CCRKBA: The Hidden Anti-Gun Agenda Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Push

trump impeachment house democrats 2A judges

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., second from right, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 31, 2019. Schiff is joined by, from left, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acting chair Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

From the CCRKBA . . .

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today declared there is a “hidden agenda” behind the impeachment efforts of House Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and it is designed to tie up the U.S. Senate and derail efforts to confirm more pro-Second Amendment judges to the federal courts.

“It is clear to us that Capitol Hill anti-gunners are doing everything in their power to prevent confirmation of conservative judges who will adhere to the Constitution,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “By burdening the Senate with this nonsense, Democrats believe they can prevent confirmation of pro-Second Amendment judicial nominees during the final year of President Donald Trump’s first term.”

Gottlieb noted that the president is fulfilling perhaps his most important campaign pledge, which was to bring balance back to the federal courts. Restoring that balance could be the president’s greatest legacy, he said.

“The same people pushing impeachment have been staunch allies of the gun prohibition lobby,” Gottlieb observed. “Anti-gunners have been horrified since Day One of Donald Trump’s presidency that he was actually determined to rein in the activist federal court system by nominating judges who understand there are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and that the Second Amendment really means what it says.

“More than eleven years after the landmark 2008 Heller ruling and more than nine years after the 2010 McDonald decision,” he continued, “some courts still act as though neither of those Supreme Court rulings existed. But the president has been filling court vacancies with solid, intelligent jurists who understand the difference between regulated privileges and constitutionally-enumerated, fundamental rights. Capitol Hill anti-gunners and their gun prohibitionist friends can’t stand it, and they’re using the impeachment crusade as a smoke screen to distract the Senate from doing its duty.

“This isn’t about impeaching the president,” Gottlieb stated. “This is about impeaching our Second Amendment rights. I guarantee that American gun owners are going to remember this in 2020.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Apparently, when Obama and Biden go to foreign allies to dig up the “pee tape” for candidate Trump and then run a two year long attempted coup, everything is fine. When Trump tries to get a friendly foreign government to dig up said blatant corruption… that’s an impeachable offense. Did I get that right?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      I don’t see what the issue is here. If Trump gets booted, and Pence is sworn in, there’s good reason to believe he will select the same caliber of judges that Trump did, if not even more to the right.

      Where things get weird is when a hypothetical new president tries to fill the now-vacant vice-pres position. I *think* it requires the approval of both houses. Good luck with that happening…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        This is a slow-motion coup. How long do you think Pence will be allowed to stay in office if they get Trump out? The end game is President Pelosi and it has always been President Pelosi.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          At this stage of the game if Trump was to say ‘enough’ and with the backing of the military stay in office indefinitely I do not think I would oppose him.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          President Pelosi w/vice president HRC, then Pelosi steps down and the Hildabeast is finally POTUS (although unelected and NOT the 1st woman to hold the office)

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “This is a slow-motion coup. How long do you think Pence will be allowed to stay in office if they get Trump out?”

          That takes *time*.

          It took 3 years for them to get where they are now with an easy target. I seriously doubt Pence will be an easy target for them. And in that time, he goes right on keeping on loading the benches with picks that will make the Leftists have continual aneurysms.

          I’m not yet seeing anything to stress out on…

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “with the backing of the military stay in office indefinitely I do not think I would oppose him”

          You have got to be shitting me.

          You are advocating an unconstitutional military coup, installing a dictator for life.

          You realize you are advocating the violent overthrow of the constitutional government of the United States of America.

          It’s comments like these that add fuel to the fire, giving reasonable citizens with reasons to see POTG as authoritarian traitors.

          So that whole four-year term, 2 terms per person constitutional provision is just out the window?

          And given the fact that the senior military leadership has abandoned Trump in disgust, I’m not sure how dictator Trump could seize power.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Simple commie. “Senior military leadership” can be replaced. Trump is the legally elected president. The ongoing DNC coup is nothing less than an open insurgency against the constitution. That gives Trump every justification he needs to take emergency measures.

        6. avatar jwm says:

          minor. As usual you stretch the truth a bit. What would one expect from a socialist? I advocated nothing. I just said I would not oppose it. Get the vapors all you want. Wet your panties. I don’t care. There is an ongoing coup attempt happening from your side right now. And if it is met with force……sucks to be you. I’ll get a beverage and snack of my choice and watch from the sidelines.

          As for non potg. Again. I don’t care. You might have had your head so far up soro’s ass to not have noticed. America is losing it’s love of the left. Nothing is going to happen to our guns. Except we will get our rights restored and be more armed than ever before.

          This is not a threat. I hope that I never have to harm another person so long as I live. But for the sake of basic decency I feel compelled to advise you. Do you have an exit plan? If you really are based in WV Canada would be the most direct route.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          JW, what you’re saying is that even if a president violates the Constitution by utilizing military force to cancel free elections, you would not oppose such unconstitutional sedition.

          I’m sure you consider yourself a patriot, but that sure is a strange definition of patriotism you’re exercising.

          And I imagine you might say, ‘the Democrats are instituting a coup against the president’. So then I would ask you, what unconstitutional action have the Democrats in Congress taken?

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          “The ongoing DNC coup is nothing less than an open insurgency against the constitution.”

