dailysignal--2020-05-19--The Rule of Law and the Targeting of Mike Flynn

The most frightening phrase my parents ever heard was : “ the 2 a.m. knock on the door.
” That was because my parents lived under a communist dictatorship in Hungary , and the phrase referred to one group : the secret police , who invariably would come to your home in the middle of the night to make an arrest .
The arrest would not be predicated on the commission of a regular crime , for the secret police didn ’ t investigate bank robbers or kidnappers .
Their mandate was political persecution , the use of law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” citizens who had committed political crimes .
My father was one of those so persecuted .
He was a man who loved the land of his birth and hated the dictatorship imposed upon it after World War II .
In college , he organized a secret Christian students ’ resistance cell to spy on the communist regime and get information about its crimes out to the West .
After two years , my father and his group were betrayed by Kim Philby , the notorious British KGB asset .
My father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night , tortured , and sent to prison for life , only to be liberated six years later during the glorious , but short-lived Hungarian Revolution of 1956 .
My parents escaped to the West and to true freedom .
As a result , I grew up as a free man in the United Kingdom .
Now I live in America , the greatest nation ever created , and I am thankful beyond measure to be a citizen of the only country ever founded on the principle of individual liberty as ordained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a political police force .
Or so I thought .
The last four years have been a political roller coaster for our republic .
It started when a nonpolitician announced his candidacy for president , to the amusement of the chattering classes and the “ establishment.
” He was a man who never had run for office before , but who not only won the nomination of his party but went on to win the general election to become the 45th president and commander in chief of the United States .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people is underscored by one simple fact : Never before , since the birth of the nation in our Revolutionary War , had we chosen as president a man who wasn ’ t a politician or general .
From George Washington to Barack Obama , all 44 prior chief executives previously had been senators , governors , congressmen , vice presidents , or senior military officers .
Yet Donald Trump , the man who would become the 45th president , was unsullied by membership in the so-called swamp .
That is in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a political scandal the likes of which we have never seen before .
It is a scandal that involved a concerted and conspiratorial effort to exploit the incredible power of federal law enforcement and the intelligence community for political purposes .
For the record , I must register my relationship to the person who is central to these dark revelations .
I consider Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to be a friend .
Additionally , he was my colleague in the White House and , before that , my superior in the official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a man wronged .
He is an American patriot who was targeted by the last administration and , we now know , framed .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s legal experts have meticulously laid out the facts of the case .
As succinctly as possible , here are the details : Flynn was fired as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency by President Barack Obama , ostensibly over a technical issue concerning drone strikes .
In fact , Flynn had revolutionized the practice of battlefield intelligence exploitation in Afghanistan , was reforming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and was speaking truthfully about the growing threat of global jihadism and new al-Qaeda franchises such as ISIS .
Most importantly , Flynn was dead set against Obama ’ s nuclear deal with Iran that would release over $ 140 billion to the murderous mullahs in Iran without any truly meaningful concessions .
For all these reasons , after 33 years in uniform , a great American had to be removed from government service .
But Flynn would become a true threat only to the vested interests that had removed him from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when , after his retirement , he became a vocal supporter of candidate Donald Trump and eventually his pick to become America ’ s next national security adviser .
Why ?
Because Flynn knew where the skeletons of the last administration ’ s policies were buried , policies such as the Iran deal , that did not serve American interests .
But , secondly , as former DIA director , he would be ideally positioned to uncover the true breadth and depth of what now has been described , even by Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI , National Security Agency , and CIA for political purposes .
Obamagate covers a multitude of nefarious and illegal actions by the last administration , including , as the Justice Department ’ s inspector general has uncovered , dozens and dozens of unconstitutional aspects of the secret court warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act used to spy on the Trump campaign and Trump administration .
Obamagate also includes the inordinate number of “ unmaskings ” of U.S. nationals in hundreds of communications intercepts , unmaskings that , thanks to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenell , we now know , were requested by officials as high up as by Obama ’ s vice president , Joe Biden .
That ’ s why Mike Flynn , a retired three-star Army general and Trump ’ s new national security adviser , had to be targeted for removal , as the contemporaneous , now available FBI notes on the infamous January 2017 interview of Flynn at the White House prove .
The notes show that Obama administration holdovers saw several options : “ Truth/Admission or to get him to lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get him fired ?
” It is not the job of the FBI , the National Security Agency , or any other part of the enormous apparatus of federal government to use intelligence intercepts to trawl for politically useful information that could be used during an election campaign .
