Archive for the ‘Lawyers’ Category

For the past week+, the MSM has talked about how Sen. Schumer plans on making Cory Gardner, Martha McSally and Susan Collins make difficult votes about calling witnesses. This isn’t worthy of serious consideration. This is a tempest in a teapot. It’s difficult to picture that the issue is that important to most voters. If voters don’t care about the issue, it’s difficult to picture them voting for or against someone that votes for or against witnesses.

What’s important is that these senators can highlight the fact that they’ve voted for President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax cuts (that have put hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars into the average voter’s wallet.) Let’s do a brief thought experiment on this. Picture a voter making a decision on who to vote for. Will most people say ‘I just can’t vote for Sen. Gardner. He voted against calling witnesses’? Or will most people say ‘I’m voting for Sen. Collins because she voted to cut my taxes”?

If Republicans polled that pair of questions, there’s little doubt that the tax cut vote isn’t the most important of the 2 votes. Further, that’s before asking if, for instance, voters wouldn’t vote for Sen. Collins for fighting to lower prescription drug prices or Sen. McSally voting for additional funding for President Trump’s wall with Mexico.

Six months from now, if not sooner, impeachment will be a net negative for battleground state Democrats. Six months from now, lowering prescription drug prices, cutting taxes and building the wall will still be popular.

Voting for or against witnesses isn’t that difficult of a decision. That’s because it isn’t that important with most voters.

After House Democrats make their evidence-free, allegation-filled presentation, impeachment conviction will be on life support. After President Trump’s legal team finishes highlighting the holes in the House Democrats’ case, the American people will know that the Democrats’ impeachment investigation was a waste of time. The Trump legal team’s opening filing indicates the fact that they’re utilizing a take-no-prisoners approach to defending President Trump.

The first day or 2 will go relatively well for the Democrats. That’s because they’ll have the floor uncontested. After that, President Trump’s team will present their defense. It won’t take long for President Trump’s team to highlight the no-evidence nature of the Democrats’ case. Once that starts, Democrats will wish that they’d never impeached President Trump.

Kevin McCarthy’s closing statement highlights just how powerful the arguments from President Trump’s legal team will be:

By that time, anyone with common sense will know that President Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment.

Mark Zaid, the CIA snitch’s attorney, got caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Now he’s trying to weasel his way out of hot water. After saying that “a ‘coup has started’ and that ‘impeachment will follow ultimately’, Zaid issued a flimsy statement that said “the tweets ‘were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people. I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers.'”

Later, Zaid added “The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.”

Impeachment is a completely lawful process in that it’s provided for by the Constitution. The way that Zaid and Ciaramella and others in the Resistance went about it isn’t legitimate because they couldn’t have found an impeachable offense to convict President Trump of within President Trump’s first 10 days in office. This is BS from Zaid because he’s hated President Trump since before he was President Trump.

In that respect, he’s no different than Democrats like Schiff, Maxine Waters, Al Green and other Fever Swampers. Zaid, like Schiff and Waters, started with a verdict, then worked to find evidence of the thing they were certain he’d done wrong. In the first 10 days of his administration, President Trump signed a bunch of executive orders. He also got started killing (through the Congressional Review Act) a ton of anti-fossil fuel regulations implemented by the previous administration.

It’s impossible to find anything that’s impeachable. That’s the hallmark of the Resistance. The Democrats’ Resistance doesn’t care about the Framers’ Constitution. These Democrats prefer the flexible, nimble Constitution that they constantly talk about. Zaid essentially admitted that he isn’t unbiased in this video:

That’s where Zaid tweets “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Notice the disdain Zaid has for President Trump’s supporters. That’s what elitists think. There’s your proof that Zaid is a card-carrying member of the Swamp. Zaid got into a fight with Bryan Dean Wright over the CIA snitch:

The more Zaid opens his mouth, the more he indicts himself, which hurts the CIA snitch’s credibility. Why should I trust a person who hides himself and who doesn’t have any first- or second-hand information and associates himself with a lawyer that’s steeply biased against the nation’s sitting president?

FYI- Bryan Dean Wright is a loyal Democrat. He isn’t a partisan hack like the whistleblower is.

If you visit CNN’s Politics webpage, you’ll find headlines like “House to explore Pence’s role in Ukraine controversy with new testimony”, “John Bolton trying to ‘walk that tightrope’ over role in Trump’s impeachment inquiry” or “Voters’ views of impeachment still forming in a key 2020 battleground.” Another column of headlines reads “Republicans again shift their defense of Trump over impeachment inquiry barrage”, “Senate Republicans have mixed views of Election Day losses”, “New poll finds tight four-way race in Iowa” or “Jeff Sessions to announce run for Senate.”