          Specifically, what unconstitutional action have the Democrats in Congress taken?

          Rantings it’s unconstitutional is just a vague and empty statement. What particular article and/or clause in the US Constitution have the Democrats in Congress violated?

        9. avatar jwm says:

          Minor, let me spell it out for you. Why would I take up my rifle, a rifle which you would like to take away from me, because socialist, to fight against Trump?

          If I sit this one out does that make me not a patriot? If that comes from a socialist I can live with it. Your judgement of me means nothing to me.

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          JW, it’s not I who will judge you.

          As always, history will be the judge.

          I’m sure Roberty Lee thought he was doing the patriotic thing as well, when he took up arms against a constitutionally elected Republican president.

          Now, Roberty Lee has gone down in history as a traitor to his oath to uphold the Constitution, a man who led an armed insurrection against American citizens serving their country in the US Army.

        11. avatar jwm says:

          History is going to judge me? What a load of crap. History will not remember me. Or you. What a grandiose load of bull shit.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey commie, history is written by the victors. Remember what happened the last time Demokkkommies decided they didn’t want to respect the outcomes of a fair election?

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        It does require a majority vote in both houses

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        JW, you might be right, your life may be inconsequential.

        But as has been said, no man is an island.

    2. avatar Marcus says:

      Yeah that sounds about right.

    3. avatar Michael says:

      I welcome BEATO types to come take mine The Open George Soros Society will end in Blood Nast P is a Dumbass to think a JUNTA NWO-UN Hillary Coup will happen here! Chicom will never take us down Bejing will be turned into a glass sea of death first.

  2. avatar Mark says:

    If all the gun owners haven’t woken up by now, they never will. We should win 2020 in a landslide unless they stay home.

  3. avatar 2aguy says:

    Any vote for a democrat or a decision to not vote for a republican against a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. The time to replace weak republicans is the primaries, after that keeping democrats out of office is the first responsibility. Weak republicans can be convinced to support the 2nd Amendment……democrats will actively work to end it.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Exactly. Welcome to realpolitik 101.

      Perfection is the eternal enemy of “good enough”. If they aren’t a Demokkkommie, they are, by definition, “good enough”.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Yes, this is true. My logic went something like this…

      I actually kind of hate the Republican party; they suck.

      However, today’s “progressive” Democrats are the only major party in this nation’s history to openly campaign on REMOVING constitutional rights from people who currently enjoy them. The Republican party is weak, greedy, and stupid, but at least they’re *not* actively working to destroy everything I love about this country.

      Therefore, voting for anyone who can keep a Democrat out of office is priority #1. And that means voting Republican in every race where my vote actually matters.

      Priority #2 is forcing Republicans to regrow their damn spines, or better yet, replacing them with something else entirely (not likely to succeed on either front, but somebody has to try).

      1. avatar 2aguy says:

        Amen……fix the republican party in the primaries…keep out every single democrat. That should be the order…..

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The Commiecrat party has always been about the destruction of this nation and anyone that either can’t see or figure that out are that parties useful idiots.

    1. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

      You Trump supporters truly are a gaggle of irredeemable retards.

      1. avatar Veritatis et lumen says:

        Odio consumit te.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        VerendusAudeo,

        Even the premise of your statement is wrong.

        I am NOT a Trump supporter. I did NOT vote for Trump in the primaries.

        Rather, I am a pragmatist who opposes Communism and Socialism.

        Therefore, I vote for whoever is the least Communist/Socialist. And in the last election, that was NOT Hillary Clinton. And in the next election it will NOT be whoever the Democrat party sends to the election.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You got it. A vote for Trump was a vote against insanity. I’ve never liked the man. But if he’s the gop pick in 2020 he will get my vote.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          jwm,

          Thank you for saying it so clearly. My vote for Trump did not equate to my support for or endorsement of Trump. Rather, it was my vote against insanity.

          My vote for Trump was also a vote against appointing judges to the federal courts who were sympathetic to Communism and Socialism.

      3. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        I’m not looking for friends

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          That being the case, it’s not likely that you’ll find any.

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        OTOH, I *AM* a Trump supporter, and you are a moron if you think Shillary or any other leftist crook would have this nation in better shape by now, even if they had the cooperation of actual Americans. Every prediction and claim has been proven wrong, beginning with the fact that he had zero chance to win; and the very next day that the markets would completely fail; here comes the Great Depression II; Russia, Russia, Russia; Racism, Racism, Racism; Recession, Recession, Recession; Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine; I probably forgot a few since the bullshit changes so fast. Has it struck you yet, you really are being lied to, just not by Trump. Wake up!

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Yeah, you left out OBSTRUCTION, OBSTRUCTION, OBSTRUCTION!!!!! Obstruction of Justice, obstruction of Congress… Abuse of Power (one of Schiffs favorites)… Tax evasion (New York AG is working hard on that one).. Violation of the Emoluments Clause… Womanizer, Despot/Dictator wannabe, Then there is Nepotism with all his kids and in-laws working in the White House (even though they are not being paid) You missed Nazi, Nazi, Nazi.. White Nationalist (which is true of any white person that loves their country, ANY country) White Supremacist,… Xenophobe, Homophobic, anti-Semite, pro-Semite, Liar, Liar, Liar…. The list is actually a living breathing thing with a life of it’s own that grows (I’ve actually had to add to it since I started) with every tick of the clock but, one year from now (2020 is a leap year) they will be calling him the only label that really matters, 2nd term POTUS….

