web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Uncategorized" (Page 15)

Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules

Westlake Legal Group bathroom-453420_1280-620x291 Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story

 

I’m confused.

I can’t quite make out what’s happening.

First, we were told calling out someone’s gender is wrong — waitress, waiter, etc. Then we were told gender doesn’t exist — it’s a social construct. Then we were told gender is inherent, therefore people can legally change theirs with medical confirmation. Then we were told that gender isn’t really gender at all — despite the antiquated notion of female and male, and despite the fact that the very notion of gender comes from the existence of binary biological sex, there are actually limitless genders (here).

And though gender was initially described as a social construct — therefore, meaningless — then we were told it’s punishingly important. Literally punishingly — California passed  a law doling out fines and/or jail time to senior care workers who “misgender” their patients. In New York, you can be fined up to $250,000 in the misgendering department.

Now here’s something even more confusing : If you strip everybody nekkid, then suddenly we’re back to just men and women.

Will there ever be a transgender nudist colony? How will you know?

And all of the above edicts, though listed serially, are somehow concurrently true.

Here’s another thing: While it’s wrong for a restaurant to force women to wear skirts and men to wear pants…and while, because gender is a social construct, who’s to say a man wears slacks and a woman dresses…at the core of someone declaring themselves transgender — a medical idea — is the changing of clothing to that gender’s “socially constructed” version.

So the people who are no slaves to society are slaves to society.

Though a bra isn’t for girls and a jock strap isn’t for guys, a guy identifying as a girl will put on a bra to live his truth. But if you combine all the rules, it should be true for a man to identify as a woman who doesn’t conform to the social construct. So you should be able to be a naturally-born guy and change literally nothing about your clothes or body or appearance…you should be able to still have a hairy chest and a penis and wear men’s clothes and sport a beard…and now be a woman.

To be clear, none of this is meant to be at all humorous; I’m genuinely confused, because it’s extremely complicated.

And how does all that play into Portland doing away with urinals? And what does that have to do with gender vs. sex?

“I’m not a man; I’m a woman.” “I’m not a woman or a man; I’m a banana slug.” Okay, but speaking words doesn’t change the way your pee comes out.

Nevertheless, the hipster town sent out an email to city employees last February regarding the remodeled public Portland Building:

We will continue to have gender-specific (male and female) multi-stall restrooms that are readily available to any employee that prefers to use one. But, there will be no urinals in any restroom in the building. This will give us the flexibility we need for any future changes in signage.

Therefore, urinals are banned, even in the Men’s room.

How’s that lookin’ for the impending end of the world, and woke government’s raging fight against it?

As noted by talk show host Lars Larson:

Finally, in a place constantly lecturing us about protecting the environment (you know, plastic straws etc) this will waste a tremendous amount of water
I checked and most urinals take as little as a pint of water per flush (1/8 gallon). Even “modern” toilets flush with more than a gallon of water. Some “no flush” urinals use no water at all. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands of flushes a year. Figure out how this makes sense.

Here’s more on the Portland Building: Every floor will have at least one any-gender restroom.

The 1st, 34th, and 15th floors will sport multi-stall bathrooms so men and women can take dumps together.

‘Cause that’s what everybody wants.

Good job, Portland.

Chief Administrative Officer Tom Rinehart, who wrote the February email, is convinced:

I am convinced that this is the right way to ensure success as your employer, remove arbitrary barriers in our community, and provide leadership that is reflective of our shared values.

The total remodel will cost taxpayers $195,000,000.

-ALEX

 

 

The post Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bathroom-453420_1280-300x141 Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules

Westlake Legal Group bathroom-453420_1280-620x291 Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story

 

I’m confused.

I can’t quite make out what’s happening.

First, we were told calling out someone’s gender is wrong — waitress, waiter, etc. Then we were told gender doesn’t exist — it’s a social construct. Then we were told gender is inherent, therefore people can legally change theirs with medical confirmation. Then we were told that gender isn’t really gender at all — despite the antiquated notion of female and male, and despite the fact that the very notion of gender comes from the existence of binary biological sex, there are actually limitless genders (here).

And though gender was initially described as a social construct — therefore, meaningless — then we were told it’s punishingly important. Literally punishingly — California passed  a law doling out fines and/or jail time to senior care workers who “misgender” their patients. In New York, you can be fined up to $250,000 in the misgendering department.

Now here’s something even more confusing : If you strip everybody nekkid, then suddenly we’re back to just men and women.

Will there ever be a transgender nudist colony? How will you know?

And all of the above edicts, though listed serially, are somehow concurrently true.

Here’s another thing: While it’s wrong for a restaurant to force women to wear skirts and men to wear pants…and while, because gender is a social construct, who’s to say a man wears slacks and a woman dresses…at the core of someone declaring themselves transgender — a medical idea — is the changing of clothing to that gender’s “socially constructed” version.

So the people who are no slaves to society are slaves to society.

Though a bra isn’t for girls and a jock strap isn’t for guys, a guy identifying as a girl will put on a bra to live his truth. But if you combine all the rules, it should be true for a man to identify as a woman who doesn’t conform to the social construct. So you should be able to be a naturally-born guy and change literally nothing about your clothes or body or appearance…you should be able to still have a hairy chest and a penis and wear men’s clothes and sport a beard…and now be a woman.

To be clear, none of this is meant to be at all humorous; I’m genuinely confused, because it’s extremely complicated.

And how does all that play into Portland doing away with urinals? And what does that have to do with gender vs. sex?

“I’m not a man; I’m a woman.” “I’m not a woman or a man; I’m a banana slug.” Okay, but speaking words doesn’t change the way your pee comes out.

Nevertheless, the hipster town sent out an email to city employees last February regarding the remodeled public Portland Building:

We will continue to have gender-specific (male and female) multi-stall restrooms that are readily available to any employee that prefers to use one. But, there will be no urinals in any restroom in the building. This will give us the flexibility we need for any future changes in signage.

