Rep to introduce more impeachment articles…

Capture

Rep. Steve Cohen (D), a Tennessee liberal, announced Thursday that he will introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump based on his defense of the white supremacists who participated in a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend. 

“Instead of unequivocally condemning hateful actions by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Klansmen following a national tragedy, the President said ‘there were very fine people on both sides.’ There are no good Nazis. There are no good Klansmen,” Cohen said in a statement.

“President Trump has failed the presidential test of moral leadership.”

Cohen’s decision follows on the heels of a similar effort by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who last month introduced his own articles of impeachment contending Trump obstructed justice amid the federal investigation into Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election. Rep. Al Green(D-Texas) is the only other Democrat to endorse Sherman’s resolution.

Democratic leaders have sought throughout the year to discourage such an aggressive strategy against Trump, fearing that it could both undercut the ongoing Russia investigations and politicize those probes in ways that might damage Democrats in their districts. The Democrats last month launched a 2018 messaging agenda that doesn’t mention Trump at all.

But last weekend’s violent marches in Charlottesville have sparked new levels of Democratic outrage against the president, whose initial response was to blame “many sides” for the bloodshed in Virginia; he has now doubled down on that contention. Speaking Tuesday from Trump Tower in New York City, the president condemned the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence” of groups like neo-Nazis, but also accused the counterprotesters — the “alt-left,” by his term — of being “very, very violent” and contributing to the tragic events.

“You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent,” Trump said on Tuesday from Trump Tower in Manhattan. “Nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now.”

The Democrats have pounded Trump relentlessly over his response, and at least two House lawmakers — Reps. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and Jackie Spier (D-Calif.) — have called this week for his removal from office. Speier, in doing so, invoked the 25th Amendment, which outlines Congress’s impeachment powers, but stopped short of announcing plans to introduce her own articles of impeachment.

Cohen, who last month had introduced a resolution of no confidence in Trump, said the Charlottesville episode left them no choice but to take the effort a step further in pushing for impeachment.

“As a Jew and as an American and as a representative of an African American district, I am revolted by the fact that the President of the United States couldn’t stand up and unequivocally condemn Nazis who want to kill Jews and whose predecessors murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, and could not unequivocally condemn Klansmen whose organization is dedicated to terrorizing African Americans,” Cohen said.

“No moral president would ever shy away from outright condemning hate, intolerance and bigotry.”

Watch: Maxine Waters Doesn’t Rule Out All-Black Political Party

In a Monday appearance on “The Breakfast Club” radio show, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) left the door open for an all-black political party.

Host Charlamagne Tha God asked Waters if black people should start their own political party.

“No, not at this point,” Waters responded. “You’ve got to show that you’re willing and you’re able to put the numbers together and exercise your influence. We still are not voting our influence yet. What we should do is organize our power, exercise our power, particularly in the Democratic Party because that’s where most of us are.”

Waters said once black people are “strong enough” is when they can talk about organizing their own political party.

Ed

If Anglos formed an “exclusive” political party based solely on race, #MadMaxine would be the first to scream “racism” at the top of her lungs. She’s nuts and needs to be either ignored or investigated by the FBI for living far beyond her means.

OBAMA DOJ GAVE NATALIA SPECIAL ENTRY MYSTERY SURROUNDS VESELNITSKAYA

http://www.zerohedge

Tyler Durden's picture
Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 9.09.36 AM

Why Did Loretta Lynch Grant Trump Jr’s Russian Lawyer A Special Visa To Enter America?

With everyone now rummaging through every document, intercept, and memo for something, anything tying Trump to Russia, The Hill’s John Solomon and Jonathan Easley have unearthed details that show the Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by Loretta Lynch‘s Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” after she had initially been turned down.

Simply put, as The Hill notes, this revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.

The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.

 

During a court hearing in early January 2016 as Veselnitskaya’s permission to stay in the country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.

 

“In October the government bypassed the normal visa process and gave a type of extraordinary permission to enter the country called immigration parole,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing Jan. 6, 2016.

 

“That’s a discretionary act that the statute allows the Attorney General to do in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, we did that so that Mr. Katsyv could testify. And we made the further accommodation of allowing his Russian lawyer into the country to assist,” he added.

