Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

Welcome to my blog!

Its About Time Girls
Posted:Jun 20, 2019 3:46 am
Last Updated:Jun 20, 2019 2:14 pm

Three Connecticut high school girls have filed a federal discrimination complaint against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for allowing biological males who identify as female to compete in the same athletic events as biological females. The trio asserts that the inclusion of transgender athletes creates unfair competition and violates numerous federal rules.

"Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field," said the students' legal representative, Christiana Holcomb, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom. "Women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides. Allowing boys to compete in girls' sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women under this law. We shouldn't force these young women to be spectators in their own sports."

The Alliance Defending Freedom filed the complaint on behalf of the girls with the U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights yesterday. According to CBS, the complaints "cites the federal Title IX rules aimed at equal rights in sports for female athletes."

The CIAC governs high school sports in Connecticut and argues that its "follows a state anti-discrimination law requiring students to be treated in school according to the gender with which they identify. That means that athletes can compete according to their expressed gender identity as opposed to their sex assigned at birth."
Earlier this year, national attention was drawn to Connecticut after the success of two transgender athletes were allowed to compete in what were supposed to be all girls track events. The two athletes in question, not surprisingly, absolutely dominated the rest of the league.

"We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it's demoralizing," Selina Soule, one of the Connecticut students who filed the complaint, said at the time. "I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair."

As pointed out Tuesday night on Tucker Carl Tonight by Holcomb, the biological males are ruining women sports altogether in Connecticut.

"I'm sorry to underscore the inequity here, I'm going to highlight the fact one of these male athletes now holds ten records inside the state of Connecticut that were once held by ten individual girls and were established over the course of about a twenty year period," Holcomb told Carl. "So it's fundamentally unfair to allow biological males to step into women's sports and frankly dominate them and take away opportunities not just to medal but to be at the podium to advance at the next level of competition and even compete for scholarships for young women like Selena."
The parents of the male-to-female competitors, however, say that it would be their ren who are discriminated against if they were not allowed to participate in girls' track.

"As a human being — not as Andraya's father — it's disappointing that, in 2019, we're still debating who gets to participate and who doesn't," Rashaan Yearwood, father of the student in question Andraya Yearwood, told CBS. "You would hope we'd gotten to a place in 300-plus years as a country that we're not debating who should be included, and who should not be. There is no place for exclusion."

Carl asked Soule whether she has gained any supporters from her team. Her response shows just how serious this problem is.

"Selena, do other girls on your team feel the way that you do that opportunities are being taken from you by biological males?" Carl wondered.

"Yes no one in the state of Connecticut is happy about this but no one has enough courage to speak up. And I haven't been the only one affected by this," Soule replied. "There have been countless other female athletes in the state of Connecticut as well as my entire indoor track team. We missed out on winning the state Open Championship because of the team that the transgender athletes were on."

By Timothy Meads
Some Things for You to Think About
Posted:Jun 19, 2019 10:00 am
Last Updated:Jun 20, 2019 8:08 am

I was thinking;
If only million people have Obama-Care, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will an additional million people be randomly shot?
I was thinking;
If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent.
I was thinking;
If women do the same job for less , why do companies hire men to do the same job for more ?
I was thinking;
If you rob a bank in a Sanctuary City, is it illegal or is it just an Undocumented Withdrawal?
I was thinking;
Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs.
I was thinking;
We should stop calling them all 'Entitlements'. Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, ad nauseam are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veterans Benefits are Entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and for by the recipients.
I was thinking;
If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does mean they're Islamophobic?
I was thinking;
If Liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights?
I was thinking;
How did the Russians get Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders? How did Russia get Donna Brazile to leak debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debates?
I was thinking;
Why is it Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College?
I was thinking;
If you don't want the FBI involved in elections, don't nominate someone who's being investigated by the FBI.
I was thinking;
If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows up to her free ones?
I was thinking;
The DNC is mad at Russia because they 'think' they are trying to manipulate our election by exposing the DNC is manipulating our election.
I was thinking;
If Democrats don't want foreigners involved in our elections, why do they think it's all right for illegals to vote?

Posted on another site by my friend Carol Stowers
Oh No not Mrs Clinton
Posted:Jun 18, 2019 3:46 pm
Last Updated:Jun 19, 2019 1:48 pm

Here's a Brand New List of Security Violations From Hillary Clinton's State Department

Former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and current Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley revealed late Wednesday that the State Department has found 30 incidents of mishandling classified information Secretary Hillary Clinton.

