This is the gang that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden and Progressive-Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) flat refuse to condemn.
Think about that as you prepare to cast your vote.
In late July 2016, US intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
Despite this lack of certainty, it was clear that
former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan created handwritten notes showing he “subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.'”
The intelligence community became sufficiently concerned that
On 07 September 2016, US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server[.]
They, as we know, chose not to pursue the matter; and Strzok, as an initial member of Mueller’s “investigation,” was able to mis– redirect that investigation onto other paths.
The article at the link has a link to the report itself. The rest of the press is burying this news, if not spiking the story altogether.
Here is the core BLM position according to Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York:
If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.
He went on:
I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting[.]
BLM is indifferent to rioting, at best. Supposedly. Never mind that BLM actively participates in the rioting going on in so many Progressive-Democrat-run cities.
Now we have Progressive-Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris saying
We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.
Yet she actively supports violent gangs like BLM.
I actually believe that “Black Lives Matter” has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system[.]
This is what we can expect, even more widely spread, under a Progressive-Democrat, a Biden-Harris, administration that so bluntly supports “peaceful protesters.”
Leslie Marshall thinks Judge Amy Coney Barrett ought not be confirmed—ought not even be considered—as a Supreme Court Justice.
She’s wrong.
Barrett could also cast a key vote on cases involving the upcoming presidential election….
That’s part of the point of getting a ninth Justice quickly confirmed—to avoid the possibility of tie votes on such important decisions.
…she has little in common with Ginsburg.
Nor is she required to have; she’d be her own Justice, just like the other eight each are their own Justice. Contrary to Marshall’s apparent belief, the vacant seat isn’t Ginsburg’s seat, nor is it a liberal’s seat. It’s the people’s seat on We the People’s Supreme Court.
Replacing a white Jewish woman with a white Catholic woman on the Supreme Court does not bring more diversity to the court.
This is wholly irrelevant. The role of Supreme Court Justices—of all judges in the American legal system—is to rule on what our Constitution and the statute before them say, not on what the Justices think those items should say. Diversity for diversity’s sake has no place on a court—especially on a court, where consistency in the application of law is a Critical Item.
Senate Republicans now suddenly have no problem with the idea of a rushed confirmation of a justice….
What rush? Prompt isn’t the same as rushed. And unprecedented, as she also suggested? This is plain nonsense. The precedent is the Constitution with its stated obligation for the President to nominate to fill a vacancy and for the Senate to advise and consent or withhold consent. Full stop.
A big fear is that she will vote to overturn Roe v Wade….
What Marshall is carefully ignoring in her worry that Barrett adheres too closely with Scalia is the latter’s respect for and adherence to precedent and his belief that once a precedent has been accepted by the people, it’s a legitimate law whatever anyone might think of that precedent.
Barrett is unlikely to overrule Roe unless there’s clear reason.
Her rulings as a judge have been very pro-gun rights and she has made decisions unfavorable to undocumented immigrants nearly 100% of the time.
A judge and a potential Justice obeying her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and ruling on the basis of what the text of our Constitution and the text of a statute actually say instead of what she might wish either to say—imagine that.
Threaten the rights of millions of Americans? On the contrary: a Justice who applies our Constitution and the statute before her as they are written would preserve the rights of all Americans, the rights acknowledged in our founding principles statement as being endowed in all men by our Creator and as laid out in our blueprint that tightly circumscribes our government in order to keep the men–of any generation–who populate that government from altering them, weakening them, eroding them into oblivion.
Marshall’s piece is just another hysteria-mongering article of nonsense.
President Donald Trump, in his Platinum Plan for revitalizing black communities and freeing them from the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage, says he wants to make lynching a national-level hate crime.
That’s on the right track, but it is IMNSHO wide of the mark.
I don’t think there should be any hate crime definitions at all. The crime is the crime, and the victim is just as robbed, just as beaten, just as dead, his property just as destroyed regardless of motive or depravity of motive.
The hate aspect of a crime cannot be ignored, though: the appropriate time to consider this aspect is during the sentencing phase, given conviction.