Therefore, urinals are banned, even in the Men’s room.

How’s that lookin’ for the impending end of the world, and woke government’s raging fight against it?

As noted by talk show host Lars Larson:

Finally, in a place constantly lecturing us about protecting the environment (you know, plastic straws etc) this will waste a tremendous amount of water
I checked and most urinals take as little as a pint of water per flush (1/8 gallon). Even “modern” toilets flush with more than a gallon of water. Some “no flush” urinals use no water at all. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands of flushes a year. Figure out how this makes sense.

Here’s more on the Portland Building: Every floor will have at least one any-gender restroom.

The 1st, 34th, and 15th floors will sport multi-stall bathrooms so men and women can take dumps together.

‘Cause that’s what everybody wants.

Good job, Portland.

Chief Administrative Officer Tom Rinehart, who wrote the February email, is convinced:

I am convinced that this is the right way to ensure success as your employer, remove arbitrary barriers in our community, and provide leadership that is reflective of our shared values.

The total remodel will cost taxpayers $195,000,000.

-ALEX

 

 

The post Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bathroom-453420_1280-300x141 Portland Bans Urinals to Respect ‘Shared Values,’ Charges Taxpayers $200M. Plus: A Mind-Bending History of Gender Rules Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-e1567704712668 Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden Uncategorized Ukraine Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats collusion biden

While Democrats have been all over the Ukrainian question in the effort to claim President Donald Trump did something wrong by inquiring about the investigation into Hunter Biden, Democrats have been less eager to talk about any investigation of the younger Biden.

Questions have been raised by many about the position which Hunter held on the board of Burisma and for which he was reportedly paid $50,000/month while his father was the point man for the Obama administration on Ukraine.

From NY Post:

By coincidence, Hunter had landed this cushy gig in a foreign country only a few months after the Obama ­administration began dispatching his father, Joe, to the very same foreign country on a regular basis.

There was, of course, absolutely nothing in Hunter’s résumé to indicate that he would be a valuable addition to foreign energy interest. He didn’t speak the language, and he had no particular expertise in the energy industry. Oh, he did have one thing, though: his last name.

Those questions were heightened by a video of Joe Biden in 2018 admitting that he pressured Ukraine when he was Vice President, saying he would have the Obama administration withhold aid unless they fired the prosecutor. The prosecutor was reportedly investigating Burisma. He was in fact fired.

The fired prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, gave a recent affidavit to an Austrian court that was released by John Solomon of The Hill. In that affidavit, Shokin claims, “I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings.” He claims that the then-President, Petro Poroshenko forced him to resign because Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid for Ukraine until he was removed from office.

Democrats argue there was no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. The subsequent prosecutor installed after that pressure, Yuri Lutsenko, said that he didn’t find anything on Hunter.

But now the investigation may be re-opened, according to new reports.

The former PM of Ukraine is saying that Hunter Biden must be investigated to make sure that he complied with the law. “It’s a fact (his directorship and fees) and not made up. It should be investigated so that the ‘i’s can be dotted and the ‘t’s crossed,” Mykola Azarov told Reuters.

And that’s not all. A present official within the government has also said he expects the case involving Burisma to be re-opened.

From The Daily Beast:

Valentin Nalyvaichenko, a former head of Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency and a member of Ukraine’s parliament, says he expects the corruption case of the Burisma gas company—two cases were opened and dropped by various prosecutors over the years—to be revisited. Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, was a board member.

Ukrainians get that at the very least it appears unseemly.

But for Democrats, it’s always and only about getting Trump.

The post Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-300x169 Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden Uncategorized Ukraine Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats collusion biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Church Leaders Suggest Bonkers Remedy to Knife Violence in England

Knife crime is Britain has hit an all-time high. London’s murder rate was higher than New York’s last year and they’re on track to have even more murders this year than in 2018. Clearly, something needs to be done, and Britain has no shortage of bad ideas. Since 2014, there has been an 80 percent rise in knife crime.

They tried a “Knife Surrender Bin” wherein people could safely turn in their knives. That didn’t work out so well after at least one was broken into and the contents stolen. In Nottinghamshire, police purchased 100 kitchen knives with dull ends and distributed them to homes where there is a high risk for domestic abuse.

Now, church leaders in England are calling for the government to ban pointy knives all together, signing on to a letter which reads:

Historically we needed a point on the end of our knife to pick up food because forks weren’t invented. Now we only need the point to open packets when we can’t be bothered to find the scissors.

A five-year study in Edinburgh found that of the sharp instruments used in homicides, 94 per cent were kitchen knives. Research demonstrates kitchen knives are used in a large percentage of homicides due to their availability and lethal nature.

Criminologists have demonstrated that reducing availability in turn reduces crime.

The UK has worked for the public good by restricting handguns, paracetamol, smoking in public and plastic bags – now it is time to say ‘no bloody point’.

At Rochester Cathedral, a statue called “Knife Angel” (yes, it’s literally an angel made of knives) is currently on display along with a book which people can sign, pledging not to carry knives.

I doubt the people signing this book are the people who were going to go on a stabbing spree. That’s the problem with these initiatives, just like gun control ideas in America.Remember the halcyon days of a couple of years ago when we used to joke that Britain would soon try to ban “assault knives”? Satire has become reality. The problem isn’t with weapons, it’s with people. We need to get to why people are stabbing each other in such drastically larger numbers.

And, maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem that hard to sharpen a knife if you’re determined to use one.

If we spent this much time, money, and energy on making people less murdery, the weapons wouldn’t even be an issue.

The post Church Leaders Suggest Bonkers Remedy to Knife Violence in England appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group england-give-way-300x157 Church Leaders Suggest Bonkers Remedy to Knife Violence in England Violence Uncategorized UK murder Knives knife Front Page Stories Featured Story England crime Church britain   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Do We Defer to the Political Class?

