#1
Trump formally handed the SOTU from his hand to her hand to the House Speaker as the original Congressional Record document and she destroyed the formal document.
18 U.S. Code § 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
U.S. Code
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
#2
Amusing thought, but unless she penciled notes on it (Remember "document in the pants" Sandy Berger?) they are only information copies like all of the others in the room.
#4
On the beach, but disbarred? Yes, it's Sandy,
Who likes to keep paperwork handy.
Don't ask him to jump
Or he'll document dump
As he cleans up the dirt on some grandee.
[HotAir] House Democrats are preparing to force a vote on what’s known as the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize) today. This giveaway to labor unions contains all manner of goodies on the Democrats’ wish list, including some that appear to be blatantly in defiance of previous Supreme Court rulings. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a summary of the major provisions and what it would mean to workers, particularly those in right to work states. Here are a couple of the worst parts of the bill.
Essentially nullifies 28 states’ right to work laws. In these states, workers at a unionized workplace may choose whether or not they want the union to represent them. The PRO Act would require non-union workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even when they opt out of union representation.
Force employers to provide unions with employees’ personal information, including home addresses, working hours, phone numbers, and email addresses. Unions have already used such information before to pressure workers to support unionization campaigns. As Kovacs writes: "In one example, the Communication Workers of America Local 1103 used a workers’ personal data to sign her up for unwanted magazine subscriptions and consumer products. She was billed thousands of dollars and had to spend hours each day unsubscribing herself."
The first item on the list dealing with the collection of dues from workers who opt out of union membership appears to directly fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v AFSCME, at least in spirit. Workers around the country have been winning one battle after another in court when seeking to have their union dues and fees refunded to them. Yet somehow the Democrats appear to believe they can just turn back the clock on all of this.
As for mandating that employers turn over the personal contact information of their workers to union representatives, the risk there should be obvious. That’s just an invitation for union thugs to dox or otherwise harass people who don’t go along with unionization schemes.
On top of that, the bill would also change the definition of "joint employer" to make it easier for unions to force themselves on franchise operations like the majority of McDonald’s restaurants. This has been on the wishlist of Democrats for a long time.
Heather Greenaway of the Workforce Fairness Institute sent a letter to the leadership of both parties in the House this week, informing them that they will be scoring this bill for their Congressional Labor Scorecard in the runup to this year’s elections. Here’s the introductory passage.
On behalf of the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), I am writing to share our organization’s vehement opposition to H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). WFI has serious concerns with the broad, overreaching nature of this legislation and the many ways in which it would undermine worker freedom and privacy, while simultaneously threatening businesses and entire industries that keep America’s economy thriving.
Gotta get back that sweet, sweet union due money and keep those pesky Union workers from going off the reservation.
Scratch a demoncrat, you'll find a tyrant and crook underneath.
#1
States right issue. Wont get past the court review...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/06/2020 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
More sleazy proposed legislation coming from the Dems. Forced dues as a condition of employment even though the worker might want to opt out of the union? Reads like the Tax Penalty for not having health insurance under ObamaCare. That doesn't seem like it would pass Constitutional muster.
Having to pay dues that go to supporting the union candidate--usually a Dem is coercive. Suppose you don’t support the union political candidate? This legislation should be strongly opposed.
First they make union membership compulsory. Then: Mussolini smiles as everything is a “partnership of government, unions and business”. They tride one way in 2009 and they are trying a different tactic now.
#7
Dunno about States Rights defense. Feds have expanded power greatly using the Commerce Clause. I can see them using it here. (Assuming the Senate passes it and Trump signs it - better be a non-starter in both cases). Now with a Donk win in 2020 it'll be done by ukase.
That’s the bottom line — Abu Uluque and Crusader nail it. And the House Democrats know this, so it’s just kabuki theater for the rubes — the same nonsense we used to get excited about when House Republicans passed similar no-go legislation back when Barack Obama was president.
[Hot Air] Elizabeth Warren’s campaign has some money problems and after the debacle in Iowa this week, she has decided to dial back on some ad spending in two states:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is trying to conserve cash and pulled down TV ads in Nevada and South Carolina after a disappointing third-place standing in Iowa that failed to provide a fundraising bump...