 

The prosecutor said Justice was willing to allow the Russian lawyer to enter the United States again as the trial in the case approached so she could help prepare and attend the proceedings.

But just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, it seems the Justice Department had lost track of her… (as The Hill details)

Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.

She also helped arrange an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. where pro-Russian supporters showed a movie that challenged the underpinnings of the U.S. human rights law known as the Magnitysky Act, which Russian leader Vladimir Putin has reviled and tried to reverse. About 80 people, including congressional staffers and State Department employees attended the viewing at the Newseum.

At least five congressional staffers and State Department officials attended that movie showingaccording to a Foreign Agent Registration Act complaint filed with the Justice Department about Veselnitskaya’s efforts.

And Veselnitskaya also attended a dinner with the chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing Russia policy, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and roughly 20 other guests at a dinner club frequented by Republicans.

All of which was a far cry from the narrow reason the U.S. government initially gave for allowing Veselnitskaya into the U.S. in late 2015, according to federal court records.

“There’s zero doubt that she and her U.S. colleagues were lobbying to repeal Magnitsky or at least ensure his name was removed from the global law Congress was considering,” said U.S. businessman William Browder, who was the main proponent for the Magnitsky Act and who filed a FARA complaint against Veselnitskaya, Dellums and other U.S. officials claiming they should have registered as foreign agent lobbyists because of the work.

Furthermore, as The Hill notes, the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York confirmed Wednesday to The Hill that it let Veselnitskaya into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 to early January 2016.

Justice Department and State Department officials could not immediately explain how the Russian lawyer was still in the country in June for the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the events in Washington D.C.

Maybe Washington is a “sanctuary for Russian operatives” City?

We look forward to the hearing where Lynch has to explain how she gave this “russian operative” special access to America, then lost track of her, only to discover her again via NSA intercepts, trying to pitch Magnitsky Act repeal to Trump Jr.

‘For high crimes and misdemeanors’: Dem Congressman submits resolution to impeach Trump

Representative Brad Sherman (D-California) has introduced a resolution to impeach President Donald Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” including obstruction of justice over the president’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

*

The initiative, submitted to the House of Representatives, claims the president has “prevented, obstructed and impeded” a federal investigation into his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn.

*

Trump “sought to use his authority to hinder and cause the termination of such investigation(s) including through threatening then terminating James Comey who was until such termination the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” reads the proposed resolution.

In May, Trump abruptly fired Comey as the FBI director was leading an investigation into potential collusion between Trump’s aides and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential race.

A month later, Comey testified in Congress on the conversations he had with the president, which he said led him to believe that Trump asked him to stop looking into Flynn.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy,” Comey remembered Trump saying, according to Comey’s written notes of their meeting.

The conversation took place on February 14, according to Comey’s memos ‒ the day after Flynn was fired over misleading Vice President Mike Pence about contacts he had with Russia’s ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak.

However, when asked during the June Congressional hearing if Trump “at any time” asked him to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 US elections,” Comey replied: “Not to my understanding, no.”

Even though many Democrats have accused Trump of obstruction of justice, party leaders seemed reluctant to formally back an initiative to impeach him when the calls first came in May.

Currently, the only co-sponsor on Sherman’s proposed House resolution is Representative Al Green (D-Texas). 

Green was the first Congressman to call for Trump’s impeachment from the House floor in May.

*

“President Trump is not above the law. He has committed an impeachable act and must be charged,” Green said in a statement.

“Our mantra should be ‘I.T.N. – Impeach Trump Now,’” he said.

Impeachment is a three-part process outlined in the Constitution. It begins in the House of Representatives, where a simple majority can vote to impeach a federal official for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The definition is vague and has long been debated. In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Once the House has voted to impeach, the issue heads to the Senate, which holds a trial. If the official in question is the president, then the chief justice of the US Supreme Court is the presiding judge, otherwise it is the vice president in his role as president of the Senate. The Senate needs a two-thirds majority, or 67 out of 100 votes, to find an official guilty and remove that person from office.

