iranprotest

In Iran, large protests against the Iranian regime are happening right now.  You can read and view more here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/iran-opens-fire-on-demonstrators-protesters-chant-our-enemy-is-here-they-lie-to-us-that-its-america%22 (Warning: violent content).

 

 

As predicted, the House passed articles of impeachment along a partisan vote:

 

article1

article2

 

Democrats Collin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew voted “no” on both articles.  Democrat Jared Golden voted “no” on the second article only.  Democrat Tulsi Gabbard voted “present” on both articles.

This is the fourth impeachment inquiry in the House, but only the third indictment.  (President Nixon resigned before the House vote.)  This is the FIRST impeachment indictment NOT to be bi-partisan.   In fact, the reason Nixon resigned was that the Republicans in Congress assured him that a majority would vote for impeachment.

It is also the FIRST impeachment indictment of a President WITHOUT evidence of a crime.  (Bill Clinton committed perjury.  Richard Nixon withheld evidence of a crime.  Andrew Johnson technically broke a hurriedly approved statute, although the Supreme Court nulled it, soon after impeachment, as unconstitutional.)  “Abuse of Power” is not a statutory crime.  Neither is “Obstruction of Congress.”

Also a FIRST is Speaker Pelosi’s threat to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate.  But the Senate can just draw the articles from the Congressional Record, most likely with a simple rule change in the Senate Judicial Committee.

I can’t help noting that the House Democrats have made Russia, China, North Korea and Iran very happy today.

 

Attorney General Barr summarizes what happened when the Obama Justice Department decided to “investigate” candidate and then President Trump :

I think the big picture is this. From day one… of this investigation on July 31st, 2016, and all the way to its end in September 2017, there was not one bit of incriminatory evidence to come in. It was all exculpatory … So what happens? The FBI ignores it and presses ahead. Withholds… critical exculpatory information from the [FISA] Court while it gets an electronic surveillance warrant. It withholds from the Court clear-cut evidence that the dossier that they ultimately relied on to get the FISA warrant, was a complete sham. They hid information about the lack of reliability even the first time they went for a warrant but in January after the election, the entire case collapsed after the principal source says “I never told Steele this stuff.”

… At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president well into his administration… But here to me is the damning thing. They not only didn’t tell the court that what they were relying on was completely rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster the Steele report by saying, “Well, we talked to the sources and they appear to be truthful. But don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is false.”

When asked if the Attorney General still believes the FBI was “spying” on the Trump Campaign he replied:

Oh, it was clearly spied upon. I mean, that’s what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying. I think going through people’s emails, which they did as a result of the FISA warrant” is spying.

You can view the full NBC interview here: https://youtu.be/LRKFo0JmuBc

 

 

turley

I thought Professor Turley’s discussion of the importance of evidence and legal definitions of crimes related to impeachment was very good.  You’ll find a video of this discussion on Congressman Biggs’ (AZ, R) Twitter-feed*.

https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1202284155813412864

*I don’t like linking to Twitter.  And I try not to use any politician’s platforms for content.  But I wanted to give you Turley’s full argument.  YouTube only has portions.

 

Nonsequitur: Government Cobras

November 25, 2019

An instructive story of the power and effectiveness of government:

In colonial India, Delhi suffered a proliferation of cobras, which was a problem very clearly in need of a solution given the sorts of things that cobras bring, like death. To cut the number of cobras slithering through the city, the local government placed a bounty on them. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable solution. The bounty was generous enough that many people took up cobra hunting, which led exactly to the desired outcome: The cobra population decreased. And that’s where things get interesting.

As the cobra population fell and it became harder to find cobras in the wild, people became rather entrepreneurial. They started raising cobras in their homes, which they would then kill to collect the bounty as before. This led to a new problem: Local authorities realized that there were very few cobras evident in the city, but they nonetheless were still paying the bounty to the same degree as before.In the end, Delhi had a bigger cobra problem after the bounty ended than it had before it began.

 City officials did a reasonable thing: They canceled the bounty. In response, the people raising cobras in their homes also did a reasonable thing: They released all of their now-valueless cobras back into the streets. Who wants a house full of cobras? 

In the end, Delhi had a bigger cobra problem after the bounty ended than it had before it began. The unintended consequence of the cobra eradication plan was an increase in the number of cobras in the streets. This case has become the exemplar of when an attempt to solve a problem ends up exacerbating the very problem that rule-makers intended to fix.     Source:  The Cobra Effect: Lessons in Unintended Consequences

You can see contemporary results of the “Cobra Effect” in California and other places right now.  Progressive governing policies meant to alleviate the problems of homelessness, traffic congestion and climate change have not had the expected results, instead making things much, much worse.  This is mirrored in other progressive states and cities.  We need laws and governance.  But the sound approach is to use as little of each as necessary.  And prepare for unintended consequences.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.  –  Ronald Reagan