The Republican wafer-thin majority in the House of Representatives is facing growing uncertainty as GOP members ofCongressline up forDonald Trump's Cabinet. ...
[Victoria] Spartz's move [not to caucus with the Republicans] could throw the slim Republican majority in the House into peril amid other GOP members of the House being tapped to serve in Trump's Cabinet. ...
Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon has also been nominated to serve as labor secretary. ...
Waltz has already submitted his resignation and, combined with Gaetz's resignation and the possibility of Spartz refusing to caucus with Republicans, as well as Stefanik and Chavez-DeRemer being confirmed to Cabinet positions, the Republican majority could collapse, jeopardizing their ability to advance Trump's agenda.
Waltz counts, Gaetz counts, and Stefanik counts, taking the 220 win down to 217 temporarily. Spartz not caucusing with the GOP creates a 216-215 GOP majority, not a 215-215 tie as Newsweek shows. Spartz remains a Republican, however, and presumably will vote with the Republicans.
The uninformed Newsweek writer is from . . . the UK lol.
And, of course, Drudge just repeats the stupidity:
“CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect
found in a single content update for Windows hosts,” George Kurtz, CEO
of CrowdStrike, said in a post on the social platform X. “Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted.”
April 30, 2016: CrowdStrike was contacted by the DNC outside counsel to discuss a suspected breach. This was CrowdStrike’s first involvement in this matter. (p6)
Fox News correspondent David Spunt has the latest on the first son's refusal to testify on 'Special Report.'
The assistant U.S. attorney who was accused oflimiting questionsrelated to President Biden during the federal investigation into Hunter Biden is no longer employed by the Justice Department, Fox News has learned.
Lesley Wolf, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware, is no longer with the DOJ, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The source said Wolf had longstanding plans to leave the Department of Justice and did so weeks ago.
Wolf, who IRS whistleblowers claimed slow-walked the Hunter Biden investigation, is sitting for a transcribed interview before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning.
Specifically, IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley alleged that Wolf worked to "limit" questioning related to President Biden and apparent references to Biden as "dad" or "the big guy."
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Brooke Singman is a Fox News Digital politics reporter. You can reach her at Brooke.Singman@Fox.com or @BrookeSingman on Twitter.
WASHINGTON — The former federal prosecutor who allegedly shielded President Biden and his son Hunter
during a criminal investigation testified 79 times to Congress that she
was “not authorized” by the Justice Department to answer questions
about the case, according to a transcript reviewed by The Post.
Former Delaware Assistant US Attorney Lesley Wolf repeatedly cited a
five-page authorization letter from Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer as she refused to answer questions during a House Judiciary Committee deposition last week.
Weinsheimer’s Dec. 12 letter, also reviewed by The Post, says: “[T]he
Department generally does not authorize congressional testimony from
line-level personnel, especially relating to an ongoing investigation
with charges pending in court. The Department has declined to do so in
connection with this matter.”
Wolf’s dozens of refusals to answer questions — just one day after the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry
into President Biden — frustrated attempts to firm up the storyline
involving what whistleblowers say was a sweeping cover-up by Wolf and
colleagues to protect the Biden family.
A
former federal prosecutor who allegedly shielded President Biden and
his son Hunter during a criminal investigation testified that she was
“not authorized” to answer questions about her actions, according to a
transcript. AP
The near-blanket rejection of questions follows pressure from House
Republicans on the administration to allow witness testimony and could
bolster GOP arguments that the White House is obstructing the inquiry,
which itself could form an article of impeachment.
Two IRS agents who worked on the long-running tax fraud investigation
into Hunter Biden, which focused on his foreign income from countries
such as China and Ukraine, alleged in prior testimony to House
committees that Wolf tipped off the first son’s lawyers to investigative
steps and forbade inquiries into Joe Biden, even when communications
mentioned him.
Wolf served on the squad of prosecutors that signed off on a
probation-only plea deal in June for the first son on tax and gun
charges, which fell apart the following month under scrutiny from a federal judge.