Only two presidents ‒ Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 ‒ have ever been impeached by the House, both of which history has judged to be highly partisan proceedings. Neither was convicted by the requisite two-thirds majority in the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, rather than go through an impeachment vote in the House.

Democrats squabble behind closed doors over Trump impeachment plan

Democrats in Congress almost always unite when it comes to opposing President Donald Trump, but strategy sessions are reportedly blowing up over California Representative Brad Sherman’s controversial plan to bring articles of impeachment.

*

During a weekly meeting of House Democrats, many of Sherman’s colleagues protested his decision, according to The Hill. Sherman’s articles of impeachment were circulated through the House of Representatives on Monday.

*

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) urged her party to steer their energy toward issues such as the economy. Others took issue with other possible consequences of focusing on impeachment.

Representative Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) argued that there had to be “a discussion within the caucus, in a public forum, before we do something that would position our colleagues or our future colleagues.”

Capuano went on to say that “emotions are high,” referring to the recent controversy with Comey’s high-profile testimony before members of congress.

Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) went even further in his objection to Sherman’s impeachment plans.

Sherman responded to his colleagues’ concerns after the meeting.

“I said, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m not doing anything until I consult with colleagues and leadership,” the California congressman said, adding, “I think the Republican leadership is entitled a few weeks to decide what to do with this article.”

Representative Al Green (D-Texas) stood in solidarity with Sherman, saying, Trump “continues to validate the reasons why he should be impeached.”

Green is referring to reported rumors that Trump was considering firing former FBI chief Robert Mueller, the recently appointed special counsel to head the probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Joseph Crowley (New York) said: “There is a need for a family discussion before any issue of this magnitude is brought further.”

“It is a courtesy to our colleagues,” he added.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-California) chimed in to say “any member can introduce any piece of legislation that they want. We are a big tent party.” She added: “But again, I believe that I speak on behalf of the leadership and probably the majority of the caucus when I say that people are waiting to see where the investigation leads.”

Last week Comey spoke out about a meeting with Trump where he accused the president of lying about what happened during one of their previous encounters.

There is a belief among top Democrats that there has not been sufficient evidence presented yet to take such drastic measures as to try and impeach Trump. According to Politico, 71 percent of Democratic voters support impeachment proceedings against the president.

 

The BRUTAL Truths Leftists Who “Want A Revolution” Need to Realize

Screen Shot 2017-06-03 at 3.09.21 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-03 at 3.10.33 PM

Brian Thomas reports that there have been continued efforts for secession which have gained a surprising amount of support in Texas and California, and other secession efforts are gaining momentum in Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, and New York.

Who is working towards secession? Plans to secede already in the works in California may put the issue to vote by 2018.

Pewtrusts reports:

Just last month, a longshot effort to allow Californians to vote on seceding fell apart after one of the founders dropped out amid criticism of his ties to Russia. But a new group pushing secession has vowed to collect the nearly 600,000 signatures required by July to put the measure on the November 2018 ballot.

Meanwhile, secession efforts in Texas are growing as well.

Pewtrusts continues:

Last May, the Texas Nationalist Movement came within two votes of adding Texas independence language to the state’s Republican platform. And in Oklahoma, Republican state Sen. Joseph Silk in January introduced a bill to remove the word “inseparable” from the sentence in the state constitution describing Oklahoma as “an inseparable part of the Federal Union.”

The move for independence, whether it’s from the right of the political spectrum as in Texas, or the left as in California, reflects the political division felt across the country, said Edward Meisse, a supporter of the Yes California secession group that just disbanded. “We have two diametrically opposed philosophies in our country, and we’re just not getting anywhere,” he said. “I think we should allow states to secede so California can be California and Texas can be Texas.”Screen Shot 2017-06-03 at 3.17.19 PM

What are the legal grounds for secession? Since the constitution doesn’t bring up secession, many feel that the issue should go to the courts. Others feel the debate has already been settled.

From Pewtrusts:

Despite the heightened interest in secession, many lawyers and constitutional scholars say it’s legally impossible for a state to secede because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue, and has no provision to allow it.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in an 1869 case, Texas vs. White, that the United States is “an indestructible union.” And the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2006 letter that “if there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

Has there been talk of secession in your state? Let us know what you think, and sound off in the comments below.