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Yes, KGB Col. Vladimir Putin agrees with you, and he is very proud of his successful efforts to corrupt the Trump organization.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Ok… How many times does you own witch hunt have to come up with jack shit before you remove your head from your ass?

        HITLARY and the DNC are owned by Russia and the Chinese.

        Why do you think BIll got a million dollar check to speak to a Russian bank for 15 minutes?
        It it a complete coincidence that Hillary’s state department then approved an export license to ship nuclear material to Russia?

        Classic commie projection. You get caught standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in your hands, you blame the cop who catches you.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          [Why do you think BIll got a million dollar check to speak to a Russian bank for 15 minutes?]
          I think it was only a piddling 1/2 million, hardly worth the flight (unless he took the “Lolita Express”) Thanks Jeffery… a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow .

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Right on !!!

  6. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

    Soap box has been nearly exhausted. Ballot box is next. Are your cartridge boxes ready?

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      yes

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Michael Crognale,

      F.Y.I.

      If Democrats succeed in removing Trump from office via impeachment for something other than high crimes and misdemeanors — and Trump withholding aid to a foreign nation until they investigate corruption with the Biden family does not come anywhere close to qualifying as a high crime or misdemeanor — then we will have exhausted the ballot box as well.

      Think about that for a bit. Seriously.

    3. avatar Someone says:

      This constant impeachment nonsense fucks up the result of our ballot box efforts. We are running out of options here.

  7. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    The facial expression of the woman to the left in the pic is priceless. I call that the “annoyed constipation” face.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Looks like a “resting ‘C’ face” to me… 😉

  8. avatar Dude says:

    Schiff started the inquiry out with a lie and actually got caught. Yet the super ethical democrats and media don’t care. Word is Pelosi isn’t even praying for him.

  9. avatar Will Drider says:

    I’m still waiting for “Universal Carry” and suppressors to be moved from NFA to under “firearm” regs.

    Its always a two way street on impeachment. They also say the dems impeachment effort pushed all the “hot button” gun control issues that had traction back into the abyss.

    The Senate and its Committees set its schedule. No reason they can’t work both and also pull Dem/Left resources from the impeachment to justice conformation if they want to obstruct those. Always give an take.

    Worse case, the VP moves up to the Pres job and keeps nominating jurists through the end of this Term and the next (at which time he will shit can the VP forced on him by Law: Pelosi, who would be “ACTING VP” not VP. Of course, she could be curtailed like Obama did to Biden (yeah, thats his great experience, when let out he does financial deals and deflects criminal prosecution for he druggy son). If Pelosi declines it falls to President pro tempore of the Senate: Grassley (R)

    1. avatar JR Pollock says:

      Pelosi wouldn’t be “acting Vice President”, she’d continue to be Speaker of the House, and next in line of succession. This was the case from November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1964. Speaker John McCormack was given enhanced Secret Service protection, but assumed no executive duties.

      The biggest glaring vacancy would be the fact that there would be no President of the Senate, and therefore, no tie breaking vote available. As it stands with the House and Senate being under control of opposing parties, a consensus VP nominee would have to be considered. Either that, or the VP office would remain vacant.

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        Harry Truman had no Vice President for the entirety of FDR’s elected term, 1945-1949.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      I don’t think that is how it works. Agnew quit and Ford came in. When Nixon quit, Ford was made president. He picked Nelson Rockefeller as VP.

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        That was after the 25th Amendment was ratified in 1972. Prior to that there was no Constitutional provision for nominating a Vice President. The case being made was Pelosi moving up to “acting VP”. If a (hypothetical) President Pence couldn’t get his nominee approved the post would remain vacant. He isn’t forced to make a nomination.

        The same holds true for SCOTUS. Let’s say(again hypothetically) Ginsburg and Breyer both die within weeks of each other. Trump could decline to make any nominations and leave the court with 4 conservatives, 2 leftists, and one squishy moderate. Congress couldn’t force him to nominate any Justices.

  10. avatar Brian says:

    All acts about the impeachment push are questionable at best. If you read up on the rules about impeachment it borders on treason and all involved in promoting the process should be tried for that. If the democrats think that any of what they are doing will help their anti-gun agenda, they are sadly mistaken. They are actually giving the population even more reasons to have guns than ever before.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Do you really believe this? What constitutional law education, training or experience do you have to support your opinion?

      Let me offer judge Napolitano’s viewpoint:

      “Napolitano reflected on the ongoing impeachment probe in an editorial published by Fox News on Thursday. The judicial analyst warned Republicans to be “careful what they ask for” going forward because of the overwhelming evidence against the president.
      “Their defense of the president has addressed process, not proof,” Napolitano wrote. “The proof is largely undisputed, except by the president himself. It consists of admissions, testimony and documents, which show that Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 presidential election.”
      He added that it’s a “mouthful of facts to swallow in one bite, but the legal implications are straightforward and profound.”