And the Federal Bureau of Investigation is meant to catch bank robbers , terrorists , and spies .
It ’ s not to get the national security adviser to a president chosen by 63 million voters fired , charged with a crime that didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal court docket .
That is what secret police were invented for , the kind who knock on your door at 2 a.m .
It is now patently clear that many members of the last administration committed felonies .
A former U.S. attorney and Justice Department special counsel has identified which former FBI and Justice Department officials are in the greatest legal jeopardy and what felonies they can be charged with .
Whether they are charged or not will be the ultimate test of whether we remain a republic with rule of @ @ @ @ @ @

The most frightening phrase my parents ever heard was: “the 2 a.m. knock on the door.”
That was because my parents lived under a communist dictatorship in Hungary, and the phrase referred to one group: the secret police, who invariably would come to your home in the middle of the night to make an arrest.
The arrest would not be predicated on the commission of a regular crime, for the secret police didn’t investigate bank robbers or kidnappers. Their mandate was political persecution, the use of law enforcement to target “enemies of the state,” citizens who had committed political crimes.
My father was one of those so persecuted.
He was a man who loved the land of his birth and hated the dictatorship imposed upon it after World War II. In college, he organized a secret Christian students’ resistance cell to spy on the communist regime and get information about its crimes out to the West.
After two years, my father and his group were betrayed by Kim Philby, the notorious British KGB asset. My father was arrested in the middle of the night, tortured, and sent to prison for life, only to be liberated six years later during the glorious, but short-lived Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
My parents escaped to the West and to true freedom. As a result, I grew up as a free man in the United Kingdom. Now I live in America, the greatest nation ever created, and I am thankful beyond measure to be a citizen of the only country ever founded on the principle of individual liberty as ordained by our creator. A nation that never had a political police force. Or so I thought.
The last four years have been a political roller coaster for our republic. It started when a nonpolitician announced his candidacy for president, to the amusement of the chattering classes and the “establishment.”
He was a man who never had run for office before, but who not only won the nomination of his party but went on to win the general election to become the 45th president and commander in chief of the United States.
The enormity of this decision by the American people is underscored by one simple fact: Never before, since the birth of the nation in our Revolutionary War, had we chosen as president a man who wasn’t a politician or general. From George Washington to Barack Obama, all 44 prior chief executives previously had been senators, governors, congressmen, vice presidents, or senior military officers.
Yet Donald Trump, the man who would become the 45th president, was unsullied by membership in the so-called swamp.
That is in part why today we are witnessing the revelations of a political scandal the likes of which we have never seen before. It is a scandal that involved a concerted and conspiratorial effort to exploit the incredible power of federal law enforcement and the intelligence community for political purposes.
For the record, I must register my relationship to the person who is central to these dark revelations. I consider Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to be a friend. Additionally, he was my colleague in the White House and, before that, my superior in the official presidential transition team.
Mike Flynn is a man wronged. He is an American patriot who was targeted by the last administration and, we now know, framed.
The Heritage Foundation’s legal experts have meticulously laid out the facts of the case. As succinctly as possible, here are the details:
Flynn was fired as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency by President Barack Obama, ostensibly over a technical issue concerning drone strikes.
In fact, Flynn had revolutionized the practice of battlefield intelligence exploitation in Afghanistan, was reforming the moribund architecture at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and was speaking truthfully about the growing threat of global jihadism and new al-Qaeda franchises such as ISIS.
Most importantly, Flynn was dead set against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran that would release over $140 billion to the murderous mullahs in Iran without any truly meaningful concessions.
For all these reasons, after 33 years in uniform, a great American had to be removed from government service. But Flynn would become a true threat only to the vested interests that had removed him from his position as director of the DIA when, after his retirement, he became a vocal supporter of candidate Donald Trump and eventually his pick to become America’s next national security adviser.
Why? Because Flynn knew where the skeletons of the last administration’s policies were buried, policies such as the Iran deal, that did not serve American interests.
But, secondly, as former DIA director, he would be ideally positioned to uncover the true breadth and depth of what now has been described, even by Trump, as Obamagate, a systematic use of the FBI, National Security Agency, and CIA for political purposes.
Obamagate covers a multitude of nefarious and illegal actions by the last administration, including, as the Justice Department’s inspector general has uncovered, dozens and dozens of unconstitutional aspects of the secret court warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act used to spy on the Trump campaign and Trump administration.