"The State Department has identified 23 violations and infractions in its ongoing review of the mishandling of classified information associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a non-government server for official business. The revelations came in an update Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), has been leading congressional oversight into the mishandling of classified information and the alienation of federal records," Grassley's office released in a statement. "The State Department’s update noted that individuals were assessed for violations or infractions, and some of them were found culpable of multiple security incidents. Individuals with a security violation or or more infractions have been referred the proper officials for documentation and possible discipline. The department also acknowledged that the of violations and infractions may change as the investigation progresses."

Grassley has been requesting information about the mishandling and exposure of top secret, classified information on Clinton's unsecure, peral server for years. The State Department has slow walked their response to his inquiries and has failed to pull security clearances from individuals found to have mishandled highly sensitive information.

"Consistent with longstanding policy, the Department does not release the names of current or former employees participating in the security incident program. However, in the spirit of cooperation, the Department can share with you certain information about the status of the ongoing review. To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to individuals, some of whom were culpable in multiple security incidents. DS has issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents FAM 550. This will likely change as the review
progresses," a letter from the State Department Grassley states. "In every instance in which the Department found an individual be culpable of a valid security violation or or more infractions, the Department forwarded the outcome the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Office of Pernel Security and Suitability (DS/PSS), be placed in the individuals' official security file."

While the FBI did not charge Clinton with a crime for repeatedly mishandling classified information, former Director James Comey did say the former Secretary of State and her staff were "extremely careless."
"There is evidence they [Clinton and staff] were extremely careless in their handling of classified information," Comey said in July 20. " hundred-and- emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. of those chains contained information that was top secret, at the time they were sent, 36 of those chains contained secret information and contained confidential information at the time."

By Katie Pavlich
Joe, Mika, and Leaf
Posted:Jun 18, 2019 3:36 am
Last Updated:Jun 18, 2019 5:12 am

Joe Scarborough was once the most pro-Trump cable news host on cable television. Now, his crusade against every action of the Trump Administration has turned him into a compulsive liar. On Friday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough added to his laundry list of lies by claiming that Hillary Clinton never received information about her political opponents from overseas:

Scarborough's own words: " There is also -- there was this remarkable attempt by Republicans to lie again about Hillary Clinton saying, well, yes, Donald Trump said he might get information from the Iranians or the Chinese or the Russians or from foreign governments to try to influence democracy, but Hillary Clinton did it too. That's just obviously a lie. I expect unfortunately too many Republicans on Capitol Hill to spread those lies. Some friends of mine that I follow on Twitter were doing the same thing yesterday."

This is simply not true. In November 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that the infamous Trump dossier, gathered using Kremlin sources and authored by former British MI-6 agent Christopher Steele, was paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. Hillary Clinton herself later endorsed her Russian-sourced dossier on the Daily Show , saying that “it’s part of what happens on a campaign,” essentially taking the same position that Trump did in his recent Oval Office interview with George Stephanopoulos.

Using foreign sources for opposition research is immoral no matter who does it, but the constant dishonesty and double standards that come out of the media regarding foreign influence in American elections is astounding.

From article by Gregory Price

I am sure you all have heard of The Three Musketeers, allow me to name Joe, Mika and Leaf as The Three Nincompoops.
1 comment
Congress has no right to Trump tax returns – Justice Department makes right decision
Posted:Jun 15, 2019 7:47 pm
Last Updated:Jun 16, 2019 4:47 pm

President Trump won a victory Friday when the Justice Department said Congress does not have the right to see his tax returns. More importantly, all American taxpayers won a victory, because the Justice Department memo regarding Trump’s returns has the effect of upholding the privacy and confidentially of all our tax returns as well.

If Congress is allowed to examine the president’s tax returns, the next step will be demands by lawmakers to examine the tax returns of others – political activists and opponents, members of unpopular groups, religious minorities, and who knows who else.

And if you think this isn’t possible, just think back to the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and the files he kept on many Americans he considered to be dangerous subversives – including civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King.

Even if you can’t stand President Trump and think he should be impeached, remember that giving government the power to act against someone you oppose also gives government the power to act against someone you support – or perhaps even against you perally.

Importantly, the provision of the tax code that Democrats are seeking to use to get Trump’s tax returns could also be used to get the tax returns of other Americans as well, should Trump lose his fight to keep his tax returns confidential.

