughts on the phone call:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un traveled to Russia last week to meet with Putin and the two spoke about the importance for Russia to continue to help put pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.

In a statement released by the Kremlin after Friday’s call said Putin stressed that “Pyongyang’s conscientious fulfillment of its obligations should be accompanied by reciprocal steps to reduce sanctions pressure on North Korea.”

Trump and Putin also spoke about Venezuela. Trump said Putin said he was “not looking to get involved,” but would “like to see something positive happen.” Trump said the U.S. wanted to offer “some humanitarian aid.”

Trump said, “We want to help on a humanitarian basis.”

The two also spoke about the Russia investigation. Trump said, “We discussed it and he actually sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and it ended up as a mouse. But he knew that because he knew there was no collusion.”

You can see and hear Trump speaking about his talk with Putin here:

Did Pelosi Accuse Barr of Lying to Congress?

by Daveda Gruber:

Late Thursday morning, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., went on the record during a public press conference and said that Attorney General William Barr “lied to Congress.”

In a closed-door meeting Pelosi also allegedly told her colleagues that Barr committed a crime. She allegedly told Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., “We saw [Barr] commit a crime when he answered your question.”

Pelosi was referring to a hearing on April 9. Crist had asked whether Barr knew what prompted reports that prosecutors on the special counsel team were frustrated with his initial summary.

Barr denied the allegation by saying that he did not.

This week “The Washington Post” reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns. This came after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March.

Mueller wanted Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office which stated that a four-page memo to Congress that described the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work.

Mueller made it clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

Pelosi, said publicly, “He lied to Congress. And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” she told reporters. “Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not the attorney general.”

Pelosi was then asked if Barr should go to jail for the alleged crime.

Pelosi replied, “There is a process involved here and as I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will have to come to how we will proceed.”

You can see and hear the comments by Pelosi here:

The Justice Department did not take the comments by Pelosi lightly.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said,  “Speaker Pelosi’s baseless attacks on the Attorney General is reckless, irresponsible and false.”