The Democrats’ Medicare for All plan would mandate taxpayer funded abortions, according to Reps. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Greg Walden, R-Ore.
The two congressmen made their comments in a column they co-authored for the Fox News website.
They wrote: “Single-payer. Government-run. Government takeover. One-size-fits-all. Socialist. Each is an accurate description of Democrats’ preferred healthcare scheme, proposed in the mislabeled Medicare for All Act.
“The more Americans learn, the further support sinks for their centralized government healthcare system. It will bring delays in access to needed healthcare. The $32 trillion price tag is so massive it is hard to wrap your head around.
“There is another deeply disturbing truth Americans need to know about their plan: it would mandate taxpayer funded abortions on demand and force health professionals to perform these abortions.”
Scalise and Walden called it “radical and unprecedented.”
“Democrats are actively trying to reverse a 40-year, bipartisan protection against federal taxpayer funded abortions,” the two said. “They’d also force doctors and nurses to terminate a baby’s life.”
Scalise and Walden said the authors of the bill have confirmed abortion is covered.
“The benefits are specifically listed: ‘comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care,'” they said. “Comprehensive reproductive care is included, meaning this plan — which is free — covers abortions. This means abortion-on-demand, funded by taxpayers.”
And the congressmen added: “Life is precious and we are committed to defending it.”
Bipartisan support for impeachment proceedings for President Donald Trump is not yet happening in the Republican-controlled Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview airing Tuesday morning, before former White House counsel Don McGahn defied a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee.
“In the [Richard] Nixon articles of impeachment, Article III, is that he did not honor the subpoenas of the Congress of the United States, so that is an issue,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski.
“Before they got to that place at that time they had a long investigation, and that’s what we’re doing now, then we have some options available to us,” said Pelosi, adding one purpose for congressional subpoenas is to “see if you want to go down the path of impeachment.”
However, she told Brzezinski there is not yet bipartisan support in the Senate for impeachment proceedings, after Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., on Sunday said he believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s report shows Trump committed impeachable offenses.
“His voice speaks to the silence of so many other, all the other Republicans, not to hold this president accountable for the oath of office that he takes to protect and defend the Constitution, respecting the co-equal branches of government,” Pelosi said.
Further, she said Amash’s comments do not mean the bipartisan support is there for impeachment, even though she thinks it is not “about politics.”
“I feel very confident that the American people know that they deserve to know the truth and that’s what we want to present to them, in a way that they don’t perceive to be without the presentation of the facts,” Pelosi said.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday appealed a federal judge’s ruling against his attempt to block a House of Representatives committee from seeking his financial records, according to a court filing.
Lawyers for Trump and his company filed the appeal in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia one day after a U.S. district judge backed the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena for Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm Mazars LLP.
The lower court’s decision on Monday handed an early setback for the Republican president in his legal battle with congressional Democrats as lawmakers investigate various aspects of his administration.
The House Oversight Committee has said it needs Trump’s financial records to examine whether he has conflicts of interest or broke the law by not disentangling himself from his business holdings, as previous presidents did.
Trump’s lawyers argue the panel’s demand exceeded Congress’s constitutional limits. Mazars has said it will comply with its legal obligations but has taken no sides as the case plays out in court.
A real estate developer and former reality television star, Trump still owns the Trump Organization but has said he would leave its day-to-day operations to his eldest two sons while in office. Unlike previous modern U.S. presidential candidates, he did not disclose his tax returns during his run for the White House.
The nameplate of former White House Counsel Donald McGahn, who was scheduled to appear at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Oversight of the Report by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III,” is seen inside the committee room where McGahn failed to appear on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 21, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
May 21, 2019
By Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives committee that would handle any impeachment of President Donald Trump briefly convened and then adjourned a hearing on Tuesday with another empty chair at the witness table, as former White House counsel Don McGahn did not show up to testify.
In a further escalation of a constitutional struggle between Trump and Congress over its power to investigate him, the White House on Monday told McGahn, who left his post in October, to disregard a subpoena from the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee to appear at the hearing.
“When this committee issues a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show up. Our subpoenas are not optional,” committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said at the beginning of the hearing.
“Mr. McGahn has a legal obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance. If he does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will have no choice but to enforce this subpoena against him,” added Nadler, who called McGahn’s failure to appear part of the Republican president’s “broader efforts to cover up his misconduct.”
