By: Brian Evans

Some Americans may not look at the past two years and believe that the United States is at war against a communist ideology within our own borders, but new evidence is proving that a war or coup, is exactly what is happening in America.

In early 2017, Democrats slammed Attorney General Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia Investigation, in their effort propel pro-left Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to the acting head of the Special Counsel oversight. Democrat House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said…

“WE ARE FAR PAST RECUSAL. . . . ANYTHING LESS THAN RESIGNATION OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IS UNACCEPTABLE”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Also, Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren said..

In fact, a number of other Democrats who were calling for the recusal or resignation of Jeff Sessions include…

Democrats calling for Sessions to resign

  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California
  • Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California
  • Jackie Speier, D-California
  • Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California
  • Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts
  • Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland
  • Rep. Joe Crowley, D-New York
  • Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon
  • Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York
  • Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut
  • Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
  • Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington
  • Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto, D-Nevada
  • Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois
  • Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico
  • Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts
  • Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont
  • Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan
  • Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico
  • Sen. Christ Van Hollen, D-Maryland
  • Rep. Nanette Barragan, D-California
  • Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-California

Democrats calling for Sessions to recuse himself

  • Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia
  • Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont
  • Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California
  • Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon
  • Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania
  • Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island
  • Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin
  • Sen. Angus King, I-Maine (caucuses with Democrats)
  • Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia

Now, ONCE AGAIN, Democrats are fighting to force President Trump’s Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker to recuse himself as well, as he is not a left-wing pro-socialist, pro-globalist like Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Also, that would allow Rosenstein to continue overseeing the Special Counsel, as he has given Mueller complete and utter authority and autonomy over his spending, his use of power, and the depth and breadth of his investigation, regardless of their lack of constitutionality.

Already, conservative commentator Mark Levin posted

“The Appointment of Robert Mueller Violates the Constitution” on his show’s website. Levin cites the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, arguing that high-level positions such as Mueller’s must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. He said…

“The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Mueller is not an inferior appointee, but a principal appointee as understood under our constitutional. His powers are more akin to a United States attorney, not an assistant United States attorney.Indeed, Mueller is more powerful than most United States attorneys, all of whom were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as principal officers.”

“As such, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause” and everything arising from it is invalid, Levin concludes:

“It follows, then, that every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement involving the Mueller investigation is null and void. Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause.”

Mark Levin, Conservative Talk Show Host

Levin credits Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi for pointing out many of these points, as he said…

“I agree completely with his analysis”

Mark Levin, Conservative Talk Show Host

Professor Calabresi served as the special assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese from 1985-1987, and a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia from 1987-1988. He explained his legal reasoning a week earlier, in a Wall Street Journal article titled, “Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Line.” Calabresi wrote…

“It’s unconstitutional under Morrison v. Olson – the decision, not the dissent At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.”

Professor Calabresi, and Former Assistant AG, and Supreme Court Law Clerk.

Calabresi pointed out how the indictments against Manafort, and others are therefore unconstitutional, as he reveals…

“Paul Manafort and all others charged or subpoenaed by Mueller are, thus, unconstitutional, Prof. Calabresi saysJudge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.”

Professor Calabresi, and Former Assistant AG, and Supreme Court Law Clerk.

Even Akhil Reed Amar, who serves as a Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, and an anti-Trump Democrat, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Mueller Special Council is Unconstitutional, and he cited the same “violations of several basic constitutional principles,” as Professor Calabresi. Amar testified that…

“I must report that, as a scholar who has studied the Constitution for over thirty years and written extensively on constitutional law, I believe that the bills in their current form are unwise and unconstitutional. In a nutshell: The bills, if enacted, are likely to be successfully vetoed, and rightly so; are likely to be judicially invalidated, and rightly so; and are in any event violations of several basic constitutional principles.”

A multitude of authorities, including Professor Amar points to the Morrison v. Olson court case opinion,  as a reason that Robert Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. It reads…

“A. The Inferior-Means-Inferior Principle

“Even if a Court majority were to try stretch Morrison to cover Mueller, the Constitution itself would still say what it says. And that document clearly says that (apart from recess appointees) appointed officers must either be confirmed by the Senate or they must be truly inferior officers.”