      This judge is a nationally recognized legal expert and scholar, Fox news even accepts his expertise. I would be interested in what legal scholarship you cite to support your opinion.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Seems to me, most of what I’m hearing from the “witnesses” is opinion. Those “reading between the lines” of the phone call. Being “worried” about what Trump was planning do do. Being “shocked” by what he heard on the phone (read the transcript) . If smashing your evidence packed computer and phone isn’t a crime, then this is less than nothing.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “(read the transcript)”

          Oh, has there been a transcript released?
          Would you please direct me to where one could read that transcript?

          All I’ve seen are rough notes that have been released, with mini redaction’s, so I would love to read a transcript of the call.

          In fact, in the interest of transparency as he said, President Trump should release the actual recording of the phone call. Right?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          That’s all that exists commie. Let me simple it up for you. Trump isn’t leaving office until 2025. I don’t care if it takes ballots to keep him there or bullets.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        Look at miner quoting Napolitano. I guess that makes him smart or something.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Is the judge in correct?

          What competing legal scholar can you site that shows the judge is in error and his assessment of the impeachment situation?

          “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic if this body (the House) determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” Lindsey Graham, 1999“

      3. avatar Dude says:

        “Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 presidential election”

        I realize this isn’t your opinion, but you’re agreeing with it. So you’re saying that no foreign country can help us investigate Joe Biden’s actual corruption because there is a chance he Might be the democratic nominee.

        On the other hand, you’re also saying it is perfectly normal for the last administration to coordinate with foreign governments and foreign nationals to set up and investigate the actual republican nominee for made up corruption. Hypocrisy much??

        Oh, and back to the original statement. What laws were broken again?

        “Oh, has there been a transcript released?
        Would you please direct me to where one could read that transcript?”

        You mean like the one the whistleblower read? Oh yeah, they never actually heard the conversation or read a transcript. You don’t really think these things through do you?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Regarding the conversation, the whistleblowers report has not been made public so it’s just speculation what’s in it at this point. But Colonel Vindman listened into the call and knew exactly what was said, that’s why he raised concerns about the obvious quid pro quo that the President of the United States was pressuring the president of the Ukraine to engage in.

          And there in lies the difference, it’s one thing to hire a private investigators to conduct opposition research. This is a private transaction that does not involve the government of any country.

          When the President of the United States withholds congressionally approved military aid to one of America’s allies, then pressures the leader of that country to publicly announce an investigation into his political rival it crosses the line into treason.

          “Yeah Ukraine, we’ve done a lot for you and you got a really nice country there. Be a shame if something happened to it, what with the Russians attacking and all, you could probably use some weapons, right? I need you do me a favor though.”

          And no one has actually seen a transcript or heard the conversation publicly so we have to rely on the words of those who actually heard the call. And Trump releasing ‘rough notes’ of the conversation with several omitted passages is nothing but him using bits and pieces of the conversation in an attempt to Deceive American citizens.

          In other news, Russian troops are now moving into northern Syria, once more President Trump is proving that he holds Russia’s interests above America’s need to maintain a presence in the Middle East.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Colonel Vindman listened into the call and knew exactly what was said:
          Funny Vindmans old boss who was ALSO on the call said no such conversation ever happened…. No mention of quid pro quo… hmmmmmm.. At least now we know the source of the “whistleblowers” second hand information.

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          In other news, Russian troops are now moving into northern Syria, once more President Trump is proving that he holds Russia’s interests above America’s need to maintain a presence in the Middle East.
          News Flash: Dude, Russia has been involved w/boots on the ground since 2015 at the behest of Assad.. I bet that phone call in Feb was really interesting… (Trump): Hey Vlad, WTF?
          (Vlad): Huh, what you mean?
          (Trump): What’s with the T-55s and T-72s heading toward my guys in Khusham, Deir ez-Zor province with the 300 plus troops and rocket launchers.
          (Vlad): Oh not to worry, just some Spec Ops dudes and Wagner Group Mercs out for a drive…
          (Trump): Hmmmmm, okay, tell your “boys” if they continue on their current course my guys are gonna think they are under attack or some shit, so hey Vlad do me a favor and turn your boys around….
          (Vlad): ……………………………………………. You would not really shoot at my boys would you?
          (Trump): You bet your ass I will.. (end call)………
          Vlad to his Generals, not to worry he’s bluffing, we own him…..
          Later that day with a shitload of Russian tanks destroyed and nearly 300 Russians and Syrians dead (with no American casualties) Vlad is seen scratching his ass and mumbling something about fake U.S. news saying Trump was looking out for RUSSIAN interests in Syria, What happened?

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Miner,

          “the whistleblowers report has not been made public so it’s just speculation what’s in it at this point.”

          Exactly, except we do know that the whistleblower learned about the call through secondhand information. This isn’t whistleblowing, this is leaking. He doesn’t even know what really happened.

          “ Vindman listened into the call” Yes. Ask yourself why are we hearing about this since the inquiry is secret? Because Schiff will leak anything that’s damaging to Trump and hide anything that isn’t. Why not make it all public? Hmm.

          “And there in lies the difference, it’s one thing to hire a private investigators to conduct opposition research. This is a private transaction that does not involve the government of any country.”