Obamagate also includes the inordinate number of “unmaskings” of U.S. nationals in hundreds of communications intercepts, unmaskings that, thanks to the acting director for national intelligence, Richard Grenell, we now know, were requested by officials as high up as by Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden.
That’s why Mike Flynn, a retired three-star Army general and Trump’s new national security adviser, had to be targeted for removal, as the contemporaneous, now available FBI notes on the infamous January 2017 interview of Flynn at the White House prove.
The notes show that Obama administration holdovers saw several options: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
It is not the job of the FBI, the National Security Agency, or any other part of the enormous apparatus of federal government to use intelligence intercepts to trawl for politically useful information that could be used during an election campaign.
And the Federal Bureau of Investigation is meant to catch bank robbers, terrorists, and spies. It’s not to get the national security adviser to a president chosen by 63 million voters fired, charged with a crime that didn’t happen, and put on a federal court docket. That is what secret police were invented for, the kind who knock on your door at 2 a.m.
It is now patently clear that many members of the last administration committed felonies. A former U.S. attorney and Justice Department special counsel has identified which former FBI and Justice Department officials are in the greatest legal jeopardy and what felonies they can be charged with.
Whether they are charged or not will be the ultimate test of whether we remain a republic with rule of law and justice for all.


dailysignal--2020-05-20--Proxy Voting Lets ‘20 People Control’ Congress, Warns Kevin McCarthy

Democrats passed proxy voting in their fourth coronavirus recovery bill on Friday .
“ Instead of 435 [ people ] representing districts across the nation … 20 people control all of Congress , ” says House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , referring to the effect of Democrats ’ proxy voting push .
“ Each member can call up to 10 proxies , ” McCarthy tells The Daily Signal Podcast .
“ So if the Democrats have 20 people , all holding 10 proxies , they can pass any bill.
” He adds , “ This is about bringing back the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now that voice isn ’ t even being heard because just 20 people decide what passes and doesn ’ t. ” Listen to the podcast , or read the lightly edited transcript pasted below .
We also cover these stories : • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicates his support for Sen. Lindsey Graham ’ s call to subpoena Obama administration officials to learn what they knew and didn ’ t know about surveillance of the Trump campaign .
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls President Donald Trump “ morbidly obese ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking hydroxychloroquine .
• “ I know the president wants to see those folks that go back to work to get a 7.6 % cut in their payroll tax , ” says top Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow .
The Daily Signal Podcast is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , or Stitcher .
All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enjoy the show !
Rachel del Guidice : I ’ m joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy .
Congressman McCarthy , it ’ s great to have you on The Daily Signal Podcast .
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy : Thank you very much .
I ’ m glad to be on .
Del Guidice : Well , thanks for being with us .
So , in Democrats fourth coronavirus recovery package , they passed vote by proxy and you have been very outspoken about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What is your perspective on all of this ?
McCarthy : Well , it ’ s to take power away .
We have 435 members that represent the entire United States .
Districts are cut up evenly .
We do a census every two years .
Why ?
Because each district loans their voice and power to their member of Congress .
Now , with a proxy vote , instead of 435 representing districts across the nation that can be held accountable , 20 people control all of Congress , because each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So if the Democrats have 20 people , all holding 10 proxies , they can pass any bill .
Now , how can that constituent ’ s voice be heard ?
How could that person be held accountable when you can see that [ House Speaker ] Nancy Pelosi can sit in her office , write the largest bill that ’ s ever been voted on in the history of Congress , never going through one committee , never being questioned except coming direct to the floor with no other options ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it mentions cannabis more than it mentions jobs .
I mean , it ’ s cash for cannabis , with nothing to do with COVID .
Del Guidice : … The floor speech you had called this the most significant power grab in the history of Congress .
Can you unpack this for a little bit ?
What did you mean by that ?
McCarthy : … It gives more power to the speaker because it goes against directly what our Founders believed .
Our Founders would be ashamed because they expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re on Capitol Hill right now , and you simply walk two blocks away , you can go to Starbucks and get a coffee or a tea .
You can walk a hundred yards away from the House and you could see the Senate meeting .
The only place that ’ s not meeting is the House itself .
Why ?
Because it provides more power to Nancy Pelosi to write a wish list for liberals inside her own office and just bring it to the floor— $ 3 trillion with no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having input into it .
And that ’ s why , when you look at the bill itself , what did it do ?