Doug Collins, the panel’s top Republican, accused Nadler of engaging in a political “circus.” Echoing Trump’s own language, Collins said the 448-page Mueller report found no collusion by Trump with Russia and no obstruction of justice by the president. “Now the Democrats are trying desperately to make something out of nothing,” Collins said.
But Nadler said, “Let me be clear: this committee will hear Mr. McGahn’s testimony, even if we have to go to court to secure it.” Panel Democrats voted to adjourn the hearing after roughly a half hour.
The panel is investigating Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian election meddling. Attorney General William Barr on May 2 also snubbed the committee, which later voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for not handing over an unredacted copy of Mueller’s final report.
At the hearing that Barr skipped, an empty witness chair figured prominently and a Democratic committee member put a ceramic chicken on the table in front of it for the cameras. There was no sign of a repeat chicken appearance on Tuesday.
In the Mueller report, McGahn was a key witness regarding possible obstruction of justice by Trump. Career prosecutors who are not involved in the case have said the report contained strong evidence that Trump committed a crime when he pressured McGahn to fire Mueller and later urged him to lie about it.
Trump is stonewalling numerous congressional inquiries into himself, his turbulent presidency, his family and his sprawling business interests, which he did not divest or put into a blind trust when he took office in January 2018.
Trump and most fellow Republicans in Congress dismiss the inquiries as political harassment ahead of the 2020 elections.
However, House Republican Justin Amash, a frequent Trump critic and outspoken Michigan conservative, said over the weekend that the president “has engaged in impeachable conduct.”
Counter-punching in his usual style, Trump told reporters on Monday outside the White House that Amash is “a loser.”
Any impeachment effort would begin in the House, led by the Judiciary Committee, before action in the Republican-led Senate on whether to remove Trump from office.
Late on Monday, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion saying McGahn did not need to appear at the hearing, while McGahn’s lawyer, William Burck, wrote that his client would not testify before the committee unless it reached an agreement with the White House.
In a letter sent to McGahn, committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told the former White House counsel that he would “risk serious consequences” if he failed to show up to testify.
“Should you fail to do so, the committee is prepared to use all enforcement mechanisms at its disposal,” Nadler wrote.
On another front, in a legal setback for Trump, a U.S. judge on Monday ruled against him in a case involving another House panel. The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Trump’s financial records from his long-time accounting firm Mazars LLP.
In an unusual move, lawyers for Trump and the Trump Organization, his company, last month sued to try to block the subpoena. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington ruled against Trump and denied his request for a stay pending appeal.
Early on Tuesday, Trump appealed the judge’s ruling, challenging “all aspects” of Mehta’s decision.
As the confrontation between Trump and Congress has intensified, Democrats have raised growing concerns about the president’s conduct, especially since the mid-April release of the Mueller report.
“We simply cannot sit by and allow this president to destroy the rule of law … If Mr. McGahn doesn’t testify tomorrow, I think it is probably appropriate for us to move forward with an impeachment inquiry,” Democratic Representative David Cicilline, a Judiciary Committee member, told MSNBC on Monday.
The redacted, 448-page report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, 22 months in the making, showed how Moscow interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Trump’s favor and detailed Trump’s attempts to impede Mueller’s probe.
The report found there was insufficient evidence to allege a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. It made no recommendation on whether Trump obstructed justice, leaving that question up to Congress.
Trump earlier this month cited the controversial doctrine of executive privilege to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena seeking an unredacted version of Mueller’s final report.
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Additional reporting by David Morgan. Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh)
Americans are sharply divided on whether they think socialism would be good or bad for the country, according to the latest Gallup poll.
Gallup compared data on socialism collected in their latest poll with data from 1942 collected by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. They found that Americans have much stronger opinions on socialism now than they did then.
- 25 percent thought socialism would be a good thing for the country.
- 40 percent thought it would be bad.
- 34 percent had no opinion.
- 43 percent think socialism would be a good thing for the country.
- 51 percent think it would be bad.
- 6 percent have no opinion.
Gallup notes that although the majority of people still oppose socialism, there has been a net gain in the number of people who think it would be a “good thing” for the country.
Gallup also found that most Americans think that in the next fifty years, most nations will have democratic governments, with less than a third saying that most governments will be socialist, and less than one-tenth think most governments will be communist.