          The FBI and CIA coordinating with foreign governments and contractors does not fit your description. You’re forgetting that the FBI coordinated with Steele on the Russian Collusion farce. He wasn’t just some innocent private investigator. He’s the tip of the iceberg of foreign involvement in the 2016 election. Why don’t you care about that?

          “When the President of the United States withholds congressionally approved military aid to one of America’s allies, then pressures the leader of that country to publicly announce an investigation into his political rival it crosses the line into treason.”

          So by getting to the bottom of a scandal and bringing people to justice, you’re committing treason? How does this give aid and comfort to the enemy? The main thing Trump was talking about with Ukraine wasn’t even the Bidens, it was the DNC servers. Why isn’t anyone talking about that? The answer is they don’t want the American people to think about that for a second. I thought we wanting to get to the bottom of the DNC hacking? Also, what laws were broken exactly?

          “Yeah Ukraine…”

          You’re actually quoting the Adam Schiff fictional story about the phone call. How do you expect anyone to ever take you seriously?

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Clearly a minor, I graduated from high school and college, served my country for 20 years, including being combat proven, I am awake, I pay my taxes, and I am armed. Just what basis do *you* have for believing anything else?

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic if this body (the House) determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” Lindsey Graham, 1999

      Was Lindsey Graham wrong?

  11. avatar Nanashi says:

    Hidden?

  12. avatar Grumpster says:

    President Trump is not going anywhere. No way in hell there will be enough senators voting to remove him if it comes to that. I do see the point though of CCRKBA with trying to take up resources in the senate to stall judicial appointments. IMO this is also about RBG . If Ginsburg passes fairly soon you will hear all kinds of wailing by democrats and fake news MSM that a president being impeached can not nominate someone to Supreme Court nor can the senate take up the matter. Somehow that would be considered unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      According to the Republicans, supreme court justices should not be selected within 12 months of an election. That’s what Mitch McConnell and the other Republican said about Obama’s nomination of Merrick garland, isn’t that the same standard here?

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        As I recall that was the Joe Biden rule

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          They ain’t no such thing as ‘the Biden rule’.

          Do you believe that there was a situation where there was a vacancy on the supreme court and the Democrats in the Senate held up a republican president’s nomination until after the election?

          As a senator, Joe Biden did mention in a speech about nominations during an election year, but when he gave his speech there were no vacancies on the supreme court and there were no nominations in waiting.

          So I’m wondering why there is a double standard regarding Supreme Court nominations? Why would the Republicans block Obama’s supreme court nomination for 11 months before the election and not block trumps nomination?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because Barry Sorento was not a legitimate president. He had no authority to nominate anybody.

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          miner: When Biden made that comment in 1992 it was more than some senator making a statement in a speech… At the time Joe Biden just happened to be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and he was making it clear to George H.W. Bush that he should not even appoint a nominee to SCOTUS should the need/opportunity arise during his lame duck “election season” because it would be DOA in his committee…..

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, you claim Barack Hussein Obama was not a legitimate president?

          What reputable legal scholar do you cite to support your claim of illegitimacy? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

          Or is it just more agitprop from Putin’s best little agent provocateur, designed to rile up the right wing and create more division in America?

          Seriously, your feeble BS and verbal flailing just show the intellectual bankruptcy of Putin and his minions.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Madeline, Joe Biden‘s speech had no effect whatsoever on the supreme court, there was no nominee at the time, there wasn’t even a vacancy on the supreme court. It was a discussion of hypotheticals, so there were no violations of law or the constitution.

          On the other hand, Mitch McConnell and the Republican controlled Senate failed to exercise their constitutional duty of considering the presidents supreme court nominees, giving their advice and consent as required by the constitution. That’s plain and clear dereliction of duty and it’s unconstitutional to abandon your duties of governance.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Minority, I’ve been practicing, let me give you a good Democrat’s answer to your question. “Oh, don’t be silly, everybody knows that!” Good enough, right?

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        Well we changed our minds. RBG goes NEXT September and we’ll replace her.

        Sucks doesn’t it?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Well of course there’s two standards, one for the black president and another for the white president.

          You know, data shows life expectancy for white males in red states is decreasing.

          Sucks doesn’t it.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and the classic Demokkkommie genocidal racism comes out. Sorry miner, you don’t get to drag republicans behind trucks anymore. These days, we just shoot you if you try.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sorry Ivan, but I can’t claim responsibility for the lower life expectancy of white males in the red states.

          It’s mostly due to several factors, greedy medico-pharma corporations and their vulture capitalism business practices play a major role.

          Lack of exercise, poor diet and bad lifestyle choices such as cigarette smoking and sniff dipping are also important factors in the rising death rate of white males in red states.

          Multinational corporation‘s eroding workplace safety regulations by spending millions to lobby Trump to rollback safety regulations has created an epidemic of industrial injuries and disease. For instance, right here in West Virginia, black lung is on the increase as corporations go through shill bankruptcies in order to raid workers pension and medical funds, further eroding healthcare for working men and women.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          And that’s gonna work out for 13% of the population? Have you ever mathed?

