RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://nypost.com/2019/10/16/pelosis-impeachment-drive-is-all-politics-no-law/

President Trump won’t budge: He refuses to comply with demands for information because the House has not formally voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

House Democrats won’t budge: Speaker Nancy Pelosi says nothing requires the House to vote for an impeachment inquiry before conducting one.

So who is right? They both are.

We are an over-lawyered society that likes to see itself as governed by the rule of law. In truth, our fundamental law, the Constitution, is about the division of political authority — particularly between the Congress and the executive, the federal government’s political branches.

The ultimate check on presidential power is impeachment. Article I vests the sole power over impeachment in the House of Representatives. (The Senate is assigned the sole power to conduct impeachment trials and decide whether the president should be removed from office.)

Often overlooked, though, is a critical constitutional check on Congress: It is powerless to enforce its own laws and demands for information. Only the president can execute. Congress needs the executive branch’s cooperation.

When presidents believe congressional actions are unconstitutional, they often refuse to cooperate. Congress may threaten contempt and impeachment, but it cannot make the president comply. Our brows furrow as we try to sort out the legal ramifications of all this. But in the main, the fallout is not a legal dispute; it is a political contest.

The Constitution is designed to promote both cooperation and competition between the political branches. Often, the judiciary stays out of these duels, prudently reasoning that the Framers endowed the executive and the legislature with powerful tools to confront each other.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/william-barr-remarks-notre-dame-decline-religiosity/

He singled out for criticism those who believe that, in effect, government social programs could replace the virtues instilled by religion.

Attorney General William Barr finds himself the target of criticism for remarks he made at the University of Notre Dame in which he made the case that a decline in religiosity — and, indeed, attacks on the beliefs of the religious — might have something to do with personal and social dysfunction in the United States.

For this — and his expressed view that “militant secularists” might actually prefer to replace the “traditional moral order” — Barr stands accused of endorsing some sort of Christian theocracy.

Barr, of course, hardly endorsed the idea the church–state divide should be erased in the United States. Nor did he insist that only the religious could live a healthy and productive life. Rather, he singled out for criticism those who believe that, in effect, government social programs could replace the virtues instilled by religion. It’s an important distinction. Since the New Deal, and increasingly since the Great Society, we have done exactly what Barr asserted: We have “called on the state to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility . . .”

One tends to think in this regard of financial social-safety-net programs — the social-welfare state. But much more is involved in what might be termed the social-service state — the huge constellation of social-service “providers” who claim they can use counseling techniques to improve the lives of the addicted, the promiscuous, the domestic abusers. The distribution of federal funds to these not-for-profit organizations has, as Barr suggested, reflected a dramatic shift in values.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/17/why-it-matters-that-sidney-powell-wants-data-from-joseph-mifsuds-smartphones/

While Sidney Powell’s latest motion barely comprised two pages, the implications are multi-pronged and monumental.

On Tuesday, attorney Sidney Powell struck again, revealing yet another huge development in the Spygate saga between the lines of her latest motion. That motion, filed in the still-pending criminal case against Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, demanded exculpatory evidence from federal prosecutors.

But unlike her previously filed motion to compel, here Powell seeks evidence “that has only recently come into its possession.” And the evidence sought? The data and metadata from two Blackberry devices used by Joseph Mifsud.

While Powell’s latest motion barely equaled two pages, the implications are multi-pronged and monumental.

That the U.S. government has only recently obtained possession of a pair of smartphones used by Joseph Mifsud tells us two things: that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into the origins of the Russia-collusion hoax is both serious and successful, and that the Crossfire Hurricane targeting of President Trump and former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were neither.

After all, Mifsud was the man whose tip to young Trump volunteer advisor George Papadopoulos, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, supposedly formed the basis for the FBI to launch Crossfire Hurricane’s targeting of the Trump campaign in late July 2016. Yet no one bothered to interview Mifsud until six months later, when he traveled to D.C. to speak at a conference sponsored by the State Department.

And then the FBI let him go, later blaming Papadopoulos for their inability to properly question the purported Russian agent. Mueller seemed equally uninterested in Mifsud—a strange position to take toward a putative enemy agent.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/a_texas_mayor_defends_the_constitution_from_sharia_law.html

Time and again in every election we see politicians promise everything, and once elected deliver very little or nothing. Beth Van Duyne is a welcome exception and her past record clearly proves it. A person of impeccable integrity, Beth has always remained loyal to the values and wishes of her constituents and has not compromised them on the altar of political expediency so widely practiced by self-promoting politicians. A devoted mother beaming with energy and the talent to get things done, Beth is indeed the kind of person the US Congress desperately needs.

Under Beth’s leadership as a Mayor of Irving, TX, the city became one of the best and safest towns in the great state of Texas. Beth Van Duyne’s achievements attracted the attention of President Trump’s administration and accepted to serve, this time, at the national level in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Office in Fort Worth.

City of Irving Islamic Tribunal

Van Duyne’s reputation soared outside her city since February 2015, when she became aware that some Muslims intended to create a Sharia court in Irving, TX. To follow with her oath of office, she wanted to make sure if in fact, these stories were accurate.  

https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/16/morning-greatness-pelosi-says-there-will-be-no-impeachment-inquiry-vote/

THERE WILL BE NO VOTE

When I watch Pelosi’s highly-choreographed press conferences, I get the feeling she’s trying to convince herself of her righteousness just as much as she is trying to get the public to buy in to the Democrats’ plan.

“There’s no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote,” Pelosi said. “We’re not here to call bluffs — we’re here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious.”

How serious? As serious as the reasons the Democrats needed to impeach Trump after the sensational Mueller Report was released? What happened to those reasons because we were told those were DEADLY serious too.