“Americans’ views on socialism are complex,” Gallup’s Mohamed Younis writes, adding later that “while half of Americans consider socialism as bad for the country, nearly two-thirds say that the U.S. economy is more influenced by the government than the free market, or that it reflects an equal mix of the two.”
Gallup polled 1,024 adults from April 17-30, 2019 by phone, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler gaveled open a Trump-Russia hearing Tuesday with an empty witness chair and a stern warning that former White House Counsel Don McGahn will be held in contempt for failing to appear in defiance of the committee’s subpoena.
“Our subpoenas are not optional,” Nadler said. The panel will hear from McGahn “one way or another,” he said. “This committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him.”
Democrats are facing yet another attempt by President Donald Trump to stonewall their investigations . This time they’re blocked from hearing from McGahn — a chief eyewitness to the president’s handling of the federal Russia investigation — on orders from the White House.
Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, spoke scornfully of Nadler’s position, calling the session a “circus” and saying the chairman preferred a public “fight over fact-finding.”
Democrats are “trying desperately to make something out of nothing,” Collins said, in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings in the Russia probe.
The committee voted to adjourn the hearing immediately after Collins’ remarks.
A lawyer for McGahn had said he would follow the president’s directive and skip Tuesday’s hearing, leaving the Democrats without yet another witness — and a growing debate within the party about how to respond.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, backed by Nadler, is taking a step-by-step approach to the confrontations with Trump. Nadler said the committee would vote to hold McGahn in contempt, and take the issue to court.
“We will not allow the president to stop this investigation,” the chairman said. A contempt vote is not expected until June, as lawmakers are scheduled to leave town for a weeklong recess.
Democrats are encouraged by an early success on that route as a federal judge ruled against Trump on Monday in a financial records dispute with Congress. Trump’s team filed notice Tuesday that they would appeal.
But Pelosi’s strategy hasn’t been swift enough for some members of the Judiciary panel who feel Democrats should be more aggressive and launch a formal impeachment inquiry as they try to get information from the administration. Impeachment hearings would give Democrats more standing in court and could stop short of a vote to remove the president.
The issue was raised in a meeting among top Democrats Monday evening, where some members confronted Pelosi about it, according to three people familiar with the private conversation who requested anonymity to discuss it.
Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin made the case that launching an impeachment inquiry would consolidate the Trump investigations and allow Democrats to keep more focus on their other legislative work, according to the people.
Pelosi pushed back, noting that several committees are doing investigations already and they have already been successful in one court case. But some members, several of whom have spoken publicly about a need to be more aggressive with Trump, are increasingly impatient. Other Democrats in the meeting siding with Raskin included Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, California Rep. Ted Lieu and freshman Colorado Rep. Joe Neguse.
Just before the start of Monday’s meeting, Cicilline tweeted: “If Don McGahn does not testify tomorrow, it will be time to begin an impeachment inquiry of @realDonaldTrump.”
In the hours after the discussion, Pelosi and Nadler met privately. Shortly afterward, Nadler said “it’s possible” when asked about impeachment hearings.
“The president’s continuing lawless conduct is making it harder and harder to rule out impeachment or any other enforcement action,” Nadler said.
McGahn’s refusal to testify is the latest of several moves to block Democratic investigations by Trump, who has said his administration will fight “all of the subpoenas.” The Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt earlier this month after he declined to provide an unredacted version of special counsel Mueller’s report. And the House intelligence committee is expected to vote on a separate “enforcement action” against the Justice Department this week after Barr declined a similar request from that panel.
McGahn’s lawyer, William Burck, said in a letter to Nadler that McGahn is “conscious of the duties he, as an attorney, owes to his former client” and would decline to appear Tuesday.
Still, Burck encouraged the committee to negotiate a compromise with the White House, saying that his client “again finds himself facing contradictory instructions from two co-equal branches of government.”
McGahn was a key figure in Mueller’s investigation, describing ways in which the president sought to curtail that federal probe. Democrats have hoped to question him as a way to focus attention on Mueller’s findings and further investigate whether Trump did obstruct justice.
If McGahn were to defy Trump and testify before Congress, it could endanger his own career in Republican politics and put his law firm, Jones Day, in the president’s crosshairs. Trump has mused about instructing Republicans to cease dealing with the firm, which is deeply intertwined in Washington with the GOP, according to one White House official and a Republican close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
Administration officials mulled various legal options before settling on providing McGahn with a legal opinion from the Department of Justice to justify defying the subpoena.