      3. avatar pwrserge says:

        Supreme court justices can’t be selected when the opposing party holds the Senate. Sucks to be you commie, elections have consequences.

        1. avatar grumpster says:

          Who controls the senate certainly is extremely important and as obama said elections have consequences.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/

          “Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

          The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.”

      4. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Could it be that Mitch finally took the lefts crying and tantrum throwing (it was originally THEIR rule) in to consideration and had a change of heart…

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “(it was originally THEIR rule)”

          Nope, no rule ever established by the Democrats regarding supreme court nominees and hearings in an election year, Democrats never held up supreme court nominees because of an impending election, the Republicans are the only ones who have ever abandoned their constitutional duty to provide a hearing for the president‘s supreme court nominees and to give their advice and consent on the nomination.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Keep spewing BS, Miner, it’s worked before, right?

  13. avatar Ogre says:

    I’m not a big fan of President Trump, but ever since the Dem/Lib/Progs started this slow-motion impeachment coup attempt, I’ve wondered what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are that Trump has actually committed. So far, the acts that the Dems are pursuing him for as “so what?” moments IMHO. It’s really petty stuff. It’s not like he sold California to the Chinese. But I guess an impeachable offense is whatever the political opposition (in this case the Dem majority in the House) says it is, whether it is digging for political dirt in Ukraine, or putting one’s underwear on backward. It’s all about the Dem’s feelings, isn’t it? From what I’ve heard on the news, the Dems are going about this very disjointedly, from holding “star chamber” hearings in the basement of the Capitol (until they got caught) to switching what the impeachable “high crime and misdemeanor” is when they find that the one they’ve chosen is not gaining traction. I really think that the Dems are shooting themselves in their collective foot when it comes to the next national election with their hijinks. As a taxpayer, I’m wondering what they are accomplishing for the Republic with the public’s money while they are bollocking around exclusively with this impeachment BS. They’ve never really gotten over that Trump won the last election and that is at the root of all this. President Pelosi? Well, that would suit her ego, wouldn’t it? I’d rather have President Ali Arachnid Kazoo than her.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Napolitano reflected on the ongoing impeachment probe in an editorial published by Fox News on Thursday. The judicial analyst warned Republicans to be “careful what they ask for” going forward because of the overwhelming evidence against the president.
      “Their defense of the president has addressed process, not proof,” Napolitano wrote. “The proof is largely undisputed, except by the president himself. It consists of admissions, testimony and documents, which show that Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 presidential election.”
      He added that it’s a “mouthful of facts to swallow in one bite, but the legal implications are straightforward and profound.”

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        He’s mad because Trump didn’t give him a job. Same with Romney. (He was invited to Trump Tower, came twice, hoping to get a position.) Sour grapes….with a little vengeance thrown in.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sour grapes?

          If his legal reasoning is compromised because he’s upset, what competing legal authority can you cite to justify your opinion?

        2. avatar Dude says:

          Also see above post.

          Miner,
          You are saying Biden is off limits because that would be election interference. In other words, you are saying Biden would not be off limits if he were not running for the dem nomination. Please show me the legal precedent that allows two sets of rules for people either running or not running for the party nomination. I had no idea running for the party nomination shielded you from investigations. Please enlighten us with more Fox News quotes.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Dudette, see my comment above.

          President Trump held up $400 million in defense appropriations approved by Congress, including the Republican-controlled Senate, using these funds as a lever to force the Ukrainian president to publicly announce an investigation of Biden with no evidence of any wrongdoing.

          That’s a completely different situation from Hillary Clinton’s campaign hiring a private investigator to gather opposition research.

          Trump used $400 million of taxpayers money in order to force the Ukraine, as a matter of their survival, into a publicly announced investigation of trumps political opponent.

          Yes, the United States regularly works hand-in-hand with other countries to reduce international corruption, often through organization such as Interpol. These efforts are coordinated by the US DOJ and foreign equivalents, as they gather evidence and work together to take out bad actors.

          But that’s not what Trump is doing on the phone call, as he said “I need you to do me a favor though.”

          John Gotti would instantly recognize trumps language, but that’s no surprise as Trump hobnobbed with John, Paul Castellano and the rest of the mafia’s merry pranksters in NYC.

        4. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          President Trump held up $400 million in defense appropriations approved by Congress, including the Republican-controlled Senate, using these funds as a lever to force the Ukrainian president to publicly announce an investigation of Biden with no evidence of any wrongdoing.
          And the longer you and the fake news and all the dishonest congressional members that continue to perpetuate that LIE the harder it will be to climb out of that hole you are digging for yourselves.. In fact grow a pair and show us all the exact wording you are using to base that claim on (and no you cannot use the made up shit that Schiff used at the initial hearing).. Yeah I know, “screw the facts”, never mind that the 400 million was on hold while other concerns were being investigated (well before the call) and never mind that the 400 million WAS released without any further action by the Ukraine government.. You people are truly “for our amusement only” So keep digging…..

          But that’s not what Trump is doing on the phone call, as he said “I need you to do me a favor though.” Yeah what he was referring to was the Ukraine pres suggestion that he would like to purchase some missiles, had nothing to do with the 400 mil

        5. avatar Dude says:

          Miner,
          “Dudette” Oh, you’re one of those fake, hypocritical woke lefties that really loves using gay/trans slurs as a put down. Not surprised.