There will be no vote, not because of any principles, but because Pelosi doesn’t want to put her vulnerable members on the record and she may not have the votes. Why hold a vote that could threaten her majority when there’s no downside and she will not be held accountable with negative media coverage for breaking from the norms and traditions of impeachment. (Why is Trump so dangerous for “breaking norms” but Pelosi’s norm-breaking is glossed right over?) Her clown Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will continue to leak strategic information to the media to help damage the president and ignore the fact that, despite chest thumping about the seriousness of manufactured charges, this is entirely hidden from the public . There is no downside for the Democrats to hold a secret, hidden tribunal to impeach the elected President of the United States. It’s that simple and that’s why it is happening.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-meadows-calls-for-adam-schiff-whistleblower-testify

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., must call the initial Trump-Ukraine whistleblower to testify, according to Rep. Mark Meadows.

“Obviously, tonight, Nancy Pelosi decided to not put a resolution on the floor which would hopefully start the process of it being fair,” Meadows claimed Tuesday on “Hannity.”

“Jim [Jordan] and I have been now in over 40 hours of deposition and what we’re finding is that Adam Schiff only wants to have witnesses who will give the response that he hopes they will give — and even at that it’s a swing and a miss.”

Pointing to reporting earlier this month that the whistleblower allegedly had contact with Schiff’s staff prior to filing his complaint, Meadows said that individual must answer for those claims.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/16/top-diplomat-testified-that-obama-admin-not-international-community-orchestrated-ukraine-prosecutors-firing/

The Obama administration, not the international community, orchestrated the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating a company connected to Joe Biden’s son, a top diplomat testified to Congress yesterday.
October 16, 2019 By Sean Davis

A top U.S. diplomat and expert on Ukraine testified to Congress yesterday that the Obama administration — with former Vice President Joe Biden as its point man — orchestrated the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a company connected to the Biden family, sources familiar with the testimony told The Federalist.

The testimony of George Kent, a State Department official who works on the agency’s Ukraine portfolio, directly contradicts claims that the Obama administration was merely following the lead of the so-called international community in demanding the firing of Viktor Shokin, a controversial Ukrainian prosecutor who was reportedly investigating Burisma, a global energy company long suspected of corruption and money laundering. In 2014, Burisma paid Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, tens of thousands of dollars to sit on its board despite the younger Biden’s complete lack of expertise or professional experience running a multi-national oil and gas concern.

Kent told lawmakers on Tuesday that the Obama administration spearheaded the efforts to have Shokin removed from his position as the top federal prosecutor in Ukraine. Kent said the international community — namely the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Western nations within the European Union — were deferential to U.S. directives on the matter. At a 2018 event organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden — who was tasked by then-President Barack Obama to lead the U.S. government’s efforts in Ukraine — bragged about threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee if the Ukrainian government refused to fire Shokin.

“I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars,” Biden said. “I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/16/volker-testimony-destroys-narrative-of-diplomatic-turmoil-following-ukraine-phone-call/

Former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker told lawmakers under oath that he was never asked to do anything wrong by any member of the administration, including President Trump.

The United States’ former envoy to Ukraine told congressional investigators neither country’s officials were concerned about anything in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until a campaign of leaks alleging abuse of power began surfacing in late August. Far from the media-fed narrative of officials being physically shaken by the call, Kurt Volker told lawmakers no one had expressed any concern to him about it, or about later allegations that requests for Ukraine’s help in corruption investigations was improper.

While Volker was tasked with managing the relationship between the Trump administration and the new government in Ukraine, he only heard that the Biden family had been mentioned in the phone call when anti-Trump bureaucrats began leaking classified details of the phone conversation to media outlets in late August.

Volker testified October 3 for nearly 10 hours behind closed doors after resigning his unpaid post as the State Department’s special envoy to Ukraine. Democratic lawmakers leaked portions of his testimony and text messages to paint a misleading narrative that he had confirmed an alleged quid pro quo of military aid for investigation of Ukrainian corruption.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-pressed-volker-to-say-ukraine-felt-pressure-from-trump

In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

https://usawatchdog.com/

There is only one restraint that’s keeping the oligarchs from crashing the US economy right now. Paul Craig Roberts explains…

Economic expert and award winning journalist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts predicts that the oligarchs of the New World Order (NWO) will do anything to boot President Trump out of office. Dr. Roberts, who has a PhD in Economics and is a former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration, predicts the NWO will take down the financial system as a last resort if all else fails. Dr. Roberts explains, “Now, if they can’t get Trump out, they will crash it. There will be a big crash before the election, and people will blame Trump. That’s about how smart Americans are. Now, there is one constraint for the Fed doing that because the Fed is a tool of the New York banks. If they crash the economy, they are going to crash those New York banks. That’s the only restraint on the elites. That’s their ultimate nuke. If they can’t get him out, they will say, okay, we are going to bring down the economy and too bad for the New York Banks, or they will find some special way to bail them out while everything else goes: the pension funds, the hedge funds, the mutual funds. They will wipe us out in order to get rid of Trump.”

Dr. Roberts says forget about the Left/Right Democrat and Republican paradigm. Dr. Roberts explains, “This isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican thing. This is the elite, the establishment, the oligarchs and the people who rule the country. They are defending their power. Trump was elected by the people. Remember, Hillary called people who voted for Trump ‘deplorables.’ So, the people who go against the elite candidate are ‘deplorable.’ The voters are ‘deplorable.’ That’s what this is about. They have to get him out for that reason. They also know if they get him out for that reason, every other person that would step forward and actually try to lead the country rather than serve the ruling class, that person will know that he hasn’t a chance. Even if he gets into office, he’s going to be excoriated, framed up, lied about and driven out. Nobody will want that grief.”