Lesley
Wolf (above) repeatedly cited a five-page authorization letter from
Bradley Weinsheimer as she refused to answer questions during a House
Judiciary Committee deposition. Fedbar.org
IRS supervisor Gary Shapley, who oversaw the Hunter Biden
investigation for three years, and case agent Joseph Ziegler, who worked
on the inquiry for five years, made a series of specific claims against
Wolf, which she did not refute in her testimony.
Tax investigators learned in December 2020 that Wolf “reached out to
Hunter Biden’s defense counsel and told them” about investigators’ plans
to search a northern Virginia storage unit that contained business
records, “circumventing our chance to get to evidence from potentially
being destroyed, manipulated or concealed,” Ziegler testified in July.
Shapley testified that investigators were months earlier barred from
searching a guest house at Joe Biden’s Wilmington, Del., home, where
Hunter often stayed.
Wolf’s
refusals to answer questions come one day after the full House voted to
authorize an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. REUTERS
Shapley said that on Sept. 3, 2020, “Wolf told us there was more than
enough probable cause for the physical search warrant there, but the
question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze.”
Wolf also allegedly objected during a meeting on Dec. 3, 2020, to questioning a key Biden family associate, Rob Walker, about the president.
“Wolf interjected and said she did not want to ask about the big guy
and stated she did not want to ask questions about ‘dad,’” he said.
“When multiple people in the room spoke up and objected that we had
to ask, she responded, there’s no specific criminality to that line of
questioning. This upset the FBI, too,” Shapley testified.
Wolf served as a key point person for the investigation, serving under Delaware US Attorney David Weiss.
The whistleblowers accused Weiss’ office of giving Hunter Biden’s
legal team advance knowledge of a planned interview attempt in late
2020, scuttling a planned approach, and said prosecutors didn’t pass
along a paid FBI informant’s tip that Joe and Hunter Biden received $10 million in bribes from Ukrainian energy company Burisma,
which paid Hunter a salary of up to $1 million to serve on its board
beginning in 2014 when his vice president dad led US policy toward the
country.
Wolf allegedly instructed FBI agents in August 2020 to remove
references to Joe Biden from a search warrant affidavit, writing,
“Someone needs to redraft [the affidavit] … There should be nothing
about Political Figure 1 in here,” according to an email released by the Ways & Means Committee.
“That email, I think, is super important because it’s a one-off
example in writing of the constant concern of following investigative
leads that might lead to Joe Biden,” Ziegler said last week in a Fox
News interview.
“The FBI agents who drafted that affidavit, they believed that they
had sufficient evidence — probable cause — to support including
Political Figure 1 in that affidavit,” said the self-identified Democrat.
IRS supervisor Gary Shapley (not pictured) oversaw the Hunter Biden investigation for three years. REUTERS
“That related to [Ukrainian energy company] Burisma, access to Joe
Biden and access to the administration and there was ample evidence that
was included in that affidavit that’s supported including Political
Figure 1. That has a waterfall effect on the investigation because those
emails that we’re searching for might not come through to the team.”
Shapley and Ziegler said they were not allowed to get cellphone
geolocation data that could have proved Joe Biden was with his son in
July 2017 when Hunter sent a threatening text message to a Chinese government-linked businessman saying, “I am sitting here with my father,” and warning of retribution.
Within 10 days of that message, $5.1 million flowed to accounts
linked to Hunter and first brother James Biden from CEFC China Energy —
after a tranche of $1 million earlier that year, less than two months
after Biden left office as vice president.
Internal
Revenue Service whistleblowers Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley testify
in the House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing
about alleged meddling in the Justice Department’s investigation of
Hunter Biden. REUTERS
A May 2017 email penciled in Joe Biden, referred to as the “big guy,” for a 10% cut from CEFC dealings.
The IRS whistleblowers say that — in addition to preferential
treatment for Joe and Hunter Biden — Attorney General Merrick Garland
misled Congress under oath about Weiss’ ability to independently bring
criminal charges against Hunter Biden.
Biden-appointed US attorneys in Los Angeles and Washington have
confirmed in testimony that they declined to partner with Weiss, who in
August was elevated by Garland to be a special counsel, allowing him to bring charges independently outside of Delaware.
The DOJ didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about Wolf’s testimony.