It talked about pot , it talked about prisoners , it politicized federal elections , it prioritized illegal immigrants , and they talked about pensions—nothing to do with COVID itself .
Del Guidice : Looking at their vote by proxy provision , can you detail for us , for people who don ’ t know , what would this do ?
How would this change Congress ?
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ] what vote by proxy does , what are those things ?
McCarthy : What proxy does [ is ] it gives the power away .
It lets the power rest with only 20 people .
It can not be held accountable .
What ’ s so sad about this [ is ] just a few short weeks ago , Speaker Pelosi said actually on our floor , “ We are the captains of the ships .
We are the last to leave , ” but proxy voting calls on Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first to leave for months or even possibly the rest of the session .
So members never have to come back .
And this is more than about just opening a campus .
This is about bringing back the voice of the American public .
They are the ones who gave the voice to their constituents .
But now that voice isn ’ t even being heard because just 20 people decide what passes and doesn ’ t .
McCarthy : Well , it goes against everything , which I believe is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a quorum if the people are not here ?
Any bill that would be passed via proxy to determine a quorum I would believe wouldn ’ t stand the constitutional challenge .
… Think for a moment—you have a constituency , you go to your member of Congress and you want them to represent their district , but they pass their vote to another member who ’ s never been there , never heard from him , and they get to cast that vote .
Del Guidice : … Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by proxy especially affect more moderate Democrats who sometimes do cross the aisle to work with Republican counterparts ?
How could that specifically affect them ?
McCarthy : How it would affect them personally—I ’ m sure Nancy Pelosi will get their votes .
So they may be a moderate or say they are , but they ’ re going to give their vote to the liberal wing of the party and they ’ re going to have no say .
They don ’ t have an ability inside a committee to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different or better .
It only comes to the floor and they have no control over beating back because one member stands up there , here ’ s 10 votes to your one .
Del Guidice : With proxy voting , could a member choose who gets to cast their proxy vote or is it basically chosen for them ?
McCarthy : They can choose .
But what do you think the speaker ’ s going to be able to do ?
The speaker ’ s probably going to choose for them if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re on the floor and we ’ re bringing up a debate , a different amendment to change the bill and others , they have no say , the proxy gets to determine how the vote goes .
Del Guidice : So does proxy voting … essentially pave the way for an electronic remote voting system completely ?
McCarthy : Well , it also puts in there that people can just stay home .
And this goes against what I believe everyone wanted and the Founders , they wanted members to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you remember Roger Sherman , now he ’ s the only Founder to sign all four great state documents .
He said this in 1789 , “ When the people have chosen a representative , it is his duty to meet others from different parts of the union and consult and agree with them to such acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community.
” Now , Sherman is right , especially in a pandemic .
Our presence is important .
We are essential and we should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not here and not working , there is no voice for your district .
And that ’ s what matters .
It matters to our Constitution , it matters to our institution , and it matters for all those who come after us because that ’ s exactly what you ’ re talking about , that they would change the constitutional behavior .
If you look Article One , Section Three , Four , or Five , they believe Congress should meet .
Del Guidice : … Would [ vote by proxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And if so , how would that happen ?
McCarthy : Right now they say it ’ s only during COVID , but I believe it will just continue on .
We ’ ve watched that time and again , because it empowers the speaker more power , and that ’ s what she craves the most .
Del Guidice : When it comes to proxy voting , are there security risks involved too for the House , if everything were to move online ?
McCarthy : Big security .
If 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how does that person that gave their proxy away know if the bill changed or [ if the ] amendment was brought up or others ?
Just those 20 people can decide whatever happens .
Del Guidice : Looking at things from just a larger perspective regarding the bill , the latest coronavirus bill that was passed , what was your perspective on that bill as a whole , proxy voting aside ?
McCarthy : The bill did not reflect what the country needed or desired because it never went through committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the main elements of the bill were things that the Democrats from the socialist wing of the party have been trying to pass all year , long before COVID ever came through .
You look at the Democrats ’ most important bill , H.R .
1 .
That dealt with federalizing the election , taking the power away from states .
Well , they put that in the bill .
Releasing people from prisons—that ’ s something that they ’ ve been trying to do some quite time .
Prioritizing illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving money instead of Americans themselves , that was in the bill as well .
So if you watch , a number of these bills had already passed by the Democrats and that ’ s what they hope to make .
Remember what the No .
3 Democrat Jim Clyburn said to all the conference , he believes COVID is a perfect time to restructure government in their view .
