Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, delivering a spirited constitutional defense of President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday night, flatly turned toward House impeachment managers and declared they had picked “dangerous” and “wrong” charges against the president — noting that neither “abuse of power” nor “obstruction of Congress” was remotely close to an impeachable offense as the framers had intended.
In a dramatic primetime moment, the liberal constitutional law scholar reiterated that although he voted for Hillary Clinton, he could not find constitutional justification for the impeachment of a president for non-criminal conduct, or conduct that was not at least “akin” to defined criminal conduct.
Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, delivering a spirited constitutional defense of President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday night, flatly turned toward House impeachment managers and declared they had picked “dangerous” and “wrong” charges against the president — noting that neither “abuse of power” nor “obstruction of Congress” was remotely close to an impeachable offense as the framers had intended.
In a dramatic primetime moment, the liberal constitutional law scholar reiterated that although he voted for Hillary Clinton, he could not find constitutional justification for the impeachment of a president for non-criminal conduct, or conduct that was not at least “akin” to defined criminal conduct.
“I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents,” Dershowitz told the House Democrats, including head House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
“I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents,” Dershowitz told the House Democrats, including head House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
To put it bluntly, the “STATE OF THE UNION” is divided. You think it was bad prior to the Civil War, today we have the devise politics in the past two hundred years.. Radical leftists, revolutionary types, political operatives, perpetrators of fake news, ANTIFA, lying politicians and outright Marxist apparatchiks, are out to stir up trouble. Their objective is to destroy the country. They care little or nothing about the Constitution. To them outright anarchy is the solution. Only then will they be able to prevail over the populace and that is with a gun made by the capitalists they are seeking to destroy.
On February 4th 2020, President Trump will walk into the House of Representatives to not only a Standing Ovation, but one given only to Kings and Queens. Expect upwards of five hundred billion worldwide to tune in. Sitting next to Vice President Pence will be the Speaker of the House. This will be a real spectacle not seen in modern times. To see President Trump, the conqueror, come face to face with the conquered.
Expect a multitude of STANDING ROOM OVATIONS FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, but we can bet not one of the Democrat ACCUSERS will stand and cheer during the STATE of the UNION.
When Donald J. Trump walked into the White House in 2016, he was determined to drain the swamp. This was a threat to those whose lives depended on feasting off its goodies. We don’t have to tell you, but Hunter Biden is the quintessential example of the embedded criminals that have sucked this country dry. Trump has told Europe to pay up, to pay their fair share, he has eliminated threats with dispatch, but most of all Trump is respected by the world.
HATE ON THE LEFT THE ENEMY
We don’t have to mention the economy, which, as you know, is steaming a head with abandon. But keep in mind the latest polling that predicts a tight race come November. There is no sure thing in politics. Ask Hillary about that. As we go down the road to November, expect turmoil, hostility from the Democrat Rats.
One thing to be aware of, we will have those on the other side to say that if Trump repeats, “the election was stolen.” We admonish them, they are third country rabble rouser – pseudo dictatorial types who have a problem with a free election when the results has their team is on the short end of the stick. This is what transpired in 2016. Hillary was stomped by Trump.
We advise those who are determined to undermine the coming election. You have nine months to prove that you are eligible to vote. You have nine months to procure the proper identification proving who you are which makes you eligible to vote. Don’t tell us that you did know that proof of citizenship was mandatory; don’t tell us you never had a picture I.D.; don’t tell us you don’t have the $5 to get a State or Federal issued photo I.D. Don’t tell us you can’t find your birth certificate or forget where you were born. Don’t tell us that you were born in the States but your parents never notified the department of vital statistics. Don’t tell us you are eighty years old and never voted, never had a driver’s license, never applied for a birth certificate, but now you want to vote. Why? Where is your Social Security Card we may ask.?
The 2016 Democratic Party platform, which is revised by party members every four years, states, “We will continue to fight against discriminatory voter identification laws, which disproportionately burden young voters, diverse communities, people of color, low-income families, people with disabilities, the elderly, and women.”
THE ONLY REASON DEMOCRATS ARE AGAINST VOTER I.D. LAWS IS THAT THEY WANT TO CHEAT.
“REVOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION”
The “E Pluribus Unum” is in direct conflict with “Diversity Is Strength” — a civil struggle that will determine the fate of the country. One should not underestimate the depth of this civil divide. Steve Schatz6 years ago
The Black Death is thought to have originated in the dry plains of Central Asia or East Asia, where it traveled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343. From there, it was most likely carried by fleas living on the black rats that traveled on all merchant ships, spreading throughout the Mediterranean Basin and Europe.
The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe’s population. In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 475 million to 350–375 million in the 14th century. It took 200 years for the world population to recover to its previous level. The plague recurred as outbreaks in Europe until the 19th century.
The plague originated in Wuhan China, a city of 11 million people. Effectively the city has been on lock down. Those confirmed cases around the world, mostly resulted in a visit to Wuhan. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on the world economies. As it is, China’s economy is in a precarious situation. A one or two percent decrease in GDP would have a grave effect on those who are put out of work.
At the same time the Trump campaign was celebrating the greatest upset in political history and Podesta (this guy is no doubt effd up in the head). Imagine saying the Russians helped him when in fact the Steele Dossier commissioned by a two bit slut with Russian help was a non issue to him.
Secondly, Obama was licking Putin’s ass for eight years, pulling our missiles back from Poland, telling the Baltics that they had to stand on their own two feet – and you have this POS saying Russia’s Putin helped Trump. Podesta’s narrative is another example of a lying progressive with a hair across his ass sprouting diarrhea laced invective from their big mouths.
JOHN PODESTA: Well, look, I think the Russians clearly intervened in the election, and I think that the– now we know that the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the FBI, all agree that the Russians intervened to help Trump. They have noted this week.
And, NBC first revealed that Vladimir Putin was personally involved with that. So I think that people went to the polls, they cast their votes, Hillary Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump, but Donald Trump is claiming the electoral college victory, and tomorrow the electors will get to vote.
TODD: You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe this was a free and fair election?
PODESTA: Well, I think it was distorted by Russian intervention, let’s put it that way… A foreign adversary directly intervened in our democratic institution, and tried to tilt the election to Donald Trump. I think that if you look back and see what happened over the past few weeks, you’ll see the way that votes broke. I was highly critical of the way the FBI director managed the situation with respect to the Russian engagement vs. Hillary Clinton’s emails. I think that all had an effect on the election.
READ BELOW – THE RAW FACTS – A WORD FOR PODESTA, SHOVE THESE UP WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE
“Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election!” Trump tweeted. “This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought!”
The start of the 49er gold rush was caused by accident- it was totally unexpected. It happened when James W. Marshall stumbled upon some gold nuggets in the waterwheel at Sutter’s mill in the year of 1848. Word soon got out that there was gold in ” them thar hills.” The gold rush had started.
Today, the economies of the world are fed not by gold but by the ubiquitous paper of reserve banks. As in the Weimar Republic the day of reckoning is one day closer to a catastrophic disaster.
Gold Past $10,000 Gold in 2019 finally burst through the $1,350 ceiling that had been established during the crash of 2013. Gold’s current price of $1,550 may be materially higher than where it has traded over the past six years, and it has returned most gold miners to profitability, but it is nothing compared to where the price of gold is headed. For the benefit of new readers and to jog the memories of long-time followers, let us work through the admittedly circuitous but conceptually simple reasoning behind the reason why the dollar price of gold is heading well above $10,000 per ounce. The first step is to dispense with the quantity theory of money that underlies modern economics. This theory stretches back to the sixteenth century but was given its modern theoretical framework by Irving Fisher, who penned the famous equation that lies at the heart of monetarism: M • V = P • T, where M is the total amount of money in circulation on average, V the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent (its “velocity”), P the price level, and T the number of transactions, or volume of trade. “In short,” wrote Fisher, the quantity theory asserts that (provided velocity of circulation and volume of trade are unchanged) if we increase the number of dollars, whether by renaming coins, or by debasing coins, or by increasing coinage, or by any other means, prices will be increased in the same proportion. It is the number, and not the weight, that is essential. This fact needs great emphasis.* A cursory analysis of Fisher’s equation reveals it to be a tautology: the quantity of money transactions equals the quantity of sales in monetary terms, which is true by definition and thus makes the equation utterly useless.
Also circulating on social media was a video of Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary during President Bill Clinton’s administration, that contradicts Clinton’s claim that Sanders has been ineffective on Capitol Hill.