Westlake Legal Group chinese-kowtow Why Do We Defer to the Political Class? washington D.C. Uncategorized Ukraine Politics political corruption New House investigations of Trump Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Government Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats lie democrats Culture corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress Complicit Media career politicians Abuse of Power

Public Domain. Official session in a Chinese Yamen, Guangzhou, pre-1889. Photo: Creative Commons.

Theory: Deference is a tactic that has been fully exploited by the political class for over 100 years to our collective detriment. Let’s examine that postulation in detail. What does deference mean? Here’s the dictionary definition:

deference [def-er-uh ns]

noun: respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another.

Deference is typically shown to older – and/or believed to be more experienced – people in various matters. As examples, we defer to the clergy in matters of religion, doctors in matters of medicine, and judges in matters of the law (the honest ones, anyway). Deference is also shown to people with credentials, too. What do I mean by that? There is a societal belief that people with the “right” credentials should be deferred to in matters associated with those credentials. The more credentials one “earns,” the more deference shown. There are all kinds of credentials: those earned by learned/demonstrated skills, those awarded by authoritative boards and committees, those achieved by passing tests, etc. Credentials are frequently used to preclude laymen from filling positions – a form of gatekeeper control.

But do credentials actually mean anything? Should we defer to people simply because they’ve got a piece of paper? Trust but verify works in the realm of validating credentials in everyday life, too. We look at the track records and recommendations/ratings first, don’t we? Who would willingly go to a known pedophile priest, a quack doctor, or a corrupt judge and blindly adhere to their advice without first checking them out? Let’s go one step further and look at the political class.

The political class has developed a sort of credentialism that accrues to politicians at different levels of government to the point that people elected to federal or certain state offices are considered “experts” in government operations and, seemingly, in virtually every topic and issue brought forth for consideration, regardless of whether there is any direct past expertise in those matters or not. Politicians blithely tell us to “trust them” because they are “experts” in how government operates – and a whole host of other myths intended to convince us to essentially let them run wild and free. I would argue they as a class have been pretty successful in that regard, as the national debt now exceeds $22 trillion! The bottom line is that they want us to look upon them as royalty and to treat them accordingly. They willfully forget that they serve us, not the other way around.

But let’s look at the facts: how many of the members of Congress have ANY expertise in any of the important matters under consideration these days? Who among them know anything about medical care (except for a very few who were formerly practicing physicians)? Or national security affairs, foreign policy, military requirements, “infrastructure,” the financial services industry, physical science as applied to environmental policy, existing immigration laws, border security, international trade, or even the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why on earth should we continually defer to lunatics like San Fran Nan, Shifty Schiff, Toad Nadler, Dick Blumenthal, Ho Harris, Spartacus Booker, Mad Maxine Waters, and others on ANY policy or piece of legislation that significantly impacts Americans? It’s frickin’ absurd.

Possibly even worse than the politicians are the Hollywood actors and actresses who are frequently trotted out by Democrats to convey their “vast knowledge” on left-wing subjects before Democrat-run committees in Congress. Hmmm. The only thing these people are “expert” at is in pretending to be other people (and some of them aren’t so good at doing that, either). And we’re supposed to be swayed by what they say on, say, nationalized medicine? Their opinions are as useful as those of street people!

What really stimulated my thoughts on the subject of deference – especially to members of Congress – was watching Corey Lewandowski’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. This was great political theater for a change.

Here we had Democrat representatives feigning outrage at Lewandowski, preening before TV cameras, and launching into ridiculous diatribes for political effect. And Lewandowski gave then just the right amount of respect – but no deference whatsoever!

His responses were the kind of responses for which I have been wishing and praying from ostensible Republicans to the likes of Nadler, Jackson-Lee and the rest for years! Well prepared, confident, not willing to give an inch, and not rolling over to Democrat presumptions. He bore their insults and verbal attacks without getting flustered and practically laughed in their faces at times. Made me laugh more than once, too! And the Democrats got NOTHING out of him to further their “impeachment inquiry.” Nothing! In fact, even the legacy media afterward castigated the Democrats for failing to properly interview Lewandowski and “wasting an opportunity to push the impeachment ball forward.” Lewandowski gave better than he got.

It’s amazing how some Republicans finally seem to have gotten a little spine in the Age of Trump, isn’t it? Even Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have discovered their gonads over the past few months.

Back to the subject of deference. For years, I have had this print of a picture by the great American painter Norman Rockwell on my office wall as a daily reminder. It is entitled, “Freedom of Speech,” and a picture of a working man speaking truth to power and making his views known in a public meeting of some kind. It’s a direct example of what we as Americans should be doing on a regular basis, especially these days when so much corruption and criminality has been exposed! If anything, it properly reflects the deference of public servants toward average citizens, not the other way around! The political class and we need to be constantly reminded that they are to listen to and then serve us, not themselves!

Pompous windbags like Sheila Jackson-Lee berating private citizen Corey Lewandowski for crass political reasons are the antithesis of proper decorum and public service. Her performance was a direct result of the deference shown to the political class for decades. As an aside, I’d love to see her assets audited from top to bottom and her sources of income since election to Congress made widely known for her constituents to see. I’m sure that would be very illuminating. And the same goes for the rest of the contemptible fools.

How about liar Adam Schiff in his innumerable legacy media appearances over the past 2+ years in which he claimed to have the evidence necessary to “impeach the president” – which he couldn’t produce after the Mueller report was released? And then there’s his “parody” in an opening statement of the House Intelligence Committee about the President’s supposed extortion of Ukraine. It was a complete lie, as the telephone transcript summary of the two presidents’ phone call proved. Do we defer to him?

Should we show deference to Hillary Clinton who just called the president a “corrupt human tornado” while calling for his impeachment? The legacy media have been deferring to her for years, never challenging her about any of her egregious lies.

Then there is Fauxcahontas. Should we defer to her various pontifications about what policies she’d implement if elected president? The woman lied about her heritage to secure positions throughout her career. The legacy media have let her slide out of “deference,” too.

The list goes on and on. How many liars, knaves and thieves do you defer to in your private lives? I would wager not very many. Me neither.