Rep. James Comer, here, as of August 8th has a letter from a Penn Biden Center employee indicating:
March 18, 2021 – Annie Tomasini (Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the
President and Director of Oval Office Operations) went to Penn Biden Center to take inventory of President Biden’s documents and materials.
When Obama nominated that guy for the Supreme Court, it was like throwing a Molotov Cocktail at it.
The federal prosecutor tasked with investigating Hunter Biden told at least six witnesses last
year that he lacked authority to charge the first son outside Delaware
and was denied special counsel status, according to an IRS whistleblower
— and now the House Judiciary Committee wants to talk to them.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans
will launch an impeachment inquiry into Garland if Shapley’s account is
corroborated.
Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian owner of Burisma, was the "foreign
national" involved in the alleged "criminal bribery scheme" aimed at
shaking an alleged investigation into Burisma by then-Ukrainian
prosecutor Viktor Shokin, according to sources familiar with the FBI record who described its contents to the Washington Examiner.
The sources said Zlochevsky said he believed it would be difficult to
unravel the alleged bribery scheme for at least 10 years because of the
number of bank accounts involved.
Amid the threat of being held in contempt of Congress, FBI Director Christopher Wray
allowed members of the GOP-led House Oversight Committee to review an
FD-1023 form this month that contained redacted versions of the
allegations from the paid FBI informant.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member on the House Oversight
Committee, repeatedly claimed following a late May FBI briefing that
Barr and his “hand-picked prosecutor” — Scott Brady, then the
Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania —
ended the investigation into the bribery claims in 2020. But Barr
quickly said that is false.
“It’s not true,” Barr soon toldmultiple outlets in early June. “It wasn’t closed down. On the contrary, it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.”...
Sen. Chuck Grassley
(R-IA) also revealed this month that a less redacted version of the
form he has viewed says Zlochevsky claimed to have 17 recordings of his
conversations with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden (two of the former and 15
of the latter) as an "insurance policy."
Zlochevsky’s alleged reference to Joe Biden as the “big guy” appears
independent of the apparent reference to the now-president as the “big guy” by a Hunter Biden business associate during negotiations with Chinese intelligence-linked businessmen. The China-related reference occurred in a May 2017 email not made public until October 2020.
Hunter Biden reached a plea deal on federal charges related to tax crimes and the illegal purchase of a handgun, Weiss’s office revealed in a court filing on Tuesday.
a group of House Democrats say they will still vote for theparty’s spending packagewithout SALT reform . . . members of theSALT Caucus ... have vowed to oppose a bill without SALT relief
SUOZZI, GOTTHEIMER, YOUNG, GARBARINO ANNOUNCE NEW BIPARTISAN SALT CAUCUS TO FIGHT FOR TAX RELIEF FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
April 15, 2021
Press Release
32 Democrats and Republicans join
Today, April 15, 2021, Tom Suozzi (NY-3), U.S. Representatives Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5), Young Kim (CA-39), and Andrew Garbarino (NY-2) announced the formation of the new bipartisan SALT Caucus to advocate for new tax relief from Congress.
“Our effort to restore the SALT deduction is gaining momentum. Together, Democrats and Republicans alike, we will advocate for the restoration of the SALT deduction and highlight the middle class families who have been unfairly hurt by the cap,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, SALT Caucus Co-Chair. “The cap on the SALT deduction has been a body blow to New York and middle-class families throughout the country. At the end of the day, we must fix this injustice.”
“We’re formally launching a new bipartisan group — the SALT Caucus — because, for all our Members, and for the tens of thousands of middle class families we represent, it is high time that Congress reinstates the State and Local Tax deduction, so we can get more dollars back in to the pockets of so many struggling families — especially as we recover from this pandemic,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer, SALT Caucus Co-Chair. “This bipartisan group we’re founding today, with members from coast to coast and across the political spectrum, are all banding together to reinstate the State and Local Tax deduction, to find a way to get this done in Congress, and to actually get tax relief for the hard working middle class families we represent.”
“Hardworking Californians in the 39th District and across my home state have been burdened enough by high state and local taxes. It is estimated that in the 2022 tax year, California’s 39th District will pay on average more than $640 million due to the SALT cap,” said Rep. Young Kim, SALT Caucus Co-Chair. “I am proud to fight for lower taxes for my constituents as Co-Chair of the SALT Caucus and am looking forward to working together to ensure California workers and families can keep more of their hard-earned money.”