Regardless, the Democrats are seeking to insulate Robert Mueller and his Special Council, which is one of the most corrupt and unconstitutional appointments. They are striving to insulate Mueller and his corrupt band of left-wing anti-Trump lawyers, from Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, just as they did under Former AG Jeff Sessions. In fact, just as they pushed for Sessions recusal and resignation, now they are pushing for Whitaker’s recusal and resignation as well.

On Sunday, top democrats continued to press for acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s recusal from the Mueller investigation, over his former remarks that he made in 2017, when he ran the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT). He said that Mueller was wrong to go outside of the scope of the mandate given to him by the Justice Department. After all, Mueller is supposed to work for the Justice Department, not independent of all governmental authority, ESPECIALLY SINCE he does not have the confirmation of the Senate.

Still, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and five leading committee Democrats sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Lee J. Lofthus, which is the Justice Departments top ethics official, and asked whether Whitaker was advised to recuse himself from the investigation. They said…

“There are serious ethical considerations that require Mr. Whitaker’s immediate recusal from any involvement with the Special Counsel investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Regrettably, Mr. Whitaker’s statements indicate a clear bias against the investigation that would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality. The official supervising the Special Counsel investigation must be — in both fact and appearance — independent and impartial”

Schumer, Pelosi, And Other Top Democrats

Whitaker pointed to the Special Council’s desire to go after the Presidents financial bank accounts, and said that they were crossing a ‘red line’, by going outside the scope and mandate that they were given by doing so. Democrats were also upset that he pointed out that the President doesn’t have to fire Mueller to end the Special Council, but they could sap investigators’ resources by cutting funding, which has grown to be astronomical, on the backs of Americans.

Democrats also took aim at the fact he knows former Trump campaign official Sam Clovis, who had been one of the many people who had appeared before Mueller’s grand jury. They said…

“Mr. Whitaker’s relationship with Mr. Clovis, who is a grand jury witness in the Special Counsel investigation, as well as Mr. Whitaker’s other entanglements, raise additional concerns about his ability to supervise the investigation independently and impartially.

Ironically, the Demorats plea to the DOJ, resulted in the Department of Justice ruling that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker can serve in the position, which is a major slam to the Democrat Party’s fight to remove him. Furthermore, regardless of the Democrats latest attacks, Whitaker reportedly has no intention of recusing himself, or resigning his position. Still Democrats are taking aim at not only Whitaker himself, but anyone in or associated with, or working within the Trump Administration. In fact, now after the Democrats took over the House of Representatives in the Midterms this month, they are not only vowing to ‘resist the President and his agenda, but they have announced that they are looking to bog the Administration down in the legal system. They are looking at using the judicial branch to block the Executive Branches ability to function, as designed by the Constitution. They are planning to do so by launching AT LEAST 85 separate investigations, and countless subpoenas against the White House, in their effort to effectively block any executive ability by the President.

In fact, Axios reports that the Democrats are considering launching at least 85 investigations into President Trump and high-ranking officials, including the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and whether the president violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause, starting in January. In addition, Democrats are planning on launching investigations into President Trump’s border policy, hurricane response policy, assistance to Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria, and the child separation policy that was implemented by President Bush, and carried out by even the Obama Administration. Also, Democrats are looking to launch the following investigations into the President in January. The following are just a few of the investigations that democrats are planning, which include