The political class think that can say and do literally ANYTHING and get away with it and not be held accountable! They would do well to remember that there is no “royalty” in America, and the Founders and others fought a revolution to get out from under a tyrannical government. The political class demand deference from us yet fail miserably in their service obligations while taking advantages of perks that they give to themselves. I don’t think so! We should treat them just as we do credentialed people with whom we come in contact in our daily lives. Trust but verify. Confront them directly when they lie. Be courteous, but don’t be afraid to express your own opinion, particularly if it’s factual and contrary to what they bleat. Treat them with disdain when warranted. Inform others about their bad behavior, as appropriate. Follow the example of Corey Lewandowski and press other Republicans to do the same.

The political class need to earn our deference and respect – and that’s an EXTREMELY hard sell these days, especially with what we’ve seen lately. There are a lot of them who have demonstrated that they deserve no respect and certainly no deference. Let’s all deal with them accordingly – in the same manner as you would deal with others who violate trust in your daily lives. That is all that they deserve.

The end.

The post Why Do We Defer to the Political Class? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group chinese-kowtow-300x223 Why Do We Defer to the Political Class? washington D.C. Uncategorized Ukraine Politics political corruption New House investigations of Trump Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Government Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats lie democrats Culture corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress Complicit Media career politicians Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Buck Stops…With Buck

=========
=========
Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.
=========
=========

Ed Buck is a despicable man.  He is an avid LGBTQ to the infinity power activist and businessman originally from Arizona but now resides in West Hollywood, California.  This past Tuesday, he was arrested after another victim suffered a drug overdose in his home.  Thankfully, the person in question was rushed to the hospital and survived.  The same cannot be said for two other drug overdose victims who died in the very same house where the current victim managed to survive.

In July 2017, Gemmel Moore was found in Buck’s apartment dead from an apparent drug overdose.  Eighteen months later, Timothy Dean was found dead from a drug overdose in the same apartment from methamphetamine.  No charges were filed due to a lack of evidence despite the fact the apartment was littered with drug paraphernalia.  Hmmmm…

Buck is well-known in Democrat circles as a mega-donor.  The former male model has donated to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton.  The following is a list of his donations:

  • $2,000 to Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
  • $1,000 to Barney Frank (D-MA)
  • $1,000 to Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
  • $24,600 to Krystem Sinema (D-AZ)
  • $1,000 to Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-CA)
  • $1,000 to Jackie Rosen (D-NV)
  • $10.60000 to Ted Lieu (D-CA)
  • $5,400 to Adam Schiff (D-CA)
  • $,2700 to Hillary Clinton (D-???)

Besides these well-known names, he has donated to various losing candidates and local politicians in Hollywood as well as his PAC, “Getting Stuff Done.”  That PAC was likely first funded in an effort to get Sinema effectively elected to the Senate from Arizona.

According to the coroner’s report in the Moore death, in a notebook of the victim’s he noted that he used drugs with someone whose name was redacted in the report.  According to a civil suit filed by the mother of Moore, that name is none other than Ed Buck.  In the living room when the body was found, male pornography was playing on the television.  Investigators found various sex toys and methamphetamine in the living room of Buck.   However, LA county sheriffs found no indication of foul play and the death was ruled accidental.  The civil suit against Buck has been moved to federal court since Moore was from Texas and was allegedly lured to California by Buck

Timothy Dean was the next victim.  Buck told investigators that Dean was acting strange and that he tied a  noose around his neck and attempted to kill himself.  After Buck removed the noose, he did what any red-blooded Good Samaritan would do- he took a shower.  Upon returning to the living room, he found Dean dead and called the police.  He claimed they did not do drugs and did not have sex, although the death was ruled an accidental drug overdose of methamphetamine.

The latest victim managed to escape Buck’s apartment and called 9-1-1.  According to police reports, upon investigation, they found pictures of many men in various compromising sexual situations.

All three victims had one thing in common- they were black.  What is surprising about the case is that there is nary a word about the obvious perversion involved yet many articles in the Leftist press about gay black men being preyed upon.  For example, Rolling Stone ran this headline: “Ed Buck’s Arrest Has Stirred Up the Far-Right- But the Story is Even Bigger Than They Realize.”  The subtitle is: “Buck’s Arrest Points to a Bigger Systemic Failure in America.”   And what can that bigger “systemic failure” be?  You guessed it- the United States (the country, I tell you!) is failing to protect gay black men.

The problem of the Left is not the perverted lifestyle of some homosexuals (who happen to be major Democrat donors).  Once again, they have racialized the issue.  The problem is not that Ed Buck drugged and engaged in weird acts with homosexual victims.  The problem is that the three victims happened to be black.  One wonders what their reactions would be if the victims were white?    Perhaps if they were Latino, we would hear about white gay men preying upon vulnerable Hispanic gay men and, God forbid if they were “dreamers.”

This is not a racial story.  This is a story of perversion taken into a new stratosphere.  Simply, Ed Buck is a pervert who managed to get away with two murders.  He managed to get away with it because he was a donor to the Democrats.  One can rest assured that after the death of Gennel Moore in West Hollywood if Ed Buck were a Trump supporter, he would be pilloried long before now in the Leftist press.  He would be branded a brown-shirted Nazi and would become the face of the Trump supporter.

One can only hope that this piece of human scum suffers the maximum penalty and that Gennel Moore’s mother prevails in her civil lawsuit.  If he can donate $43,200 to the likes of people like Adam Schiff, Kyrsten Sinema, and Hillary Clinton, he surely can payout at least $100,000 to Moore’s mother.

May the piece of scum rot in hell.

The post The Buck Stops…With Buck appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Is Trump Two Steps Ahead of UkraineGate? The Latest Twist in the “Whistleblowers” Missteps.

=========
=========
Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.
=========
=========

At what point is a whistleblower not one by definition? Much has been written the complete hearsay of their complaint, not to mention all of the descrepancies. It’s like whoever complained made it all up whole cloth.