“The SALT cap penalizes working class Long Islanders. From firefighters to police officers, to teachers, to nurses, and small business owners, I hear from people every day about what a crushing blow the SALT cap has delivered them. I’m proud to be a Co-Chair of the bipartisan SALT Caucus to fully restore the deduction once and for all,” said Rep. Andrew Garbarino, SALT Caucus Co-Chair.
“A critical component of our overall economic recovery must be the repeal of the state and local tax deduction cap that was imposed by the 2017 tax law,” said Rep. Mikie Sherrill, SALT Caucus Vice Chair. “There is a misconception that the SALT deduction doesn’t help middle class families. But in high cost of living areas like my district, SALT does in fact make a critical difference in helping make ends meet for our middle class residents like teachers and law enforcement officers, who depend on this deduction to afford the high cost of living in our area. To be clear, the 2017 tax bill specifically targeted states and communities like mine that have prioritized key investments in our public schools, living wages for workers, environmental protections, the list goes on. I’m proud to be launching this bipartisan caucus to ensure we deliver a win on this issue for families in New Jersey and across the country.”
“The cap on the state and local tax deduction hurts middle class California families,” said Rep. Katie Porter, SALT Caucus Vice Chair. “During the coronavirus pandemic, our state and local governments have led public health efforts on testing and vaccines—a potent reminder of the important work they do. Restoring the state and local tax deduction, which has been in our tax code since its inception, gives taxpayers and communities the ability to invest in their priorities and levels the playing field across states for federal taxation.”
“Counties are on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting nearly 1,000 hospitals, more than 1,900 public health authorities and other services essential to residents’ safety and well-being. The human and financial impacts of addressing this health and economic emergency are staggering,” said National Association of Counties Executive Director Matthew Chase. “We applaud the formation of this bipartisan caucus committed to repealing the state and local tax deduction cap, which would reinstate our local control of our tax systems and strengthen the ability of our counties and local communities to deliver essential public services, such as emergency response, public health and infrastructure.”
The SALT Caucus leadership consists of:
Co-Chair Tom Suozzi (NY-3)
Co-Chair Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5)
Co-Chair Andrew Garbarino (NY-2)
Co-Chair Young Kim (CA-39)
Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ-9), SALT Caucus Vice Chair
Katie Porter (CA-45), SALT Caucus Vice Chair
Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11), SALT Caucus Vice Chair
Jamie Raskin (MD-08), SALT Caucus Vice Chair
Chris Smith (NJ-04), SALT Caucus Vice Chair
Lauren Underwood (IL-14), SALT Caucus Vice Chair
The other founding members of the SALT Caucus include: Reps. Danny Davis, Nicole Malliotakis, Julia Brownley, Judy Chu, Lee Zeldin, Michelle Steel, Mike Levin, Jimmy Panetta, Jimmy Gomez, Brian Higgins, Jerry Nadler, Tom Malinowski, Jeff Van Drew, Alan Lowenthal, Anna Eshoo, Andy Kim, Ted Lieu, Brad Schneider, John Larson, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mike Garcia, and Gregory Meeks.
Career civil servant Mark Sandy testified on Nov. 16, 2019 that he was told that military assistance to Ukraine was put on hold by Trump because Trump was concerned other countries were not contributing more to Ukraine:
Mr. Sandy: I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine. ... Mr. Meadows: And, all of a sudden, we get some additional information that's provided in terms of what other countries contribute to Ukraine aid, and then the aid was released. Is that a fair characterization? Mr. Sandy: In terms of the sequencing, yes.
Congresswoman Stefanik was one of the earliest signers
of the discharge petition to force Congress to act on immigration. She
previously announced that she will also support standalone legislation
that addresses the separation of children and parents at our borders.
The headline is correct in one sense, however: Both hard left and hard right are cracking up.
The former leader of the Rebel Alliance, Justin Amash, ignominiously abandoned the fight to vote "present" with four other courageous Democrats cowardly lions, leaving his wingman Thomas Massie of Kentucky to cast the lone Republican "nay" vote.
