Connect with us

News

HERE WE GO: First Republican Rep. Comes Out & Calls For Trump’s Impeachment (Details)

The MSM is about to have a field day…

John Salvatore

Published

on

Well, this isn’t good.

The first sitting Republican Congressman has pretty much declared that President Trump needs to be impeached.

The media is sure to run with this story like they’re being chased.

Check it out…

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

From Politico:

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash became the first Republican lawmaker to declare that President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses and that Attorney General William Barr “deliberately misrepresented” special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Amash, whose libertarian views often put him at odds with Trump and his fellow Republicans, posted a series of tweets Saturday afternoon outlining positions that even some Democrats have been unwilling to embrace — an extraordinary development that comes as Democratic leaders face increasing pressure from progressives to launch impeachment proceedings.

His tweets:

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.

We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.

America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments section…

News

SHADOW WAR: Judge Refuses to Reveal Info About FBI’s Raid on Project Veritas

The First Amendment itself is at stake here.

Published

on

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists.

In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children.

Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public.

A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden.

The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist.

The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks.

In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term to describe someone whose activities are being actively examined by the investigation but who is not currently seen as likely to be charged.

If Cave intended to use the term in that sense, it would raise further questions about the raid on O’Keefe’s home, since prosecutors are not typically permitted to use search or seizure warrants to get unpublished media materials about crimes allegedly committed by others.

O’Keefe’s attorney has said that the conservative provocateur bought the “rights” to publish the diary from two individuals who claimed to have obtained it legally. O’Keefe said the people who turned over the diary found it abandoned in a room where Ashley Biden had been staying.

Project Veritas’ First Amendment rights are very much a central issue in this case, and allowing the US government to decide which journalists qualify for these protections is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists. In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children. Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public. A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer. The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden. The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist. The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks. In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term…

Continue Reading

News

Vaccine Manufacturer Now Says Three Shots Required to Fend Off Omicron

At what point will this all end?

Published

on

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect.

Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance.

But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit.

Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday.

Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said.

The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease.

“Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

The news is sure to elicit some grumbling from the masses, who are very much over the continued hysteria regarding COVID-19.

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect. Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance. But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit. Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron. Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday. Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said. The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease. “Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” The news is sure…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week