The rules were simple before they were magically changed somehow to take away the firsthand knowledge requirement, just in time for this person to squeal from fake news reports and other Trump haters in the government and most likely Dems in Congress.

We actually don’t know if that change was made with the proper Federal Records Act procedures or whatever the applicable process is, of which I don’t pretend to know the ins and out. We deserve a paper trail to determine if this major change was actually done or just stamped on this particular complaint.

One person that commented on The Federalist article by Sean Davis said this:

Westlake Legal Group avatar92 Is Trump Two Steps Ahead of UkraineGate? The Latest Twist in the “Whistleblowers” Missteps. Uncategorized Front Page Stories

The Senate Intelligence Committee needs to immediately send to the CIA a documents preservation order so the revision files don’t “get lost”. I worked in the federal government for 40 years and I’ve done dozens of form revisions and the process is the same across the entire government.Shar

The way it works is the office responsible for the program, in this case probably the CIA IG, decides to revise the form. The new form is revised within the technical office by employees within the office. If they’re doing their jobs in accordance with the Federal Records Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, there is a document written that details exactly the rationale for the change, the impact of the changes, and what the new form looks like.

In the case of this form, since it involves a legal issue (the IC Whistleblower Protection Act) it also should have gone to the CIA or IC Office of General Counsel for a legal review to ensure the new form still complied with the Act. That file should also still be in the OGC’s office.

Finally the form is sent to the CIA’s HR department, specifically the Forms Control Officer. That office then reviews it to ensure the form complies with the CIA’s form control directive. When it does, the new form is formally approved by an official with the CIA’s HR department. The form is then printed (if hard copies are used) and also promulgated online, the old form is removed, and employees SOMETIMES are made aware that a new form is out. The HR file should also still be in the HR department.

If the form was developed and promulgated correctly there is an adequate paper trail to determine who and when the form was revised.

Sounds reasonable and someone with more knowledge can advise if this describes the process correctly.

We do know that the normal procedure is for a whistleblower (WB for short) is to file a complaint with the IG of their department. In September 2017, President Trump nominated Christopher Sharpley to be the CIA’s Inspector General and was acting in that role, until FoxNews reported late last July that he decided to step down after three decades of service and withdraw his IG nomination.

Sharpley is also withdrawing his inspector general nomination, CNN reported.

His reason for resigning from the agency and withdrawing his nomination was not immediately clear.

The Senate wasn’t prepared to advance Sharpley’s nomination until a resolution to complaints from two former CIA employees-turned-whistleblowers who alleged retaliation, according to a congressional aide who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

“Sharpley figured out he wasn’t going to be confirmed and decided to step aside,” said John Tye, executive director of Whistleblower Aid, who is representing two of the complainants alleging retaliation.

One complainant is Jonathan Kaplan, 59, a former special agent and investigator in the inspector general’s office who spent 33 years at the CIA.

A second is Andrew Bakaj, 35, who worked in that office as a special agent from 2012 to 2015. He was instrumental in developing agency regulations governing whistleblower reprisal investigations.

Wait a minute! How many people are named Andrew Bakaj? Isn’t the WB’s lawyer at the We Pay Whistleblowers law firm?

Why that is him! What a coincidence! From just a few days ago, per the Washintonian.com:

Andrew Bakaj is lead counsel, while Mark Zaid is co-counsel. Both are well known national security attorneys. In an interview with Washingtonian, Zaid says the representation first came to Bakaj as a “a typical case referral,” and then Bakaj brought Zaid in to help. Before Bakaj founded his own firm, Compass Rose Legal Group, he was an investigator in the inspector general’s offices at both the CIA and the Department of Defense, working on probes into whistleblower reprisals. “He actually wrote the CIA’s internal rules on whistleblowing. He’s one of the best people suited for this representation,” says Zaid.  […]

Not only that, Bakaj has himself been a whistleblower. It’s how he and Zaid initially met, because Bakaj retained Zaid as his own counsel. Back when Bakaj worked for the CIA inspector general in 2014, he was retaliated against by superiors who wanted to out whistleblowers within the agency, according to a Yahoo News story from earlier this month. At the time, per the article: “The intelligence community’s inspector general, which conducts independent audits and reviews across the spy agencies, was investigating concerns about potential evidence manipulation at the CIA inspector general’s office, issues that Bakaj and others, some of whom still remain anonymous, had raised.”

Being that there is no CIA IG or acting one to my knowledge, I guess his (I’m sticking with that pronoun until told otherwise for ease) complaint had to be filed with the IC IG.

Yet that is not what happened. The WB first approached the CIA general council who then took the complaint to the White House Office of Legal Council.

Multiple people familiar with the matter told The New York Times that the whistleblower brought a broad complaint to Courtney Simmons Elwood, the CIA general counsel, the week after the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. […]

Elwood tried to evaluate if there was a “reasonable basis” for the concerns raised by the anonymous whistleblower and spoke with John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel, the Times reports. According to the newspaper, the initial allegations brought to the CIA counsel only reported that major questions existed about one of Trump’s calls with a foreign leader, with the counsel later learning that multiple people raised concerns about the call. (my emphasis in bold)

ACLJ talked about this anomaly on their radio show yesterday and recapped here on their website:

This so-called whistleblower made a mistake. This person did not go to the Inspector General for the intelligence community, first, to avail themselves of the whistleblower statutes. This person went to the General Counsel at the CIA and told him about what they had overheard, not heard directly, overheard. It wasn’t until after that when this person filed the complaint.

Legally the allegations in this complaint are called hearsay. We established on the show yesterday that none of this would be admissible in court. This individual doesn’t even really qualify to be called a “whistleblower.” They didn’t even take necessary steps for the protection of anonymity granted to actual whistleblowers.

Surely the WH legal council advised the president, no?

And then the events as we know it unfolded. Trump released the call transript, the OLC’s opinion that it wasn’t a reliable account due to hearsay and had political bias against Trump’s rival, then Trump released the WB complaint. In essence, it seems like Trump knew what was coming and did his best to get out infront of the coming firestorm.