Massie strangely thought it a good idea to associate himself with the likes of Democrats AOC, Omar and Tlaib, apparently rushing to fill in for Squad member Ayanna Pressley, who inexplicably abandoned her compatriots and voted "yea", proving once again that the true meaning of libertarianism is the freedom to be anti-Semitic.
The blocked rule would not have affected most fracking operations in the United States, since it would have applied only to fracking on federal lands. The vast majority of fracking in the United States — almost 90 percent — is done on state and private land and is governed by state and local regulations. The rule was unlikely to have stopped most new fracking on public lands, although oil and gas companies complained that it could have slowed operations by creating burdensome paperwork.
87% of the Michigan Congressional Delegation, both Republican and Democrat, voted "Yea", except for good guys House Republicans Justin Amash and Jack Bergman.
Notable "Yea" votes included Republican goodfellas:
Kevin Brady of Texas, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, Duncan Hunter of California (ouch), Darrell Issa of California, Will Hurd of Texas, Peter King of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Kevin McCarthy of California, Michael McCaul of Texas, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, Devin Nunes of California, Peter Roskam of Illinois, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, of course, Steve "Bullseye" Scalise of Louisiana, and Joe "You Lie!" Wilson of South Carolina.
An atypical report from last March had it that way here:
'Clinton's attorney has confirmed to a House committee on Benghazi that, after handing over work-related email to the State Department, the politician both "chose not to keep" personal messages and set a 60-day limit on what the server retains. In short, she effectively wiped it clean. There's no going back to mail from her Secretary of State days beyond the 30,490 messages on the record, or roughly half of what the server held during the period.'
But notice that Hillary wouldn't answer affirmatively yesterday that the server was wiped when she was directly asked. That's because it wasn't, and any such statement would conflict with her counsel's statement.
Hillary's position was stated clearly in March through her attorney's letter to Congressman Trey Gowdy here:
"After the review was completed to identify and provide to the Department of State all of the Secretary's work-related and potentially work-related emails, the Secretary chose not to keep her non-record personal e-mails and asked that her account (which was no longer in active use) be set to retain only the most recent 60 days of e-mail. To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the Secretary's IT support that no e-mails from hdr22@clintonemail.com for the time period January 21,2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server. Thus, there are no ... e-mails ... on the server for any review . . .."
That means that the e-mails are still recoverable. The unsaved mail would have to be overwritten actively to be truly deleted.
There has not been any statement by Hillary that the server was wiped. It's only been the assertion of the press, probably by design to buy time and throw investigators off the scent, and only by inference from her lawyer's letter, also intended to stymie further interest.
It also means that the server now revealed to be in Denver and seized by the FBI was likely the backup, and that the main one is still in the house located at 15 Old House Lane, Chappaqua, NY 10514, or perhaps it's really at 3067 Whitehaven Street NW, Washington, DC 20008.
Let's have some search warrants already, looking for evidence of obstruction of justice.
Looks like one hell of an abuse of federal power to me, trying to squelch a constituent's freedom of speech, intimidate him, and reduce him to servility while they go about their business of picking our pockets clean and shoveling the shit down our throats.
Hey, thanks Billy, you giant statist toadie.
You can also thank the Capitol security police for facilitating this newest and ominous expression of police state power, reported here:
The local sheriff told KSRP that Capitol police are actively soliciting the names of possible threats from members of Congress in the wake of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s assassination attempt. And he admitted there are more names his office is looking into — names that came from Long.
Obviously there are no Oathkeepers among the Capitol police.
Disabilities advocates are applauding Congress for passing legislation that eliminates the term "mental retardation" from federal laws.
The phrase can still be used on this blog according to the editor, especially as a synonym for "member of Congress," as in "A congressman who thinks an island can tip over if it gets too populated on one side of it is a mental retard."
Yes, noxious things indeed emanate out of the slaughterhouse of the constitution, Democrat Representative Louise Slaughter's (NY-28) Rules Committee [(202) 225-3615]. Do you remember the speech code she "updated" to protect the current president from hurtful epithets from the House floor?
