Libertarians want Justin Amash to run for president, and he may do it

Not a whole hell of a lot of difference between this POS and McCain.

This traitor's chances of becoming the next POTUS are about as good as Avenatti's. To tell you the truth I never heard of the guy until he called for Trump's impeachment. Looks like an attempt to make a name for himself in order to run as the Libertarian candidate against Trump.

Getting back to McCain for a moment...did you see this?

John McCain Recited Names Of Dictators During Trump Inaugural, Senator Says

“I sat on that stage between Bernie and John McCain, and John McCain kept reciting to me names of dictators during that speech because he knew more than any of us what we were facing as a nation,” Klobuchar said. “He understood it. He knew because he knew this man more than any of us did.”

There he is with his fellow Democrats who he sat with him at the Trump inauguration.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) takes a selfie with (from right) Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the late John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) during President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017.

Piss and moan all you want Meghan your father was a POS... l-o-n-g before Trump ever came along!

----------------------------------

by Steven Nelson

Rep. Justin Amash's tweets declaring that President Trump committed impeachable offenses have made him an outcast among Republicans, but many of his supporters are excited about what they see as a sign he will run for president as a Libertarian.

The Michigan Republican, 39, is known for defying party leaders on issues such as mass surveillance and government spending. And since Trump took office, he’s been viewed as a possible Libertarian champion in 2020 — a notion amplified by his Saturday remarks.

Amash’s emergence as a possible competitor may have caught Trump’s campaign off-guard.

“Who?" one Trump campaign official said with a chuckle Thursday when asked about a possible Amash run. “Is that a thing?” another asked skeptically. “I had not heard that.”

[Related: Amash gets a primary challenger after impeachment remarks]

A person familiar with Amash’s thinking who spoke with him in recent days told the Washington Examiner that Amash "hasn’t ruled it out” or “pulled any triggers” on a presidential campaign.

Libertarian activist Larry Sharpe, a New York gubernatorial candidate last year, said he spoke twice recently with people close to Amash, who sought advice.

"There are people who are close to the [Amash] campaign who have made calls to members of the Libertarian National Committee and also to me personally, to just talk about the future. But also to talk about Libertarian Party infrastructure,” Sharpe said.

“They wanted to know: Can they make impact as a Libertarian?” Sharpe said, describing the most recent call. “He wants to make an impact for a freer America. If Justin Amash believes the Libertarian Party is the best way to do that, I’m sure he will come aboard.”

Sharpe said the most recent caller spoke with him in April about “opportunities” as a Libertarian, including the possibility of third-party runs for the House, Senate, or presidency.

The person familiar with Amash’s thinking who recently spoke with him, however, said it was “extremely, extremely unlikely” that Amash would run for the House or Senate as a Libertarian.

If Amash does run for president, he will be eagerly embraced by Libertarians, who see him as an eloquent evangelist for a political ideology on the decline under Trump.

“He’s terrific,” said former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, an ex-Republican who ran as the Libertarian candidate in 2012 and 2016, taking 3.3% against Trump.

Johnson aligned with the party on most issues, such as legalizing marijuana and avoiding foreign military interventions but made some members uncomfortable by seeming to embrace gay rights at the expense of the personal freedom of business owners.

Iowa Libertarian Party Chairman Joseph Howe said Amash “comes off as more principled on free market principles” and may be less prone to gaffes. “Amash has probably had more press in the past few days than Johnson in the whole campaign,” he added.

[Related: House Freedom Caucus condemns Amash for backing impeachment]

Howe is leading a national effort to draft Amash, coordinating with the Facebook group Amash 4 President, which has about 800 members.

“When you see something like this, I think it greatly increases the chances he's looking for another party,” Howe said, though he said he believed Amash called for impeachment as “a principled move” rather than a political opportunity.

“It's a long shot, but we don’t need 51% to win, you can force it to the Congress,” Howe said about a possible presidential run.