What are the chances he knew this would push Pelosi over the edge and call for a “real” impeachment inquiry and this time she’s not kidding. Well we still don’t have Articles of Impeachment nor a full House vote. Trump and every other Republican in the House should be demanding that all the people’s voices be heard. Take a full House vote now.

What gives one anonymous person who didn’t follow the Whistleblower Act procedures to put impeachment in motion?

The deep state saga continues while the Constitution is weeping after being trampled by the Democrats.

The post Is Trump Two Steps Ahead of UkraineGate? The Latest Twist in the “Whistleblowers” Missteps. appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II

Westlake Legal Group justice-2060093_1280-620x413 Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II Uncategorized Ukraine Politics New House investigations of Trump Never Trumpers Media Mainstream Media journalism International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton Government Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats democrat media complex Democrat Lies crime corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress collusion cia biden Biased News Media Abuse of Power

 

I speculated on Thursday about the identity of the Ukraine phone call leaker based on an anonymous State Department source. This was early in the story, and much has been learned since then by intrepid independent journalists. I have come to believe that identity of the leaker (I refuse to call that person a “whistleblower”) is unimportant, as the reality is shaping up to be a conspiracy consisting of many players is at the heart of the story, and that the complainant is merely the front man intended to project a veneer of credibility on the whole gambit. Let’s review what we know and what we suspect.

1. What we know: Rudy Giuliani was approached by Kurt Volker, then the US Special Representative to Ukraine at the State Department, to meet with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in order to help facilitate a phone call and/or meeting between Zelensky and President Trump. Volker is concurrently the head of the McCain Institute for International Leadership and also a senior adviser at his old lobbying firm, BGR Group, which just happens to represent Ukraine.

What we suspect: David Kramer from the McCain Institute was involved in pushing/propagating the fake Russian dossier.

David Kramer, who had known McCain since his days at the State Department, is an expert on Russia and is involved with the McCain Institute for International Leadership. He was deposed in December 2017 as part of a legal battle waged by a Russian businessman Aleksej Gubarev over BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier.

Kramer’s deposition — which reads like a spy thriller and offers an extraordinary behind-the-scenes lead up to the publication of the dossier — reveals that he circulated the dossier to multiple news organizations.

Read the rest here.

There are no such things as coincidences. John McCain was virulently anti-Trump, as were/are many in the McCain Institute. Kramer propagated the fake dossier, likely at McCain’s behest. Both Kramer and Volker were in the McCain Institute’s International Leadership group. Volker helped set up Guiliani contacts with Ukrainian officials. Occam’s razor says that this gambit was a repeat play of the beginnings of the Russian dossier hoax, with Volker’s resignation Friday adding suspicion to fuel the media’s fire. [Note: an alternative view to Volker’s resignation is that he was caught out and was forced to resign. Regardless, either reason makes him complicit in the conspiracy.]

2. What we know: Giuliani and Yermak spoke on the phone twice and met in Spain in July, the State Department was back-briefed by Giuliani after each instance, and a phone call between the two presidents took place in July. News of a “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump was reported by the Washington Post on 19 September, citing “two officials familiar with the report.” Here is a .pdf of the complaint itself released by the House Intelligence Committee just prior to testimony given by acting DNI Joseph Mcguire last Wednesday. The White House released a detailed summary of the phone call between the two presidents, which debunked most of the hearsay in the complaint. House Intelligence Committee Chairman opened his committed hearing on Thursday with his version of what the phone call consisted of, accusing the President of crimes and impeachable offenses. It was obviously a prepared statement that later in the hearing he pawned off as a “parody” because the released transcript summary completely disproved his fantasy. The President and several House Republicans have subsequently called for Schiff’s resignation for breaking House rules.

What we suspect: The complaint was delivered to Schiff (and Senator Burr’s Senate Intelligence Committee) on 12 August. As reported by several commentators, the complaint is very likely a composite written with the outside help (likely lawyers). For example, there is this from Fred Fleitz, formerly deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council:

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.

Read the rest here.

Schiff has had the complaint for over a month, and he and his staff have had plenty of time to seed and spin the complaint – which was solely based on second- and third-hand information – falsely throughout the news media. And that is exactly what has happened. A simple web search results in a whole host of legacy media stories that are “going with the spin,” i.e., that POTUS is “guilty” of a whole host of criminal activities. The story has evolved as previous breathless claims have been proven false, too. Here are a few headline examples:

  • As the Whistle-Blower Story Gets Worse for Trump, His Corruption Keeps Spreading (WaPo – 19 Sep)
  • Trump responds to Ukraine whistleblower scandal with contradictions and transparent falsehoods (Vox – 20 Sep)
  • The Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint Makes Impeachment More Likely (WaPo – 23 Sep)
  • Whistle-Blower Is Said to Allege Concerns About White House Handling of Ukraine Call (NY Times – 25 Sep)
  • Whistleblower report reveals how far Trump’s dubious ethics have spread (The Guardian – 26 Sep)
  • White House Lawyers Worked to Obscure Memo of Trump’s Ukraine Call, Whistleblower Claims (National Law Journal – 26 Sep)
  • Not Just Ukraine: Whistleblower Says the White House Is Hiding Other Damaging Documents (Mother Jones – 26 Sep)
  • Pelosi says Trump engaged in ‘cover-up’ to hide Ukraine call records (Politico – 26 Sep)

Notice how the headlines shift to “cover-up” and other process-oriented allegations and peripheral matters after the basic complaint was determined to be based on hearsay and contained false allegations there were exposed by the release of the phone transcript summary. The media piling on and running with rumors and allegations subsequently disproved and then shifting to other process-related allegations is EXACTLY the modus operandi of the Russia hoax that we’ve seen unfold over the past two years.