Despite the code, people defiantly think their thoughts anyway, say about how Obama hides behind that woman's skirts. Or about how his subsequent indecorous remarks to the Supreme Court before Congress assembled just prove that he's a hypocrite himself when it comes to decorum, in addition to being a liar on healthcare. Read Paragraph 25 "References to Executive Officials" for yourself here and a summary here with video of the Rep. Wilson incident. Louise Slaughter is all about limiting free speech, to protect her man.
And now this tyrant of a woman is trying to slaughter the constitution itself by dispensing with the requirement to vote on legislation and send it to the president. In short she is in revolt against Article I, Section 7 of the constitution. But it's not just her in revolt. She's doing this for Obama, whom she serves. The truth is that it is Obama who is in revolt against the constitution. He's just organizing the Washington community to pull it off.
If the Senate healthcare bill is to become law as the president wants (after all he's a creature of the Senate, isn't he?), the constitution requires that "the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." There are not enough votes in the House to pass the bill which passed in the Senate. So Slaughter instead wants the House to deem that this has already occurred in both Houses when it has in fact occurred in only one. It's like a lawyer stipulating to certain facts, except in this case there is no real fact in the House, only the desire, which the wrath of constituencies back home has up to this point thwarted from expressing itself successfully.
In other words, Slaughter wants the House to vote for something entirely new, something which pretends the Senate healthcare bill has already passed in the House when it has not. There will be no yeas and Nays recorded for the Senate healthcare bill as such anywhere except where they have been recorded already, in the Senate, and therefore there will be no healthcare legislation per se to send on to the president. All they will have is a Senate healthcare bill which has in fact stalled in the House, and what amounts to a new "let's pretend" bill.
Secondly (and this point is crucial but not at all appreciated so far) since no bill from the Senate will in fact have been passed in the House, if the House passes a bill which merely assumes that the Senate healthcare bill is passed and sends that on to the president for signature, the House will be guilty of violating the constitution because it did not first send it to the Senate to have the "let's pretend" bill ratified there, which it must also do, according to the constitution. Bills must have yeas and Nays recorded from both chambers, remember? In other words, the House is about to circumvent the constitution by by-passing the Senate and sending the "let's pretend" bill directly to the president, asserting, in desperation, that it has Senate approval by incorporation.
In effect the House leadership is playing a game of chicken with the Senate, knowing that because the executive branch has got their back, the Senate can do nothing and can be hung out to dry. There is no mechanism by which the Senate may intrude itself anymore since sending their bill to the House. The filibuster would only be a threat if a bill came back to the Senate, which explains why everything is happening the way it is happening: A bill must by all means be prevented from returning to the Senate, where it will die a death by a thousand cuts. The only mechanism which the Senate might naturally rely upon now in the event of House misbehavior would be the presidential veto, but the president is not going to veto the "let's pretend" bill. The president is conspiring with the House to get such a bill, and there is nothing the Senate can do about that anymore. And in point of fact, the majority in the Senate will be happy to see their bill become the law, despite the lawlessness that made it happen. A concluding note of irony might be that President Obama might delay his vacation until the "let's pretend" bill is presented to him, and then leave for ten days without signing the bill.
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) [another federal accommodation of religion!] after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it . . ..
(Article I. Section 7.)
He could always claim he never signed the bill, just as the cowardly representatives in the House will claim, too. Those six little words, "as if he had signed it," at once the inspiration perhaps for the whole effort at "deeming," and for avoiding responsibility for the effort at the same time, used against the will of the American people.
It remains to be seen if Americans will just sit by and watch America burn to the ground like Dresden did in the novel Slaughterhouse Five. I fully expect them to. They voted for this guy. They do not want to think that Slaughter and the Left in this country are attempting a coup. They resemble no one so much as Billy Pilgrim, whose response to everything, good or evil, was "so it goes." At least a few people seem concerned, but not enough as Anthony Dick notes here. One can only hope that patriots in the House, if there are any left, will see Slaughter's Solution for what Dick rightly says it is: subterfuge. I'll call it by its other name: treason against the United States. Expelling Louise Slaughter, as Mark Levin calls for, doesn't begin to go far enough. Louise Slaughter should be arrested and put on trial. Tomorrow.