Amash has supported some Trump policies, such as improving relations with Russia, but is often critical of Trump’s conduct, writing last year he felt “something is not right” after watching Trump’s “bizarre” behavior at a press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. His Saturday tweets on impeachment prompted a state lawmaker to announce a primary challenge.

“With the bridge burning that's going on, there are a limited number of sensible possibilities” for Amash, said national Libertarian Party chairman Nicholas Sarwark, who added, “he's pretty close to the vest in terms of not sharing his plans.”

Richard Winger, a longtime Libertarian, noted Amash introduced legislation in March that would ease ballot access for minor parties. “This tells me he has been interested in minor party problems for several months now,” Winger said.

Amash’s office did not respond to a request for comment. This year, he has indicated he may indeed run. In January, Amash told CNN, “I’d never rule anything out." In January, he sidestepped the question, saying the ideal presidential candidate "wears Air Jordans" — while wearing Air Jordans.

Libertarians want Justin Amash to run for president, and he may do it

'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall' on Obama's Bad Cops and Spies

Of major concern for me is the Horowitz report. Does this Obama appointee have the balls to take it to the bank... even if it entails nailing Barry's ass to the wall??? 

"This assault on democracy has not been proven, but the evidence emerging in dribs and drabs strongly suggests the possibility. If it is proven, and if the Obama White House was directly involved, as some FBI texts plainly say, the scandal would be one of the biggest in American history." 

---------------------------------

By: Charles Lipson

The skies are growing dark and increasingly ominous for dirty officials at the top of Obama-era law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Leading the “I’m really worried” list are James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and their senior aides, all political appointees. They expected Hillary Clinton to win in 2016 and bury any traces of malfeasance, just as they had buried hers. It didn’t work out that way.

Now they need protection themselves. House Democrats and anonymous leakers are busy providing it. Many are delicately called “current and former senior officials” by the New York Times, Washington Post, and other legacy media. Gee, I wonder who they are?

These defenders of the old guard are sliming Attorney General Bill Barr, who heads the investigation into their actions. They have good reasons, if not clean hands, for their attack. First, they want to keep as much secret as they can. Exposure can only harm them. Their main argument is that any disclosures will damage U.S. national security. Second, they want to paint the disclosures and forthcoming indictments as President Trump’s revenge, the illegitimate use of powerful agencies that should be nonpartisan. That, of course, is precisely what they are accused of doing.

Barr won’t be deterred. He did not return for a second stint as AG to pad his résumé or protect Donald Trump. He returned to clean out the Augean Stables. He needs to muck out the mess left by his predecessors and find the horses that left it.

Barr is determined to do that. He intends to find out how and why the Department of Justice embarked on an all-consuming, two-year project to investigate Trump’s alleged cooperation with Putin’s Russia to win the presidency. The investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no such cooperation (going well beyond saying he simply could not indict). Now, Barr wants to understand the origins of the probe and whether the tools used to launch it were lies or distortions — and were known to be so by DoJ, FBI, and CIA officials. Barr wants to know if U.S. intelligence agencies were used to spy illegally on Americans, or if they outsourced that to friendly foreign services and then recovered the information from them. He wants to know if the investigations really began in July 2016, as the FBI testified, or earlier, and what evidence was used to begin them.

None dare call it spying. At least no Democrats or Obama officials will. But that’s exactly what it was. As that master of the English language, Winston Churchill, put it, “Short words are best and old words when short are best of all.” That’s far too clear for bureaucratic obfuscators, presidential contenders, and their media allies. They prefer long, Latinate terms like “surveillance” and “surreptitious investigation.” Barr is effectively telling them to “pound sand.”

Over the next few months, the public will finally see what kind of malfeasance there was. At least they will see some of it. Some will remain classified to protect sources and methods; some will be released only after criminal charges are filed. The initial evidence will come from two sources: a major report by DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the steady declassification of underlying documents by AG Barr, who was given that task by the president. Barr needed that authority because the FBI and intelligence community are resisting disclosure with all their institutional power. They fear years of abuse will be exposed.