3. What we know: Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, authorized the changing of the whistleblower disclosure form to allow the use of hearsay information in late September:

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1177580473566093312

Previously, only first-hand information was allowed on the form, and indeed a complaint could not be registered at all unless it contained information personally witnessed by the complainant, as noted in this report from The Federalist.

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

Read the rest here.

What we suspect: The IC IG was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD). As such, he provided legal advice to disgrace former Obama officials John Carlin and Mary McCord were heavily involved in the “get Trump” operation in 2016 (those two subsequently resigned because they were implicated in lying to FISC Judge Collyer about the Russia dossier and the Carter Page FISA application). That makes Atkinson part of the Deep State swamp. It cannot be a coincidence that he authorized the change of the whistleblower disclosure form and then magically and nearly concurrently forwarded the complaint to congressional committees. He needs to explain this on the record with some very pointed questions asked!

4. What we know: interestingly, there is a Ukraine-US treaty signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 that provides important background on the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call that of course the legacy media ignore. The treaty is entitled, “Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.” The treaty binds the two countries together and obligates them to collaborate in exchanging information on criminal activities in either country. I like this quote from the letter of transmittal:

Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restrain confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state.

What we suspect: Gee, what did POTUS discuss with Zelenskiy again? Why, soliciting Ukraine’s help in getting to the bottom of potential Ukrainian-based interference in the 2016 election, in particular Crowdstrike. And it was Zelenskiy who brought up Biden’s name during the conversation. The Burisma-Biden corruption would be entirely covered under this mutual assistance treaty, too, meaning that President Trump was fulfilling his obligations as head of state under the treaty during that phone call. The accusations by the complainant are thus further proven to be false.

5. What we know: in response to my speculative article here on RedState Thursday conveying who I thought the complainant was based on a single anonymous State Department source and supporting analysis, Drew Harrell from the WaPo contacted me for a statement, parts of which he used in a story published in the WaPo here on Saturday. The main theme of the story is to examine “far-right amateur sleuths” who are trying to expose the complainant. Here are the excerpts about me:

The guessing game took another twist after the New York Times reported the complaint was made by a CIA officer detailed to the White House. A conservative writer, Stu Cvrk, tweeted out his guess a few hours later.

“Is This Guy The Ukraine Phone Call Whistleblower?” Cvrk tweeted, linking to a post he wrote on RedState, a conservative news and commentary site.

“A source known to me at the State Department, who will remain anonymous, tells me that everyone is pointing to Edward ‘Ned’ Price as the whistleblower who came forward with the accusation that President Trump ‘abused his office’ during a phone conversation with the Ukrainian president,” wrote Cvrk. Price is a former CIA officer who retired in 2017 and is now a political analyst for NBC News.

Price, who was more amused than upset at the claim, said it made him concerned about the development of “discourse that is just divorced from the facts.”

“It’s part of the political atmosphere that we live in now,” Price said. “People are looking for anything on which to hang their tinfoil hats.”

Cvrk, in a direct Twitter message to The Post, stood by his assessment. “You didn’t seriously think he would admit it, did you?” he wrote, adding that he was insulted by the inference “that I am a tinfoil hat guy.”

What we suspect: I’ll gladly accept the pejorative of being lumped with “far-right amateur sleuths” and wear that badge proudly. I and many other independents are doing the real digging and exposing the truth about both the Russia hoax and now the Ukraine political hit-job. While Harrell kindly quoted me accurately, he left out the other comments I sent to him which tell the whole story and place the above comments in complete context:

[Price is] a political hack. You didn’t seriously think he would admit to it, did you? It is no coincidence that his Twitter feed aligns with the evolution of the evolving hit piece aka “WB.” Just as Steele was the face of the dossier (hiding people who contributed to it), someone served the same function in this charade, as the “complaint” was a composite almost certainly written by multiple people including Democrat lawyers. Whether Price was the front-man or not, it’s clear he knew abt it and is serving as an agit-prop disseminator. Same modus operandi as the Russia hoax is in play. My piece was speculative. The fact that the complaint was not based on firsthand info and has demonstrably false info should lead investigative journalists (almost an oxymoron these days) to find out who and why the complaint was false, as well as who specifically wrote it, not go after those of us who are actually trying to find that out. It is absolutely clear that whoever submitted the false complaint was a political operative acting under false pretenses.

[W]ho at WaPo is looking into who actually wrote the complaint and why nobody with firsthand knowledge of the phone call didn’t submit a complaint if it was all so “egregious.” Do u seriously think the complaint was written by the person who submitted it after it was laundered thru Schiff’s office beginning in August?

Judge for yourself. It’s no surprise that the WaPo sees to disparage independent journalists and commentators, as we are not only direct competition to them, but we also expose their routine #FakeNews at every opportunity. The WaPo has been virulently anti-Trump since before he was inaugurated and has led the charge specifically on this Ukraine complainant hit-job from the very beginning.

