|
October 4th, 2019
Quote of the Week: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Quote of the Week: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
In This Issue:
DEEP STATE DUPLICITY We here at the Watchdog aren’t conspiracy nuts. We don’t wear tinfoil hats and the label “deep state” isn’t thrown around the break room very often. Moreover, this publication has frequently disapproved of President Trump’s frequent unpresidential behavior. Having said that, there is growing evidence every day that Trump is indeed the disrupter he claims to be. There is increasing evidence that he is indeed the subject of harassment from a bi-partisan Establishment that resents a disruptive force occupying the chief executive’s seat. The evidence is legion. His supreme court pick is a rapist, yet the witness has no recollection. Trump mishandled classified material, leading to the emergency extraction of a CIA asset. Later we learn the asset was removed during the Obama administration. An entire independent counsel investigation was launched based on a false dossier and sustained by false representations to the FISA court. Trump is accused of steering Air Force personnel to his property in Scotland. We later learn that personnel have been staying there for years, and the number is only a small fraction of those who are lodged in the area during refueling/crew rest operations. Here we go again. The media has breathlessly hustled the impeachment goal posts from Mueller zone over to the Ukraine zone, where we’re told that Trump pressured that country’s president to investigate Joe Biden and his loser kid, who was making outrageous dollars to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, even though he had no expertise in the field and no experience in Ukrainian affairs. Like most of these scandals, we just need to wait a few days for the exculpatory information to start coming out. No matter the scandal, you can count on a different story to emerge after the initial wave of hyperbole and hysteria. Same with this matter. While the mainstream media isn’t reporting it, a major bombshell dropped this week when it was revealed that the rules regarding whistleblower complaints were rewritten at about the same time the Ukraine whistleblower dropped his/her complaint. This is a big deal, so bear with us for a moment. To start, the law governing whistleblower complaints in the intelligence community grant broad discretion to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Thus, most of what governs whistleblower complaints is governed by ICIG policy. There is no dispute that when the whistleblower lodged his complaint in August, he did so under rules that explicitly demand FIRSTHAND evidence of wrongdoing. This is important because all news reports concerning the complaint admit that it is based on second-hand, non-eyewitness information. In other words, it’s a complaint based on hearsay. The policy under which the complaint was lodged states, in part: FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed same type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA. As you can see, any complaint lacking firsthand information is not credible. This week, the ICIG admitted that this policy was changed in direct response to the Trump complaint, raising legitimate concerns that the ICIG altered policy to go after Trump. Strangely, the ICIG dismissed this allegation by arguing that the change only “clarified” a previously ambiguous policy. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees. This response is laughable, when the policy (described above) demanding firsthand information is explicit and unambiguous. The ICIG, like so many other actors in Washington, will have some serious questions to answer from the Senate. SENATE IMPEACHMENT ROLE As long as we’re on the topic of impeachment, let’s take a brief moment to understand the Senate’s role in the process, since the House has shown already that it’s “impeachment or bust” for the crew that won the majority on the promise that they wanted to actually govern and not engage in the maniacal pursuit and harassment of the president. In simple terms, the Senate would sit as a jury of sorts, listening to evidence presented by the House and then needing a 2/3rds majority to impeach and remove from office. But it’s far more than that. The Constitution makes clear that the Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments. This power is explicit and unambiguous. There are no other requirements and no other rules, other than perhaps some custom and usage. This means that the Senate has wide latitude governing this power. For example, the Senate could immediately dismiss article of impeachment. It could refuse to take up any proffered articles of impeachment. It’s an interesting question to determine if the Senate could ban some senators from participating in an impeachment trial because those senators have already adjudged Trump guilty and have tainted their ability to serve as an impartial “juror” during an impeachment trial. After all, the Constitution affords the Senate latitude over its members, including the power to adjudge the “election, returns, and qualifications” of its members as well as the power to expel. Moreover, many of the rules that govern courtroom trials don’t apply to impeachment trials. The Senate is free to consider evidence, testimony, and other items that would normally be inadmissible in a traditional courtroom. With the irregularities that have thus far governed House proceedings against the president and his allies, the House might want to exercise some restraint, which it likely won’t. Stay tuned. MISS RICHFIELD When we’re told to “check out” our local library, this isn’t what most people had in mind. Over in Hennepin County, their library system is sponsoring a deal called “Stories Together with Drag Performers.” According to a news report published by our friends over at Alpha News, the “stories” are as nasty and disgusting as one would imagine. The performance offered by a dude who calls himself “Miss Richfield” is chronicled in a news story on Alpha’s web site. Read it here: https://alphanewsmn.com/minnesota-public-library-hires-adult-entertainment-worker-to-read-to-toddlers-for-story-hour/ |
 Harold Hamilton
Welcome to my web site!
I created this website in response to governmental waste and abuse in Anoka County. Many taxpayers don’t know that our local governments spend millions of tax dollars every year on things like public relations teams, lobbyists, and junkets to places like Hawaii. Since there seemed to be no place to turn for the “other side” of these issues, I created the Anoka County Watchdog. My intent is to create a one-stop-shop where concerned taxpayers can find fact-supported information and other resources to counter the governmental machine. Many people want to confront their elected officials regarding waste and abuse but feel they don’t have the information they need to make an effective argument. This web site offers that information. Some of our elected officials in Anoka County have become arrogant and unresponsive, forgetting that they work for the very people who put them in office. It’s high time to hold them accountable for their decisions. Sincerely, Harold E. Hamilton (harold@anokacountywatchdog.com) Email: harold@anokacountywatchdog.com
US Mail: Anoka County Watchdog C/O K Solutions LLC 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 (Anonymous submissions accepted!) |