On Tuesday, Warren’s campaign canceled a flight of advertisements that were going to run on TV in Nevada and South Carolina from Feb. 17 to 23 at a cost of about $375,000, according to Advertising Analytics.
Warren still has TV time reserved in those states over the next month, according to the company. She has roughly $2 million worth of ad time set aside for those two states this month and will not be entirely dark anywhere...
Asked about the decision, Warren told the Post, "I just always want to be careful about how we spend our money."
#4
Is it just me or is there something about presidential election candidates being permitted to vote in an impeachment trial that just doesn't pass the smell test ?
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2020 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Is it just me or is there something about presidential election candidates being permitted to vote in an impeachment trial that just doesn't pass the smell test ?
I believe I did hear a suggestion that they should have recused themselves. But, hey, it's OK for Dims to dig for dirt on their opponents.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/06/2020 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
h/t Instapundit
[Daily Wire] - On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time after the Senate acquitted President Trump in his impeachment trail, immediately filing cloture on a number of judges as he continued his relentless march toward remaking America’s judiciary with a conservative bent. The judges included Andrew Lynn Brasher to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, Joshua M. Kindred to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska, Matthew Thomas Schelp to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, John Fitzgerald Kness to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, and Philip M. Halpern to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.
#2
Brasher will replace Edward Earl Carnes, a Bush appointee. After that there is one circuit vacancy on the 5th. That's it. There are many 70 and 80 year old Clinton appointees still on the federal circuit courts. They are no doubt holding out until after the election. If Trump wins, we will likely see another wave of retirements.
There are also 72 district court vacancies, but these are less exciting. The Senate is still honoring blue slip[s for district court nominees, which means blue state judges must be acceptable to Democratic Senators.
That's 40 (out of a total 72) in deep blue states. These will be hard to fill. Hard core ideologues would rather they stay empty than be filled by Trump.
The hounds are closing in. Can you hear them baying in the distance?
[SaraACarter] Two top Republican Senators are expanding their probe into potential conflicts of interest "posed by the business activities of Hunter Biden" as the Senate investigative committees continue to probe former Vice President Joe Biden’s son’s business activities overseas during his father’s tenure in the Obama Administration.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Sen. Ron Johnson, who already have an ongoing investigation into numerous White House meetings during the Obama Administration with senior Ukrainian officials, sent a letter Wednesday to Secret Service Director James M. Murray requesting information "about whether Hunter Biden used government-sponsored travel to help conduct private business, to include his work for Rosemont Seneca and related entities in China and Ukraine."
#3
He does have to face a primary here in SC in June. So far 7 people have filed to run against him, but I have never heard of any of them. He looks to be a shoo-in for the next 6 years.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2020 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
[Wash Examiner] Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ripped Senate Republicans after they voted to acquit President Trump on two impeachment charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.
"As the president's impeachment trial began, Republican senators pledged an oath to defend the Constitution," Clinton tweeted. "Today, 52 of them voted to betray that oath‐and all of us. We're entering dangerous territory for our democracy. It'll take all of us working together to restore it."
Clinton, 72, lost to Trump, 73, in the 2016 presidential election and has spent much of the time since repeatedly claiming she actually won because of the popular vote. Last week, she said attacks from Sen. Bernie Sanders's supporters were part of the reason she was unsuccessful in 2016.
Clinton faces a $50 million defamation lawsuit that Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is bringing against the former first lady after she called Gabbard a "Russian agent" in 2019.
As the president's impeachment trial began, Republican senators pledged an oath to defend the Constitution.
Today, 52 of them voted to betray that oath‐and all of us.
We're entering dangerous territory for our democracy. It'll take all of us working together to restore it.
‐ Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton)
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2020 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11142 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Clinton, 72, lost to Trump, 73, in the 2016 presidential election and has spent much of the time since repeatedly claiming she actually won because of the popular vote.
She blamed everybody else under the sun for her loss - Senate Republicans get a pass on that count!
#2
...campaign and technology veterans who have built and implemented technology at Hillary for America From their website.
A couple of failures under their belts.
Bloomberg seems to be following suit. He has thrown a ton of money on ads--promoting himself and bashing Trump. It seems that he has thrown his money down a black hole.
[DailyBeast] The Daily Beast learned that Trump’s off-record Tuesday lunch with prominent news anchors was surprisingly “chill,” with the president mocking his chuckling guests.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.