Nowhere on its politics webpage does CNN talk about Mark Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets. Here’s Zaid’s first Trump-hating tweet:

That isn’t the last Trump-hating tweet. Here’s another of Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets:

That wasn’t the last Trump-hating tweet either. Here’s another Trump-hating tweet from Mr. Zaid:

Why doesn’t CNN think that any of Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy? Apparently, NBC and CBS don’t think Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy either. What are the odds that the editors at CNN, CBS and NBC didn’t know about Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets? Isn’t it likely that they knew about these damaging tweets, then omitted them?

Make no mistake about whether Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats. Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats because they call into question what anti-Trump biases the CIA snitch shares with Mr. Zaid and the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee chairman. They open debate on whether the CIA snitch is just the tip of the iceberg. Is the CIA snitch collaborating with Schiff and Mr. Zaid in an effort to eliminate President Trump? Given Schiff’s and Zaid’s public animosity towards President Trump, it isn’t a stretch to think that’s possible. In fact, that seems like the most likely explanation for this impeachment inquiry.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:

What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

Now that the first ruling is in on SCERAC’s lawsuit is in, it’s time for St. Cloud Educational Rights Advocacy Council (SCERAC) to lick its wounds, then regroup. The arguments put forth by the Rinke-Noonan Law Firm on SCERAC’s behalf were deemed insufficient.

Specifically, “Stearns County District Court Judge Kris Davick-Halfen on Wednesday denied the advocacy group’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit”, writing “Throughout its filings, (the plaintiff) has made a passionate and thoughtful argument as to why the governor and legislature should provide the St. Cloud school district with the additional funding it requests. Nevertheless, this court cannot grant the relief (the plaintiff) requests and must grant (the defendant’s) motion.”

Later in the opinion, it states “(The plaintiff) does not allege that the St. Cloud District receives less funding per pupil than other school districts. Instead, the … complaint alleges that St. Cloud School District would be able to do more with additional funds. This does not constitute a violation of the Education Clause.”

Later, Davick-Halfen notes this:

When discussing the denial of the preliminary injunction, Davick-Halfen cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case where “a court should examine whether granting the (plaintiff’s) request would ‘maintain the status quo until the case can be decided on its merits.'” “The relief that (the plaintiff) is requesting in this temporary injunction would be a substantial change from what has been occurring,” Davick-Halfen states.

What SCERAC was asking the court to do is order the legislative and executive branches to do something that they chose not to do. This is prohibited by the separation of powers clause. Simply put, Minnesota’s Constitution doesn’t give the Judicial Branch the authority to intervene in the appropriations process. That’s left to the political branches. It isn’t left to the judicial branch.

After reading this article, there’s no doubt that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford had a sinister motive in stepping forward and making her wild accusations. At the time, I thought that it was highly possible Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn’t telling the truth. When Dr. Ford’s best friend said that she’d never met Brett Kavanaugh, I thought it was almost certain that Dr. Blasey-Ford hadn’t told the truth.

It’s worth noting that Debra Katz, a “high-powered progressive lawyer” who represented Dr. Blasey-Ford, said “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.”

The assault against Kavanaugh has been exposed, especially in the fantastic new book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, written by Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. There will be an asterisk associated with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings but it will be attached to the far-left activists who tried derailing Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Here’s the video proof of Katz’s statements:

What’s now known is that Dr. Ford came forward for partisan political reasons, not because she had proof that Brett Kavanaugh had done the things she’d accused him of doing. Lots of accusations were thrown at Justice Kavanaugh. The most discredited accusations were made by Julie Swetnick, then represented by Michael Avenatti, aka CPL, aka Creepy Porn Lawyer. In September, 2018, Swetnick swore out a statement under penalty of perjury, stating “I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s.”

In October, 2018, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred both Avenatti and Swetnick for criminal prosecution to the DOJ. The Democrats’ attempt to derail the confirmation of a judge who happened to be Catholic should frighten people who think that we shouldn’t hold a person’s religious beliefs against them if they’re applying for a position within the federal government. The Constitution forbids religious tests:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That text is found in Article VI, Clause 3. This is just the start. If/when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and President Trump still occupies the Oval Office and Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, all hell will break loose. It doesn’t take Nostradamus to figure that out. Joe Biden could even figure that out.

When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat. Let me rephrase that. When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat, except in court. In this instance, it’ll get beaten like a drum.

Harmeet Dhillon lays out what’s happening when she writes “No one, not Congress, not the president, and certainly not a state government, may unilaterally change the requirements to be president of the United States without first amending the U.S. Constitution.” Then she writes “The U.S. Constitution is very clear as to the requirements to run for president: one must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, resident in the United States for 14 years. That’s it.”

