The House Intelligence Committee released its report relating to the Whistleblower Hoax, and it included information derived from telephone records obtained by the Democrats on the committee. That prompted me to retweet a tweet by Adam Schiff with this comment—
The Democrats might want to take note of how the House Impeachment Hoax is being viewed in the Senate. In order to get a conviction, the Democrats must convince 2/3 of the Senate to find against the President. Their tactics aren’t playing well, especially with Republicans.
There’s a big difference between 1974 and 2019. During Watergate, there was overwhelming evidence that Richard Nixon had participated in the attempt to cover up an actual crime, the burglary of the Democrats’ office, and everyone, both Democrats and Republicans, agreed that a crime had been committed. Today, the Democrats have tried for over three years and still haven’t come up with any charge other than First Degree Orange Man Bad. The Russian Collusion Hoax backfired and exposed apparent criminal activity and malfeasance by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Ukrainian Hoax is backfiring, exposing apparent criminal activity and malfeasance by senior executive branch officials and diplomats. (Why, it’s almost enough to make one start to believe in some of those Deep State conspiracy theories!)
In 1974, Republican senators went to the White House and advised Richard Nixon to resign because of the overwhelming evidence against him. Today, Republican senators aren’t impressed by the underwhelming evidence presented thus far—and they and the public are questioning the fairness and honesty of the Democrats’ “investigation” in the House.If the Democrats are stupid enough to pass articles of impeachment against the President, they had better personally lawyer up because they likely will be called as fact witnesses by the Senate. I’ll bet that evidence such as Adam Schiff’s phone records will have been lawfully obtained and will form the basis of some of the questioning.
I’ve previously posted about a group of newspapers filing suit against Maryland to stop the state’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate political advertising on the Internet. The newspapers are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect. The State has filed an opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction.
There will be a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. It was originally scheduled for early October, but the lawyers and Judge Grimm are trying to resolve scheduling conflicts. When the hearing is scheduled, I’ll make arrangements to attend and report on it.
As I’m sure the Gentle Reader has seen elsewhere on the Interwebz, the Parkland High School Children’s Crusade gang is now whining about how their rights are being infringed by having to use transparent book bags at school. David Hogg has complained about how that violated their First Amendment rights.
Having to use a see-through book bag doesn’t infringe on the rights to peaceably assemble or petition the government. It doesn’t infringe on their right to speak. It doesn’t infringe on the rights of a free press. And it’s unclear (pun intended) how it would infringe on anyone’s religious rights.
If he’d tried to make an argument based on the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure of the Fourth Amendment … “secure in their … persons, … papers, and effects” … then he wouldn’t have further revealed his ignorance of the Bill of Rights.
Just as the right of self defense in a natural right, so is the right to remain silent. As the proverb says: Better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and prove it.
Some boneheaded local politician in Massachusetts wants to be able to send the local cops in to gun owners’ homes to “inspect” how their guns are stored. Perhaps this bozo hasn’t heard of the Fourth Amendment. You know, that bit in the Bill of Rights about a warrant being needed for a search.
The guy is a selectman in the town of Swampscott. I wonder how far that is from Lexington and Concord?