6. Here’s a summary of what I think REALLY transpired:

  • The same playbook is being used in both political-hit-jobs: orchestrate a set of false allegations; work behind the scenes using Deep State actors to implicate Trump associates in activities that appear to support the allegations; spread the false allegations everywhere through willing media, elected Democrats, non-profit organizations, and others; and clamor for hearings, recusals, and a public show trial to support impeachment of POTUS.
  • Kurt Volker (McCain Institute) helped to repeat that the Russia hoax gambit just like David Kramer did with the Russian dossier. He facilitated the Giuliani contacts with the Ukrainians and then resigned (potentially to make it look bad for the President). What Volker didn’t count on was Giuliani retaining all pertinent texts and emails proving his interactions with Ukrainians were both above board and also solicited by Volker et al at the State Department.
  • A complaint by an unknown individual formally dated 12 August was lodged with the IC IG accusing the President of unlawful conduct. The complaint was later determined to have been based on second- and third-hand knowledge and laundered immediately through Adam Schiff’s committee.
  • The IC IG (who worked previously as chief legal counsel to two Obama DoJ people who resigned in disgrace) conveniently approved a change to the whistleblower disclosure form to allow the incorporation of second-hand information in the complaint (the new form was updated to DNI servers AFTER the Ukraine complaint was submitted).
  • The media ran with all sorts of stories accusing Giuliani and the President of “seeking a quid pro quo,” strong-arming the Ukrainians, etc., and then shifted to supposed process crimes, obstruction, and peripheral matters after POTUS had the summary transcript of the phone call released, proving that there was NO quid pro quo.
  • The media conveniently have ignored the US-Ukraine mutual assistance treaty signed by Clinton that authorizes exchange of records and information associated with criminal activities – exactly what was discussed during that phone call and further discrediting the complainant’s allegations.
  • Finally, the real purpose of the complaint cannot have been to further the Democrats’ impeachment agenda, as the conspirators surely knew that the phone call transcript summary and other records would disprove all the false allegations. The Democrats know that AG Barr and USA Durham are investigating the origins of the Russia hoax, which leads directly to Ukraine. In addition, the Bidens’ Ukrainian-related corruption (Joe’s blatant obstruction captured on video, and Hunter’s straight corruption with Burisma), and Hillary’s 2016 election shenanigans with Crowdstrike are daggers pointed at all of their black hearts – as well as at some Uniparty Republicans who benefited, too. As much as anything, I believe this gambit was as much about getting Barr to recuse himself and slow the whole investigative process down in hopes that either Trump would be impeached or some Democrat nominee would steal the 2020 election, after which point the whole mess could be swept under the rug.

Oh, and by the way, the name of the leaker/complainant doesn’t matter all that much. What really counts is exposing the entire conspiracy. The leaker/complainant was just a pawn. Viable candidates include Mike Barry, Kurt Volker, and, yes, Ned Price (or someone who fits their anti-Trump profiles). Finding out who did it is gravy.

The end.

The post Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group justice-2060093_1280-300x200 Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II Uncategorized Ukraine Politics New House investigations of Trump Never Trumpers Media Mainstream Media journalism International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton Government Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats democrat media complex Democrat Lies crime corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress collusion cia biden Biased News Media Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did Impeachment Just Get its First Republican Congressional Endorsement? ‘Let’s…See Where it Goes’

Westlake Legal Group lady-justice-2388500_1280-620x465 Did Impeachment Just Get its First Republican Congressional Endorsement? ‘Let’s…See Where it Goes’ Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story

 

 

Democrats hold a 235-198 majority in the House. Therefore, impeachment is certainly within their means. But what about adding-on some Republican comrades?

Enter a congressman from Nevada.

Rep. Mark Amodei has become the first GOP lawmaker to express support for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump.

And he was none too shy about it. The politician told reporters during a conference call the process should be pursued. Let the show begin:

“I’m a big fan of oversight, so let’s let the committees get to work and see where it goes.”

Novel move.

It sounds as if he believes Trump may be guilty:

“Using government agencies to, if it’s proven, to put your finger on the scale of an election, I don’t think that’s right. If it turns out that it’s something along those lines, then there’s a problem.”

Or perhaps it was more of a philosophical “if.”

It may have been.

And here’s a big wrench thrown into what I just laid out: After the call, Mark backtracked quite a ways.

How’s this for a confusing follow-up statement:

“In no way, shape, or form did I indicate support for impeachment.”

From The Independent:

“If it was my statement and I had the ability to do it over, I would probably phrase it differently,” he said. “I don’t know that it’s a smoking gun.”

“I think that’s why we have the committee process. I won’t attribute what was in the president’s mind. That wasn’t a great way to express concern about it. Part of what the committees will do is try to find some context for that and then based on what a fair reading of the context is, they’ll go forward from there.”

Unlike surely many Republicans, the representative for Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District doesn’t believe the whole impeachment hubbub is a political maneuver by Trump’s adversaries:

The Nevada Republican dismissed the notion, raised by Trump, that the issue was raised by political enemies in the government looking for any reason to depose him. He noted that Trump has a reputation for coming out hard when he feels like he’s being attacked, but said the issue is one of law. “I don’t care if it was a partisan spy or not,” Amodei said. “The only thing I get a vote on is, if it comes to the House floor… do I think that there is evidence there that is credible, that says he broke a specific law?”

The Independent observed that Mark “expects to be the chairman of the Trump campaign in Nevada.

Doesn’t sound like Trump’s kinda guy.

-ALEX

 

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Did Impeachment Just Get its First Republican Congressional Endorsement? ‘Let’s…See Where it Goes’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group lady-justice-2388500_1280-300x225 Did Impeachment Just Get its First Republican Congressional Endorsement? ‘Let’s…See Where it Goes’ Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

More Video Of Justin Trudeau And This Is The Worst Yet

Westlake Legal Group AP_16220564458740 More Video Of Justin Trudeau And This Is The Worst Yet Uncategorized racism Justin Trudeau Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Canada Campaigns blackface

Last week, pictures and video of Justin Trudeau blew up and threatened his campaign for re-election.

There were multiple incidents. One was where he was dressed as Aladdin and made up in blackface at an “Arabian Nights” party at the private high school at which he was teaching. He reportedly was the only one to wear a costume and his face and his hands were blacked up. He was a 29 years old. The second incident was a picture from high school were he appeared in a show singing “The Banana Boat” song. He wore blackface and an afro.

The last incident was a video that Global News Canada found. But their copy was grainy and difficult to see in detail. Now another Canadian outlet, The Post Milennial, has posted a higher quality version of the video.

Here it is:

He’s wearing an afro and appears to, again, have dyed multiple parts of his body, from his legs and arms to his tongue. He also ripped up his jeans and appears to have enhanced his crotch area.

Yikes. Can it get much worse?

But he seems resolved to weather it out, employing that well-known “if a liberal does it, it’s cool” exception.

The post More Video Of Justin Trudeau And This Is The Worst Yet appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_16220564458740-300x213 More Video Of Justin Trudeau And This Is The Worst Yet Uncategorized racism Justin Trudeau Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Canada Campaigns blackface   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com