“He was an effective legislator, in fact one of the most effective legislators,” Reich says, “because the more you work behind the scenes and don’t try to push yourself out there and don’t try to get the limelight, the more effective you can be — which ironically invites the complaint from some people that he was ineffective because he was not in the limelight. He was, behind the scenes, enormously effective.”
Looks like they are all turning on her. Nice person that Hillary. Apparently she wrote the book “On how not to influence your friends and negatively influence people.” Way to go Hillary.
The Department of Justice has reportedly assigned an FBI special agent to work with Immigration and Customs and Enforcement and the Department of Education Inspector General Charge to investigate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for alleged criminal violations relating to perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, federal student loan fraud, and bigamy.
As an immigration lawyer, the very first question that came to mind when I read these reports was what immigration consequences, if any, could attach in the event that any of the above allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. My analysis, unfortunately, has resulted in more unanswerable questions than definitive answers.
My analysis started with the fact that it is widely known Omar was born in Somalia, and immigrated to the United States as a Somali refugee. At some point after her admission to the country, she obtained U.S. citizenship. The Associated Press reported on November 5, 2009, that Omar fled Somalia to a refugee camp in Kenya with her family in 1991. She ultimately immigrated to the United States as a refugee in 1995.
If this report is correct, the analysis is fairly straightforward. Generally speaking, U.S. immigration law permits refugees to apply for permanent residence, commonly known as a “green card,” one-year after arrival. Five years after holding a green card, refugees may then apply to become a citizen through a process called naturalization.
Naturalization applicants must show they meet residency requirements, and have good moral character. It was reported that Omar became a citizen in 2000, five years after her arrival, at the age of 17.
This last detail is important, and is where things start to get murky. If Omar became a U.S. citizen at the age of 17, she must have obtained it through automatic acquisition after the naturalization of at least one of her parents. Omar would not have been able to apply for citizenship on her own because individuals are ineligible to apply for naturalization until age 18.
Here is where it gets really complicated. The requirements for automatic acquisition have changed several times throughout the last century. The marital status of Omar’s parents would determine whether she could have acquired citizenship. I have no details about their marital status to be able to determine if these legal requirements were fulfilled.
However, if Omar did not have to apply for naturalization, it could eliminate one possible crime that she could be charged with: knowingly giving false information in furtherance of an application for citizenship. A conviction for this crime would lead to her denaturalization, resulting in the loss of citizenship, and the institution of removal proceedings to deport her.
But the analysis doesn’t stop there. For Omar to have automatically acquired citizenship, she must also have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, and there are reports questioning the legality of her admission as a refugee.
David Steinberg has covered the Omar saga for several years and has openly questioned whether she is who she says she is. Steinberg has alleged that Omar assumed her name from an unrelated family that was being granted refugee status. Although I have no way to independently assess the veracity of this report, there is circumstantial evidence that this type of immigration fraud was rampant in the circumstances under which Omar was admitted to the United States.
Specifically, in 2009 the Obama administration assessed the viability of re-employing a Bush-era pilot program that unearthed widespread immigration fraud. It found that as many as 87 percent of applications claiming familial relationship were fraudulent. If the reports are ultimately found true, the immigration consequences would be severe, including loss of citizenship and the institution of removal proceedings. Moreover, there may be no defenses to removal in an immigration court setting to stop her deportation.
Assuming arguendo that it is determined that Omar is not a citizen of the United States, and if she is convicted for any of the crimes she is allegedly being investigated for, there would be bars from most forms of relief from removal. Most crimes relating to fraud constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, which would preclude Omar from applying for cancellation of removal as an immigrant who holds no status in the United States.
If she is convicted for tax evasion where loss to the government exceeds $10,000, she will be removable for having an aggravated felony conviction, which also precludes her from applying for asylum. If she is convicted for marriage fraud, she would be ineligible to be sponsored if she were to marry a U.S. citizen. Needless to say, the worst-case scenario is very bleak.
That said, I have more questions than answers, but my preliminary analysis is that Omar is in need of competent immigration counsel to ensure that there is no threat of her losing her citizenship, or, worse, the prospect of deportation back to a country she fled as a child.Matthew L. Kolken has served as an elected director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Board of Governors, where he has been a member since 1997. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on MSNBC, FOX News, and CNN. You may follow Matthew Kolken on Twitter @mkolken.Photo Lorie Shaull / Flickr