          “ using these funds as a lever to force the Ukrainian president to publicly announce an investigation of Biden” Please show me a link where the Ukrainian President made that public announcement. I won’t hold my breath.

          “with no evidence of any wrongdoing.” Haha. You sound just like Anderson Cooper. It’s funny how Trump doesn’t get that treatment after a $30+ million 2 year investigation couldn’t find anything. Why is that? Answer: propaganda.

          “But that’s not what Trump is doing on the phone call, as he said “I need you to do me a favor though.”” Go read the transcript. Report back and tell me how soon he mentions Biden after that.

          You are saying Biden is off limits because that would be election interference. In other words, you are saying Biden would not be off limits if he were not running for the dem nomination. Please show me the legal precedent that allows two sets of rules for people either running or not running for the party nomination. I had no idea running for the party nomination shielded you from investigations.

          You never answered my question because you can’t.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Mad you say:

          “400 million was on hold while other concerns were being investigated (well before the call)”

          To help me understand, would you please cite the individual and the statement or evidence that leads you to make this assertion? In particular, what other concerns were being investigated?

          According to the rough notes released by the Trump administration, the president of the Ukraine was asking for javelin antitank missiles that were part of the military aid package. The Ukraine is in desperate need of anti-armor weapons in order to counter the massive Soviet armor they face.

          Without any explanation, trumpet held up the military aid package, jeopardizing the Ukraine’s security. Then, one week later, it’s time to put the stiff arm on the mark and extort the concession he wants, a public announcement of an investigation of trumps political opponent.

          Of course the aid has since been released, once the Trump administration found out about the whistle blowers report, you bet they allowed the shipment to go through.

          And why does the trumpet ministration keep suggesting people read the transcript, when in fact the ‘transcript’ is, by their own admission, just ‘rough notes’ from someone who was on the call.

          It’s an incomplete set of notes, not a transcript of the conversation. And we know the conversation was actually recorded, why not release the actual recording of the conversation in its entirety, without any rows of punctuation indicating redacted sections. And witnesses have testified under oath there was much more discussed than what is released in the rough notes, what is the trumpet ministration hiding? Where is the transparency that Trump promised when he said “I will be the most transparent president in history”?

        7. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Javelins were Not part of the “package”.. The “package” was 250 million appropriated by Congress and managed by DOD for military aid, 50 million of which was “earmarked” for lethal aid… The remaining 141.5 million (total 391.5 not 400 million) came from various sources managed by the State Dept…. In a June news release, the Defense Department said the money would go toward training operations, providing Ukrainian special forces with sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and bolstering the country’s ability to detect acts of electronic warfare.
          Trump stated that he held the funds while a brief investigation of corruption concerns was undertaken and assurances were received from other countries that there was proportional support… Some have questioned various aspects of that statement (consider the sources)…
          Burisma investigation had already been reopened before the call and the money was released on Sept 11 a full two weeks before the release of the complaint on Sept 25 (and about a month AFTER the complainant met with Schiff and his staff) without any further action being taken by Ukraine.. Unlike Biden actually threatening to withhold 1 billion dollars in aid (non lethal) until a Ukraine prosecutor investigating his scumbag, drug addict, failure of a son was fired,,, And “son-of-a-bitch, he got fired” (to quote Joe Biden)… (no quid-pro-quo there, right?)
          [Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he INTERPRETED as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. Vindman’s testimony received widespread attention because it furthered the narrative that Trump is a rogue president determined to act out of self-interest, rather than in the interest of the American people. However, as the Constitutional Rights Foundation explains, the executive branch has the most SIGNIFICANT role in CRAFTING U.S. foreign policy, and because the president is the head of the executive branch, the president essentially determines the direction of U.S. foreign policy while in office, in other words (perhaps easier for you to understand?) Trump cannot “subvert” U.S. foreign policy precisely because he IS the “constitutional author of foreign policy.” Actually, the fact is that the president is the constitutional author of foreign policy, so the idea he is ‘subverting’ it is illogical,
          I would suggest that you read article two “presidential powers” possibly with an interpreter or a thesaurus or something since English comprehension does not appear to be your forte..
          [You said] “Without any explanation, trumpet held up the military aid package, jeopardizing the Ukraine’s security.” However, when Poroschenko came to D.C. in 2014 to plead before Congress for lethal military aid the Obama-Biden administration declined his request. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why? Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow. So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. This was right after Putin “annexed Crimea” and was providing tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers to the separatists in eastern Ukraine…So where was the URGENT concern for Ukraine AND U.S. national security then…. In December 2017, the Trump administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million dollars worth of Javelin antitank missiles. In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”
          FINALLY: Your line of WITNESSES (including the RAT) have mostly been Obama holdover partisan never Trumpers and Trump haters that like their current idols Schiff and Nadler REFUSE to let the truth get in their way and in fact your STAR (Vindman) was followed by his boss at the time of the call who said there was NOTHING improper about the call but, you won’t hear that in the liberal/media talking points for the day…
          You really need to face the FACTS this is all about concerns by the party that no one in their current clown show can beat Trump, they have no viable economic plan, except to spend Trillions of American taxpayers dollars to make sure illegals are comfortable and the narrative that Trump is trying to discredit a political rival is absurd as well, Biden is NOT Trumps rival, Biden has not yet proven that he can clear the primaries and win the nomination, instead of running against two dozen Socialists, outright Communists and various lunatics Biden has been running against TRUMP since he announced almost like he feels he is “entitled” to the office… Hmmmm, where have we heard that before? Miner, you got nothing, you keep regurgitating the same bullshit lies that have run daily on the fake news media (yes FOX news included) and you’ve even tried to pass off Schiffs “dramatic reading” as fact just like the lying ass talking heads that appear daily on cable news…. As far as the “set of notes” is concerned, Trump was not obligated to release anything… At this point you are just so much noise in a sea of noise, so why don’t you just stick to the VLAD persona at least it was somewhat entertaining.. Go ahead with your stupid, uninformed, misguided and mostly untruthful ranting, I’ve said all I need too.. Trump will NOT be impeached, Trump WILL be reelected in 2020 and he WILL refill all those lost seats from 2018 with conservatives as well as adding a few more to the House AND the Senate……. The coup has failed…..
          TRUMP/PENCE 2020….