The 33-page opinion protecting the confidentially of tax returns was written by Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel, who heads the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. It is based on an appropriate reading of the law.
The Office of Legal Counsel is the office within Justice that provides legal advice to the president and all executive agencies, including on the proper interpretation of laws and the Constitution.

To no one’s surprise, Democrats are attacking the Justice Department memo as a political document designed to protect President Trump. Yet in fact, the rea Democrats want to see the Trump tax returns is blatantly political. They want to use the information in the returns in possible impeachment proceedings against the president and to campaign against Trump’s re-election.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has led the fight by House Democrats to get years of Trump’s peral and business tax returns, has indicated Democrats will file a lawsuit seeking access to the tax returns.

The Justice Department opinion concludes that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was legally justified in refusing to turn over the Trump tax returns that Neal’s committee asked for.
As I have explained previously, the Justice Department opinion should come as no surprise, given the privacy protections contained in federal law ensuring the confidentiality of tax returns and the invalid reas given by Neal for demanding the returns.

The opinion reviews the relevant federal statute, 26 U.S.C. § 63, which prohibits federal officials from disclosing tax returns.

There is an exception in the law that says the Treasury Department secretary shall provide tax return information upon “written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.” No rea has to be given for the request.

However, the Justice Department opinion released Friday points , Congress cannot “constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose.” The opinion cites numerous court decisions, including by the Supreme Court, that have made this clear.

The opinion goes into great detail examining the background behind the demand for the president’s tax returns. After reviewing that history, the Office of Legal Counsel says that Secretary Mnuchin “reaably and correctly concluded that the Committee’s asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue ’s audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President’s tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.”
Rep. Neal claimed that the rea for the demand to see the Trump tax returns was to examine the “extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.”

But if that was the case, asked the Office of Legal Counsel, why did Neal ask for Trump’s tax returns “for many years before his presidency.”

Furthermore, the Office of Legal Counsel noted that Neal did not ask for “any information concerning the IRS’s actual policies or practices governing presidential audits or the audit histories for any President other than President Trump.”

Based on these “discrepancies in the public record,” it was obvious that Neal had “not articulated the real rea for his request,” the Justice Department opinion found.

The opinion concluded that this is especially true given that Neal’s demand represented “the culmination of a sustained effort over more than two years to seek the public release of President Trump’s tax returns” by Neal and numerous other Democrats in the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The opinion summed up the “sustained effort” by pointing that Neal and other members of Congress made “clear their intent to acquire and release the President’s tax returns” throughout 20 and 2018.
Referring to Democrats, the opinion states: “They offered many different justifications for such an action, suggesting that releasing the returns would ‘honor tradition,’ show ‘what the Russians have on Donald Trump,’ reveal a potential ‘Chinese connection,’ inform tax reform legislation, provide the ‘clearest picture of his health,’ and expose any alleged emoluments received by the president from foreign governments.

But alleged “oversight” of the IRS audit process of the tax returns of presidents “had never been the focus of their demands” until Neal’s letter to the Treasury Department in April, according to the memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Clearly, the effort by Democrats to get President Trump’s tax returns is not over. We can now expect a long and expensive legal battle – financed by your tax dollars – as Democrats continue their singular focus on investigation of the president instead of legislation to improve the lives of the American people and strengthen our nation.

Opinion by Hans A. von Spakovsky
Ilhan Omar CONVICTED, Here’s Her Penalty
Posted:Jun 15, 2019 4:34 am
Last Updated:Jun 19, 2019 1:41 am

Was justice served here? You be the judge…

Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar has been caught lying on past federal and state tax returns about her marital status, yet will seemingly face little to no real consequences for doing so.

While a scandal of this nature would utterly destroy a Republican, Omar gets a pass.

If a Republican was caught lying like this the media would trumpet the fact day and night until the politician finally resigned in disgrace.

Not Omar however. For Omar, because she’s a Democrat, because she’s a woman, and because she’s a Muslim, she gets a pass.

More from The Hill:

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board last week ordered Omar to repay her state House campaign committee nearly in funds used in violation of law, as well as pay to the state a civil penalty.

But the report issued by the board also revealed that Omar and her current husband Ahmed Hirsi filed joint tax returns in 2014 and 2015, while Omar was still legally married to another man, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

What The Hill story leaves out, of course, is that “other man” Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is Omar’s brother.