“The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers,” the department’s opinion reads.
A federal judge rejected a similar argument in 2008 in a dispute over a subpoena for Harriet Miers, who was White House counsel to George W. Bush. U.S. District Judge John Bates said it was an unprecedented notion that a White House official would be absolutely immune from being compelled to testify before Congress. Miers had to show up for her testimony, but still had the right to assert executive privilege in response to any specific questions posed by legislators, said the judge.
But in 2014, under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued an opinion arguing that if Congress could force the president’s closest advisers to testify about matters that happened during their tenure, it would “threaten executive branch confidentiality, which is necessary (among other things) to ensure that the President can obtain the type of sound and candid advice that is essential to the effective discharge of his constitutional duties.”
A twisted video game featured on Apple and Android devices urged players to gun down journalists to make headlines before the level was yanked by developers.
“Sniper 3D Assassin,” which is available on iPads and smartphones, had a mission dubbed “Breaking News” in which a reporter was targeted alongside ruthless murderers and thieves, according to The Washington Post.
“A journalist bribed a cop and will pick up a briefcase from the cop,” the game told players armed with virtual sniper rifles. “The briefcase is full of sensitive documents. Make him famous in a different way.”
After the reporter is killed, text popped up declaring, “THAT’S A COVER STORY.”
Players embarked on the disturbing mission after they had already killed a gunman who slaughtered innocent people at a pizzeria and someone who stole a backpack, according to the paper.
The popular mobile game, which is developed by the Brazilian tech firm TFG, is rated 4 1/2 stars and has a combined 12 million reviews. It is available on iOS and Android.
“Take your sniper, aim and start shooting your enemies,” a description of the game reads.
But the video game scenario comes as attacks against journalists have skyrocketed in recent years — and after President Trump called journalists “the enemy of the people.”
First Amendment boosters were outraged by the violence-glorifying game.
“Well, this is horrifying,” one Twitter user said Saturday.
New York Times journalist Jamal Jordan tweeted that his nephew brought the game to his attention.
“My nephew is 10, and we had a very long talk after,” Jordan told the Huffington Post.
Michael Mac-Vicar, a rep for TFG, said the game was supposed to be a fun fantasy.
“Our game Sniper 3D Assassin is fictional and is intended for mature audiences,” Mac-Vicar told HuffPost. “We work to create games that bring fun and entertainment to users all around the world. As such, we take feedback from our players very seriously.”
He added, “After listening to our community today, we have decided to remove the mission ‘Breaking News’ from the game.”
Apple and Google didn’t respond to requests for comment by The Washington Post.
“Secret” supporters of Donald Trump – those who never acknowledged to family and friends that they voted for him for president in 2016 – doubled those who secretly backed Hillary Clinton, a new study reveals.
These “secret” Trump supporters kept silent about their votes for Trump out of fear of being condemned by family, friends and co-workers, according Yahoo News.
The study was co-authored by Michael Slepian and Rachel McDonald of Columbia University, Jessica Salerno of Arizona State University and Katharine Greenaway of the University of Melbourne.
Many of Trump’s “secret” supporters feared “getting in arguments with people and creating conflicts with those around them, Slepian told Yahoo News.
The study’s researchers found 1,000 people “who secretly voted for someone other than whom they publicly claimed to have voted for.” Fifty-three percent voted for Trump, compared to 27% who voted for Clinton. Nineteen percent said they voted for another candidate.
“Trump voters were more concerned about their reputation than Clinton supporters,” Slepian said.
Yahoo News reported the study found “the more conservative” of the “secret” Trump voters “the less they regretted keeping their vote secret.” However, on the Clinton side, some of the liberals regretted not voicing their support for her.
And Yahoo News also reported the “secret” support for Trump, may explain why so many polls misjudged the 2016 election.
All eyes on Iran’s uranium As They Threaten To Make Weapons Grade Stockpiles! What Is Our Next Course Of Action?
Democrats conflicted on impeachment as Trump advises former White House counsel to skip hearing
Former White House Counsel McGahn to defy subpoena on Trump’s orders, threatened with contempt by House Dems
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., says he will hold former White House counsel Donald McGahn in contempt after McGahn said he would not appear … See More at a hearing scheduled for Tuesday. President Trump directed McGahn to skip the hearing, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties.