That didn’t prevent California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom from signing a bill that attempts to add additional criteria to the Constitution through making new state law. It’s nothing but a PR stunt. That doesn’t mean action shouldn’t be taken. That’s where Harmeet’s law firm comes in:

On behalf of the Republican National Committee, the California GOP, and three Trump-supporting Republican voters in California, my law firm filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to block this unconstitutional law before it can interfere with the 2020 presidential election. The president and his campaign have done the same.

Good for her. Good for them. It’s what I’d expect from California Democrats. It’s what I demand from Republicans.

When it comes to stupidity, liberal legal stupidity is pretty stunning. Writing in the comments section of this LTE, John Ellenbecker, St. Cloud’s former mayor, wrote some insulting drivel. That’s actually a step up from his usual foolishness. But I digress.

The LTE stops short of accusing Dr. John Palmer of being a racist only because the writer didn’t mention Dr. Palmer. Dr. Palmer was interviewed by the NY Times a little less than a month ago about his activism related to the refugee resettlement crisis that’s crippling St. Cloud. Other liberals, however, aren’t being that nice. This cartoon is downright disgusting:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’ve known Dr. Palmer for 15 years. Accusing John of being a hater is sloppy and hurtful. Then again, the First Amendment gives idiots like this cartoonist the right to be sloppy and dishonest. But I digress again.

Mayor Ellenbecker left this comment:

Intolerance isn’t and shouldn’t be the issue. I am intolerant to many things – drivers who camp out in the left lane of I-94 leading the list. The issue is whether we respect the rights of others. I don’t have to tolerate you – but I do have to respect your rights. John Palmer has every right to be a bigot and engage in bigoted speech – he does not have the right to violate the rights of people who live in this community. His moratorium on refugee settlement in St. Cloud was a blantant volation of the rights of people – including refugees – to determine for themselves where they will live. I have no tolerance for John Palmer and his followers, I don’t expect them to tolerate me. I will insist, however, that he not violate the rights of people residing in this community.

Before going into the substance, or lack thereof, of Ellenbecker’s comment, it isn’t too much to ask Mr. Ellenbecker to use his spell-checker. (Blantant volation? Seriously?)

Ellenbecker said that Dr. Palmer has the right to be a bigot. It isn’t difficult to figure out where that came from:

It’s part of the liberals’ standardized playbook to accuse decent people of being racists. It’s frequently used to stifle debate. There’s no more proof that Dr. Palmer is a racist than there’s proof that Ellenbecker is honest or smart. Next, Ellenbecker’s statement on the refugee resettlement program is dishonest. He said that Dr. Palmer’s “moratorium on refugee settlement in St. Cloud was a blatant violation of the rights of people, including refugees, to determine for themselves where they will live.” Actually, the Refugee Act of 1980 gives communities the right to have significant input into where and when refugees in the primary resettlement happen. Check this out:

It says “Whereas the Refugee Act of 1980 states that 8 U.S. Code 1522(b),” quote, “‘The director’” – I’m talking about the Minnesota Office of Refugee Resettlement director – “‘shall develop and implement in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and state and local governments’” – that’s me, OK? – “‘policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.’”

The St. Cloud City government, including the City Council, is ignoring its responsibilities. According to this law, state and local government shall “develop and implement” “policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.”

At no point in his comment did Mr. Ellenbecker cite any proof that Dr. Palmer had violated anyone’s civil rights.” Having known Mr. Ellenbecker since high school, I’m confident that that’s because he doesn’t have any proof to sustain his accusation. He’s always been long on accusations and short on intelligence.

The McSally-Sinema race is definitely heating up. If it wasn’t, Mitt Romney wouldn’t be taking time away from his campaign to campaign for Martha McSally. That isn’t the only proof that the race is heating up, either.

Over the past 2-3 weeks, Sinema has gotten caught in some fairly major lies. First, she was caught lying about being homeless as a child. She took a hit when a reporter found electric bills that her family paid while they were supposed homeless. It’s difficult to picture a homeless family paying electric bills while they’re homeless. Further, Sinema was exposed as supporting a lawyer for a famous terrorist:

The first, from Fox News, delineated how Sinema promoted events at Arizona State University that featured attorney Lynn Stewart, who was convicted for aiding Omar Abdel Rahman, who himself was charged and sentenced to life for scheming to blow up the United Nations, an FBI building, two tunnels, and a bridge in New York City.

Then there’s this:

The second story was reported by The Washington Free Beacon, which wrote of a group email from 2006 in which Sinema equated the deaths of American soldiers with illegal immigrants entering the United States.

Perhaps, those stories started circulating while this poll was in the field:

A month ago, the MSM were all but writing Arizona off for the Republicans. If that ABC poll is right, reports of McSally’s demise were definitely premature.