Omar and Hirsi first became engaged in 2002. They never legally married, but had two ren together before separating in 2008. She married Elmi in 2009 and she said the two obtained divorce in their Muslim faith tradition — albeit not a legal one — in 2011.

Omar and Hirsi reconciled after that and had a third together in 2012. She filed to divorce Elmi in 2017, and legally married Hirsi in 2018.

At issue were her joint tax filings with Hirsi in 2014 and 2015, which were filed when she was still married to Elmi.

The Hill obviously tries to cover for Omar, but it’s next to impossible. Again a Republican would be destroyed for much less.

Here’s the worst part:

While filing a joint tax return where no legal marriage exists violates both federal and state law, there are no signs that the discrepancy is being treated as a criminal matter. The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board never referred the tax case to county prosecutors and the IRS rarely treats such cases as criminal matters.

The Hill calls Omar’s transgression a “discrepancy” but I call it lying on your tax returns.
Not sure the IRS, or The Hill would treat a Republican lawmaker, or any of us, so leniently for such a flagrant violation.

From Capital Hill
Flag Day June 14 2019
Posted:Jun 14, 2019 7:48 am
Last Updated:Jun 14, 2019 11:13 am

Yes its flag day.

Why is Flag Day celebrated?

Flag Day honors a June , 77, Second Continental Congress resolution about a flag for the country.
"Resolved, that the Flag of the thir United States shall be thir stripes, alternate red and white; that the Union be thir stars, white on a blue field, representing a new constellation," it said.

In 19, President Woodrow Wil issued a proclamation that officially established June as Flag Day; on August 3, 1949, National Flag Day was established by an Act of Congress.

President Donald Trump, who was coincidentally born on June , 1946, proclaimed Flag Day and Flag Week.

There has been a lot of dissent over how to conduct ones self when our nations colors are presented. The following is from the American Legion:

During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, those present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other pers present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.
Virginia Democrats Show their Idiocy
Posted:Jun 13, 2019 5:46 am
Last Updated:Jun 14, 2019 11:12 am

What a crew Virginia Democrats nominate a twice disbarred lawyer, after he impregnated a aged intern. Ah yes, Joe Morrissey, who unseated a state senate incumbent to become the party's nominee -- winning 56 percent of the vote. Remember this guy? Here's a news account from 2014.

Embattled Virginia State Delegate Joe Morrissey (D – Henrico) announced Thursday morning that he will resign from his seat in the General Assembly Thursday...Morrissey was sentenced to serve six months in jail after he entered an Alford plea in Henrico Court on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Morrissey did not admit he broke the law, but did admit there was enough evidence to convict him. The plea came days before Morrissey was scheduled to go on trial on charges of taking indecent liberties with a minor and possession of pornography. The charges stemmed from allegations Morrissey was involved in an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old member of his legal staff.

He went to jail for his sex crime, and won a special election in his blue district from behind bars. He emphatically denied sexual contact with the aged intern, then denied paternity of the baby she delivered months later. He finally admitted the was his. In addition to being a convicted sex offender, he's also a disbarred lawyer: "Morrissey is no stranger to controversy. His law license was suspended after he had been cited for contempt 10 times and he was jailed or forcibly detained for misconduct five times, according to court papers. His license was revoked in 2003 for failing to tell s he had been suspended." Morrissey's license was reinstated for awhile, then was revoked again in 2018. Here's a federal court's ringing endorsement of this gem's ethics:

"Frequent episodes of unethical, contumacious, or otherwise inappropriate conduct mar Joseph D. Morrissey's career as prosecutor and private defense attorney...Evidence…demonstrates Morrissey's 15-year history of contempt citations, reprimands, fines, suspensions, and even incarcerations arising from unprofessional conduct mostly involving an uncontrollable temper, inappropriate responses to stress and dishonesty."

Morrissey now wants a promotion to the Senate. Democratic voters seem to like the idea. Their taste in leaders is, per usual, impeccable.

Article by Guy Ben
Adding Insult to Idiocy
Posted:Jun 12, 2019 7:43 am
Last Updated:Jun 14, 2019 2:23 pm

The California Assembly voted 44- in favor of a bill last week broadens state Medicaid coverage to include illegal immigrants to the tune of more than $3 billion annually.

Under federal law, Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, provides health care to low-income citizens. Assembly Bill 4, if passed, would eliminate the existing citizenship requirements to receive benefits.