Horowitz, a highly regarded career prosecutor, initially appointed by President Obama, will issue a public report and is virtually certain to make criminal referrals. The referrals will then be handled by John Durham, a skilled, apolitical U.S. attorney, who has successfully prosecuted major corruption cases for AGs in both parties. Apparently, he has already convened a grand jury. Another federal prosecutor, John Huber, has been working on related problems. Durham will coordinate, supervised by Barr.

These joint efforts will show whether there were good legal reasons to spy on Americans, whether the secret intelligence courts were given complete and honest information before they issued search warrants, whether top officials leaked secret information to the media, and whether U.S. intelligence agencies (which cannot legally spy on Americans) evaded that restriction. They may also show if outside contractors illegally tapped into classified databases and spied on American citizens, including political opponents.

These are very serious charges, and, if proven, serious crimes. What makes them worse — far worse — is that they may well be connected to each other. If they are, they would represent a high-level conspiracy by government officials, appointed by one party and directed at political opponents during and after an election.

This assault on democracy has not been proven, but the evidence emerging in dribs and drabs strongly suggests the possibility. If it is proven, and if the Obama White House was directly involved, as some FBI texts plainly say, the scandal would be one of the biggest in American history.

How big? Big enough that major news organizations, which always favor transparency (“Democracy Dies in Darkness”), are now deeply troubled by the release of any secret documents. They know the stakes are too high and transparency too dangerous for their side, politically.

Right now, we don’t know how big the scandal is, how extensive the coordination was, and how far up it went. But we certainly need to know, just as we needed to know if Donald Trump won the presidency by cooperating with a hostile foreign power. He did not, according to the Mueller report. Now, we need to know if the U.S. government itself worked secretly and illegally to prevent his election and, when that failed, to damage his new presidency. That conspiracy would be equally serious and for the same reasons. It needs to be rooted out, exposed and punished.

The fundamental problem was identified by James Madison, who led the drafting of our constitution. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” he wrote in Federalist Paper 51, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Under Comey, Lynch, Brennan, and Clapper, under Obama and Biden, it failed to control itself.

Over the next few months, we will learn the extent of that failure. We will see if top officials misused their agencies to investigate and crush their political opponents. Constitutional democracies cannot permit that. They cannot wave it off as yesterday’s news and expect to survive unscathed. If undetected and unpunished, it will happen again to another party, another candidate.

As the evidence comes out, a hard rain’s gonna fall. The damage will be compounded by partisan divisions, corroding trust in our basic institutions, and an impending election. For democracy’s sake, let’s hope the bitter winds are not a Cat-5 storm.

'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall' on Obama's Bad Cops and Spies

Democrats can only formulate the word 'illegal' when it comes to Trump

Have you noticed throughout the year's liberals can't bring themselves to use the word illegal when it comes to describing illegal aliens? Instead, they refer to them as...

'Immigrants'

'Undocumented'

'Undocumented Americans'

'Dreamers'

You're going to love this one!

'Newcomers'

 Nancy Pelosi: Voting for Democrats Gives ‘Leverage’ to Illegal Aliens 

Lately, they've been calling them...

'Law-abiding immigrants'

(If they were law-abiding they wouldn't be here right?)

Most people with an ounce of brains look at this guy and see a bank robber. Liberals see an Asset Transfer Specialist.

  

I rest my case.

Oh...and they can't say Muslim terrorist either. They go into convulsions.

Democrats can only formulate the word 'illegal' when it comes to Trump

Karma

Trump enemy Jerry Nadler almost passes out at press conference and is carried out on a stretcher to the hospital

Finally some good news…Trump's got to be jumping for joy!  

I guess I'm supposed to say something like I feel bad for the guy. Sorry, I hate his guts. 

Most likely suffering from a terminal case of 'Investigativitis'. 

Karma

In battle for elected school board, undocumented immigrants might be left out

OMG don't tell me illegals might not be able to vote!!!