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          The department of defense had already conducted a thorough investigation of anticorruption effort by the Ukraine, and head certified is this military age aid package was appropriate because the Ukraine had met all the requirements for their anticorruption certification.

          “Trump denies putting a hold on the aid because of 2020 politics, and initially said this week he had concerns about corruption in Ukraine, a U.S. priority for years.
          However, the Pentagon in May officially certified that it had seen enough anti-corruption progress to justify releasing the congressionally authorized aid, according to documents provided to The Associated Press.

          The defense undersecretary for policy, John Rood, wrote in a May 23 letter to Congress that the Pentagon had made a thorough assessment of Ukraine’s anti-corruption actions and other reforms.
          “On behalf of the secretary of defense, and in coordination with the secretary of state, I have certified that the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption” and making other improvements, Rood wrote.
          Rood wrote that his certification, legally required before the aid could be released, was based on insights gained in “persistent U.S. engagement” with Ukraine, including meetings between the U.S. defense secretary and his Ukrainian counterpart.
          Members of Congress are seeking to examine the apparent contradiction between the Pentagon’s assessment and the subsequent White House decision to put the aid on hold.”

          Military TimesWeb resultsTrump claim on stalled aid for Ukraine draws new scrutiny

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        It’s fun to watch you quote someone you wouldn’t have pissed on if he was on fire a few years ago.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          I’m not quoting him because he is Lindsey Graham.

          I am quoting him because he’s right.

          Can you cite a legal authority that contradicts Lindsey Graham’s statement?

          Or are you operating on your feelz?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Insert cricket sound sample here:

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Nice rehash of the Mark Theissen opinion piece.

          There are just too many inaccuracies in your post for me to address each one, so let me just offer a piece of reporting from defense news with mini more accurate details.

          https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/

    2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      It’s because they don’t like him

  14. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “The Hidden Anti-Gun Agenda Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Push”

    There’s nothing “hidden” about it, it’s been know for a LONG time…

  15. avatar Prndll says:

    This might make sense but only because it fits. This is just an added bonus for them.

    I think the insanity from the left has gone so far for so long that people (in an effort to see patterns in the chaos) have been latching onto whatever seems plausible.

  16. avatar Bob says:

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the New York CCW case this month. The court should take this opportunity to make clear what the second amendment say unequivocally. The court is stacked so this will be a make or break case.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Argument is scheduled for Dec. 2. I’ll be there to report on it for TTAG.

  17. avatar Fred says:

    Time to start forming an armed citizens militia for a million man n woman march to DC! Wasn’t the 2nd amendment formed to protect Americans from government tyranny?

  18. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    I think we gunm owners should be more like some of the females Ive met who own gunms and do not know what the Second Ammendment is…..” Its mine I bought it and “they” cant have it.” ,, Ive seen guys get mad, but nothing like when a woman flies the fck off. Theyll take on Godzilla and come out spitting lizard

  19. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Of course. And don’t let anybody try to explain it is not an attempted coup. The talk about Pelosi becoming president confirms that it IS an attempted coup. I’ve thought this ever since some jackass starting talking about impeaching Spense too. And the national Democrats are proving they ARE evil contrary to what my brother says. He thinks both parties are playing the same game and doesn’t realize the left has reverted to the rules of the left. Check the definition of “legal positivism” and you may understand why they actually hate the Constitution. Somebody should Nance all the is espousing the Constitution she has done lately is very hypocritical since she opposed to the 2ND.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    Trump is clearly effective because they want him out now, not next year.

  21. avatar Jc says:

    Hello everyone

  22. avatar Warlocc says:

    It bothers me that we have “conservative judges” or “liberal judges”. They should be “judges” period, that make decisions based on law and argument, not politics.

  23. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “What particular article and/or clause in the US Constitution have the Democrats in Congress violated?” The article dealing with the impeachment process. It states “The House of Representatives …and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” No where does it state that the Speaker of the House can simply say ‘we are going to impeach the mf’ The WHOLE House has that responsibility. There has never been a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email