The bill would “extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals of all ages, if otherwise eligible for those benefits, but for their immigration status, and would delete provisions delaying eligibility and enrollment.”
In other words, under AB 4, illegal immigrants over 19 years old would receive the same full scope Medi-Cal benefits as taxpaying citizens, including keeping their chosen primary care provider.

Though the proposal now travels to the state Senate, there is still debate among Democrats about which illegal immigrants should qualify for these benefits.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, concerned over the $3.4 billion yearly increase from the bill, has advocated extending coverage for illegal aliens who are between 19 and 25 years old, costing about $98 million annually. His 2019-2020 budget already proposes $22.9 billion for Medi-Cal from the general fund of $0.7 billion.

The state Senate has put forward a budget proposal would also include coverage for illegal immigrants of 65 years and older.
But Democratic state legislators like state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, who co-authored the legislation, maintains the services should be available to all low-income people.

“They work in our hotels, they work picking the fruit and vegetables, they work as landscapers, they work in hospitals,” Durazo told The Wall Street Journal in an interview about the bill. “I don’t think they should be treated differently from other Californians.”

Sally Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based, free-market think tank, told The Daily Signal:

Paying for the health care of the undocumented in California is, in effect, a tax on people who are here legally. It would make California an even larger magnet for more illegal immigration into the state—putting incredible additional pressure on future state budgets. If taxpayers protest with their feet by moving out of state, there will be fewer taxpayers left in California to cover skyrocketing health care costs and more pressure on the people who remain to pay for these programs.

Proponents of the bill like the California Endowment, a state nonprofit public benefit corporation, claim in their #Health4All campaign because “undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to California’s economy,” they deserve the same access to health care services as its citizens.
#Health4All appears to be gaining support:

The highest concentration of illegal immigrants is in Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Clara counties; the Inland Empire; and the San Joaquin Valley, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. The policy group estimates about half of the state’s illegal immigrants have incomes low enough to be eligible for Medi-Cal coverage.
The proposal, first introduced on Dec. 3, 2018, moves on to the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Considering California is already in debt.

According to a January 20 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 20.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”

In other words, $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit. Other studies believe it to be more. Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household. Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.

Sources Leah Barkoukis and Fox News
Another Fishing Expedition
Posted:Jun 11, 2019 6:02 am
Last Updated:Jun 13, 2019 4:15 am

Another fishing expedition, former Clinton pollster Mark Penn thinks so. In his recent interview on Life, Liberty and Levin made the following observations.

There would be calls for President Trump's impeachment if he investigated lawmakers as fervently as they've probed him and his family, Mark Penn claimed.

He said he believed the numerous investigations led by congressional Democrats into Trump, his family and his administration have blurred the lines between "legitimate legislative inquiry" and "government-financed opposition research."
Penn claimed the voters understand that a thorough investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller "is enough."

"Now saying: 'Hey let's get some of these tax returns -- oh, let's get the tax returns of their ren, their family. Let's go back in history,' that's government-financed opposition research, that's not legitimate legislative inquiry," he said.

"It'll be very hard, I think, for the courts to sort this out."

Penn claimed some Democratic House committee chairs who are investigating Trump or seeking peral data like tax returns have made statements that "indict the purpose" of their probes.

He said he believed Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, are two such lawmakers.

"If the courts were willing to use some statement that Donald Trump made on the campaign trail, they have hundreds and hundreds of statements that these congressmen -- and particularly Nadler and Schiff -- have made that really indict the purpose of these investigations as nothing more but going after people who are associated with Trump just because they are working for the president," Penn said. "And, going after Trump and his entire family in ways that are unprecedented -- in ways that we would normally have impeached people for."

"If the president of the United States did the reverse, and ordered up all the tax returns of everybody in Congress, and started to look into all the business affairs of those folks in Congress, how long would he be president? He'd be impeached, right then and there."

Last month, Nadler accused the White House of "stonewalling" his committee's investigation by asserting executive privilege in not complying with subpoenas.
"They are uniformly rejecting subpoenas from Congress. This means that they have decided to oppose the role of Congress as a coordinate branch of government representing the American people," Nadler said.

Nadler later said in an interview there "certainly is" justification for impeachment proceedings, but added the American people must agree with that view before further steps are taken.

“Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it. The American people, right now, do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts," he said.
In an interview with HBO's Bill Maher, Schiff hedged when asked about impeaching Trump, telling the comedian he'd rather see the American people "vote his a-- out."

By Charles Creitz

To link to this blog (bigblock46) use [blog bigblock46] in your messages.