The White House has accused Democrats of wanting a “do-over” with countless Trump investigations following the findings of no collusion in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. A frustrated Nadler on CNN accused the White House of “intimidating” McGahn and said it was becoming “more and more difficult” to not consider impeachmentagainst “a lawless president.” And despite her reluctance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could soon be left with no choice but to embrace calls from some within her party to impeach Trump, one senior Democrat told Fox News on the condition of anonymity.
Lynch versus Comey
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has flatly accused former FBI Director James Comey of mischaracterizing her statementsby repeatedly alleging, under oath, that Lynch privately instructed him to call the Hillary Clinton email probe a “matter” instead of an “investigation.” Lynch, who testified that Comey’s claim left her “quite surprised,” made the dramatic remarks at a joint closed-door session of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees last December. A transcript of her testimony was released on Monday by House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga.
All eyes on Iran’s uranium
Iran quadrupled its uranium-enrichment production capacity amid tensions with the U.S. over Tehran’s atomic program, nuclear officials said Monday, just after President Trump and Iran’s foreign minister traded threats and taunts on Twitter. Iranian officials made a point to stress that the uranium would be enriched only to the 3.67 percent limit set under the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, making it usable for a power plant but far below what’s needed for an atomic weapon. But by increasing production, Iran soon will exceed the stockpile limitations set by the accord. Tehran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to set new terms for the deal, or it will enrich closer to weapons-grade levels. – The Associated Press
Severe storms rip the Southern Plains
A severe storm system that forecasters warned could bring dangerous tornadoes to parts of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas ripped through the Southern Plains Monday evening, spawning twisters that damaged buildings and produced heavy rain, but caused no reported injuries. The tornadoes that were reported Monday were in sparsely populated areas. Glynadee Edwards, the Greer County (Okla.) emergency management director, told the Associated Press that some homes in the southwestern town of Mangum incurred roof damage and the high school’s agriculture barn was destroyed, but the livestock survived.
Oprah called out for not paying off students’ loan debt
Oprah Winfrey responded Monday to an Instagram user who called out the billionaire mogul for not paying off student loans after her commencement speech at Colorado College, in an apparent comparison to investor Robert Smith’s now-famous gesture at Morehouse College. The Queen of Talk was told that she “should have paid off their student debt,” and swiftly responded, pointing out her multimillion-dollar donations through the years to help university students.
Follow @PeterBoykin on Social Media
Support Peter Boykin’s Activism by Donating
Cash App: https://cash.me/app/CJBHWPS
Cash ID: $peterboykin1
Listen to #MagaOneRadio
Join the #MagaNetwork
Read the Latest #MagaFirstNews
Support Donald Trump
Join Our Groups on Facebook:
Americans With Trump
North Carolina MAGA Network
NC Trump Club
Vote For DJ Trump
Trump Loves Winning
Straights For Trump
Grab them by the P***Y
Join Our Pages on Facebook:
(CBS4) – A controversial billboard advertising Colorado as a safe space for abortions has some applauding the state for its progressive views, while others are left worried that it implies Colorado condones murder. The billboard, paid for by “Keep Abortion Safe,” is featured along I-70 eastbound, for those visiting Colorado from Utah.
The billboard reads “Welcome to Colorado, where you can get a safe, legal abortion.”
Keep Abortion Safe co-founder Fawn Bolak said her organization paid for the billboard in hope that it would encourage those in neighboring states to consider Colorado for any of their reproductive medical needs.
“The goal of the billboard was meant to be a bold message to our neighbors coming in. That they are now entering a state that respects and allows them to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions,” Bolak said. “We also have instances of folks traveling from all over the country to come to Colorado for the access we have.”
However, the billboard was not accepted by all Coloradans. Bob Enyart, a local pastor and radio host, said the organization “Colorado Right to Life” did not support the message behind the sign.
“Welcome to Colorful Colorado. Red is a beautiful color, but not abortion red,” Enyart said. “You have to hate God to want to advertise to kill innocent children. To dismember them. We need to be known as a state for life and not for death.”
The billboard is one of many throughout the state that encourage drivers to seek different journeys when it comes to pregnancy.
While some encourage expecting parents to do what is best for them and their health, others encourage the same people to explore opportunities to support life. There are also some billboards supporting pro-life messages encourage resource centers and others in the Denver area that encourage expecting fathers to love their children and support them.