Seriously, I can't believe I'm reading this shit. Has anyone in Chicago got any common sense?

------------------------------

If the state passes an elected school board measure now working its way through the Legislature, undocumented immigrants would not be able to vote.

State Rep. Robert F. Martwick. File Photo. | Rich Hein/Sun-TimesRich Hein/Sun-Times

Should Chicago finally get an elected school board after years of attempts, undocumented immigrants — who are currently able to vote for and serve as local school council members — might not be able to vote for the citywide board members.

While some municipalities across the country let non-U.S. citizens vote in local elections, Chicago does not. Non-U.S. citizens can’t vote for city offices or state offices, according to the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. 

And the elected school board measure’s sponsor, state Rep. Robert Martwick, D-Chicago, said there’s nothing that can be done to give the undocumented a vote — unless a separate bill is filed to try to take up that battle. 

“All I want to do is make an appointed board an elected school board. Right now the undocumented have no say in who the appointed members are, but they can weight in on local school councils and serve on local school councils. So they can weigh in,” Martwick said. “I don’t intend to affect the LSC process. I’m seeking to bolster it.”

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton’s office last week told reporters that Martwick’s bill — which cleared the Illinois House on April 4 — is on hold, at the request of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who wanted to take a deeper dive into specifics. 

State Rep. Robert Martwick at a rally in support of his school board bill. File Photo.Stefano Esposito/Sun-Times

Martwick said he hasn’t been provided with any updates as the clock ticks to adjournment on May 31. 

“I assume that she’ll [Lightfoot] reach out to him [Cullerton]. I would think that as the person who has been the sponsor of the bill for five years and passed it three times that I would get a call and would be asked to be invited, but I don’t know yet,” Martwick said. “Not yet.” 

In February, Martwick and Lightfoot famously got into a shouting match — at a campaign news conference Lightfoot called to denounce legislation Martwick filed that would change the way the Cook County assessor from an elected to an appointed position. 

Martwick had endorsed Toni Preckwinkle over Lightfoot in the mayoral race. 

And Lightfoot accused Preckwinkle and Martwick of working together on a “power play” to undermine newly elected Assessor Fritz Kaegi. Martwick blasted Lightfoot for what he called Donald Trump-like theatrics that show “exactly why you are wholly unprepared to be the mayor of this city.”

Mayor Lori Lightfoot, left, and state Rep. Robert Martwick, right. File Photos. Sun-Times file photos.

Under Martwick’s school board proposal, the board would be comprised of 20 members elected in individual districts from around the city, compared to the seven appointed members currently on the Chicago Board of Education. And a board president would be elected citywide.

This is certainly not the first time legislators have tried to pass legislation to get Chicago an elected school board. Cullerton supported a measure in 2017, but the House didn’t act on it. Martwick re-filed the legislation this year.

Two years ago, the Senate’s version reduced the size of the board and created a Chicago panel to draw the boundary maps for board seats, rather than lawmakers, amidst concerns over who had that authority. The Senate adopted those changes, but the measure died in the Illinois House when lawmakers did not act on it.

In 1995, Mayor Richard M. Daley took control of the broken school system and began directly appointing a school board whose members previously were proffered by a grassroots nominating commission.

There have been several proposals in the mix over the years, and the number of board members has fluctuated in those proposals. But both Lightfoot and Gov. J.B. Pritzker are supportive of an elected school board. 

Lightfoot has said she is not comfortable with the number of board members in Martwick’s proposal. She has said she wants to work with Springfield “to pass a fully elected and representative school board.”

Lightfoot, too, has suggested local school council members should run for the school board, should it become an elected office. But in that scenario, if a local school council member is undocumented, they would not be able to run.

The measure, should it pass, wouldn’t go into effect until 2023. On Wednesday, all seven members of the Chicago Board of Education announced they were stepping down, opening the door to Lightfoot’s appointees.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

In battle for elected school board, undocumented immigrants might be left out