  • President Trump’s tax returns
  • Trump family businesses
  • Trump’s dealings with Russia, including the president’s preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
  • Stormy Daniels
  • James Comey’s firing
  • Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys
  • Trump’s proposed transgender ban for the military
  • Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s business dealings
  • White House staff’s personal email use
  • Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
  • Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
  • Jared Kushner for ethics law compliance
  • Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
  • The travel ban
  • Family separation policy
  • Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
  • Election security and hacking attempts
  • White House security clearances
  • White House treatment of the press
  • Presidents decision to initiate the Space Force
  • Handling of the Department of Justice
  • Handling of the Department of Homeland Security
  • Handling of the Department of Health and Human Services
  • 2020 Citizenship Census question
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • White House Security Clearances
  • Initiate more than 64 subpoena’s
  • John Brennan’s Security Clearance
  • John Bolton’s Security Clearance
  • Office of Personnel Management
  • Handling of Medicare and Medicaid
  • State Department over decision to close Cyber office
  • RUSSIAN MEDDLING and threat to our elections
  • Refusal to defend Obamacare (Affordable Care Act
  • Investigate what Democrats allege is a ‘Political loyalist lists’
  • Administrations handling of Title X Family planning and proposed Gag Rule
  • Handling of the EPA
  • Steve Bannon’s involvement with law enforcement during the 2016 election
  • Administrations handling and hiring of immigration judges
  • Administrations handling of whistle blowers
  • Chartered flights
  • Administrations use of private email accounts
  • Department of Justices classification of Dana Boente notes
  • State Department’s releasing of left-wing employees
  • Rejected security clearance applications
  • HHS’ Removal of certain information on abortion from women’s health website
  • Acting Head of the Department of Civil Rights Division, John Gore
  • Administrations handling of the contract for emergency meals
  • Administrations handling of the deadly Niger ambush
  • CBP’s handling of allegations of sexual assault by employees
  • Department of Defenses hurricane response
  • Reassignment of Employees
  • DOJ and White House involvement in AT&T Time Warner Merger
  • Treasury Inspector General
  • Tax Administration
  • USDA
  • Jared Kushner’s possible conflict of interest
  • Trump Organization
  • Russian interference before 2016 election, and ties to Trump
  • Administrations involvement with Inspector General report on what democrats have called a ‘Muslim Ban’
  • If Jared Kushner violated the Presidential Records Act
  • Administrations handling of the Iran Nuclear Deal
  • FDIC
  • Administration’s handling of Michael Flynn’s foreign contacts
  • White House Aid’s computer usage
  • Ivanka Trump’s documents and emails
  • Allegations made by Democrats of Housing Abuses by the Trump Administration
  • Findings by Mueller
  • Trumps use of pardons
  • Re-investigate Mueller findings, as Democrats claim House Intel leaders obstructed justice.
  • The hiring of Jeff Sessions as AG
  • The firing of Jeff Sessions as AG
  • The appointment of Matt Whitaker as Acting AG
  • Administrations involvement in the FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
  • Administrations and Interiors decision to expand mining and drilling on federal lands.
  • Administrations involvement in the expanding of offshore drilling
  • Zinke’s removal of references to humans’ role in climate change from agency reports, instead of embracing ‘global warming’ theory
  • Alleged violations of the Hatch Act by Zinke
  • The EPA’s decisions
  • Trump’s politicization of the military.
  • Profitability of the Trump International Hotel in Washington and whether it’s being used to violate the emoluments clause.
  • Administration policies on domestic terrorism.
  • Relaxing of regulations for for-profit colleges and limiting of student loan forgiveness.
  • Department of Education’s rollback of Obama-era rules that expanded transgender students’ access to school facilities.
  • Administrations revocation of CNN’s Jim Acosta Press Pass to the White House, after he put his hands on a White House aide.

Ultimately, the Democrats have vowed to investigate, subpoena, investigate more, and launch one of the largest and most massive governmental investigations against an opposing Party, in United States history. Already, they have used the court system by judge shopping for judges who would rule in their favor, and then use the judicial system to stop, or stall virtually every aspect of President Trumps Agenda.

Now, as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) is expected to become House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman, he says that the Democrats aren’t going to launch the investigation and subpoenas all at once, but instead they plan to target the Administration over the next few years, steadily and consistently, so they can bog down the Administration in the court system.

Also, the Democrats have vowed to demonize anyone within the Administration who opposes their ideological goals, and either remove them from office, or get them to recuse themselves, so the Democrats would be basically stall the Trump Administration agenda, and take power by judicial default. That way, even though the Republicans are in charge due to the ‘will of the people’, the Democrats could still run the show, like they did with the Mueller Special Council under Jeff Sessions, through the power of investigation, subpoena, and legal threats and intimidation.

The White House has yet to comment on the Democrats’ plans to investigate it, or their plan to take power through judicial action.

 

Advertisements