You ’ ve got freshmen congresswomen who love the idea that when the price of oil drops so hard that people are losing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
They believed that they shouldn ’ t pass the bill when we were putting forth money for small businesses because they believed COVID gave them a leverage to actually restructure government , much like the majority whip set .
And then we had [ former Vice President ] Joe Biden saying the exact same thing .
They don ’ t look at COVID as an opportunity to solve a virus and a concern for all of America .
They look at it as an opportunity to restructure government in a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : In light of that , Congressman McCarthy , lastly , how do you think the U.S. should be dealing with COVID right now and what the House ’ s role is in addressing COVID ?
McCarthy : The first thing we should do is make sure the $ 3 trillion we already passed gets implemented out there .
The next thing we should do is make sure when it ’ s in the antibodies and the vaccines have all that they need to continue moving forward .
We should not be focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or others .
We should focus on what keeps Americans safe .
The virus is here .
We did not invite it , we did not ask for it , but we will defeat it together , if we work together .
But the idea of what the Democrats have done , using this as an opportunity to restructure Congress , so just 4.5 % of Congress can decide what bill gets passed and others , instead of have a reflection of the nation themselves , that everybody has a voice in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down .
Just why they keep government shut down itself , instead … Congress itself should be working because we are essential , what does that say to every truck driver that brings the food in or to the doctors or the dispatchers if Congress won ’ t work , but they will ?
Del Guidice : Congressman McCarthy , thank you so much for unpacking this issue for us and for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast .
McCarthy : Thank you so much .

Democrats passed proxy voting in their fourth coronavirus recovery bill on Friday. “Instead of 435 [people] representing districts across the nation … 20 people control all of Congress,” says House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, referring to the effect of Democrats’ proxy voting push.
“Each member can call up to 10 proxies,” McCarthy tells The Daily Signal Podcast. “So if the Democrats have 20 people, all holding 10 proxies, they can pass any bill.” He adds, “This is about bringing back the voice of the American public. … Now that voice isn’t even being heard because just 20 people decide what passes and doesn’t.”
Listen to the podcast, or read the lightly edited transcript pasted below.
We also cover these stories:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicates his support for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s call to subpoena Obama administration officials to learn what they knew and didn’t know about surveillance of the Trump campaign.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls President Donald Trump “morbidly obese” in response to the news that he is taking hydroxychloroquine.
“I know the president wants to see those folks that go back to work to get a 7.6% cut in their payroll tax,” says top Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow.
The Daily Signal Podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Congressman McCarthy, it’s great to have you on The Daily Signal Podcast.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: Thank you very much. I’m glad to be on.
Del Guidice: Well, thanks for being with us. So, in Democrats fourth coronavirus recovery package, they passed vote by proxy and you have been very outspoken about what they’re trying to do here. What is your perspective on all of this?
McCarthy: Well, it’s to take power away. We have 435 members that represent the entire United States. Districts are cut up evenly. We do a census every two years. Why? Because each district loans their voice and power to their member of Congress.
Now, with a proxy vote, instead of 435 representing districts across the nation that can be held accountable, 20 people control all of Congress, because each member can call up to 10 proxies. So if the Democrats have 20 people, all holding 10 proxies, they can pass any bill.
Now, how can that constituent’s voice be heard? How could that person be held accountable when you can see that [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi can sit in her office, write the largest bill that’s ever been voted on in the history of Congress, never going through one committee, never being questioned except coming direct to the floor with no other options?
And when you look at the bill, it mentions cannabis more than it mentions jobs. I mean, it’s cash for cannabis, with nothing to do with COVID.
Del Guidice: … The floor speech you had called this the most significant power grab in the history of Congress. Can you unpack this for a little bit? What did you mean by that?
McCarthy: … It gives more power to the speaker because it goes against directly what our Founders believed. Our Founders would be ashamed because they expect us to assemble.
If you’re on Capitol Hill right now, and you simply walk two blocks away, you can go to Starbucks and get a coffee or a tea. You can walk a hundred yards away from the House and you could see the Senate meeting.
The only place that’s not meeting is the House itself. Why? Because it provides more power to Nancy Pelosi to write a wish list for liberals inside her own office and just bring it to the floor—$3 trillion with no one even seeing it beforehand, no committees having input into it.
And that’s why, when you look at the bill itself, what did it do? It talked about pot, it talked about prisoners, it politicized federal elections, it prioritized illegal immigrants, and they talked about pensions—nothing to do with COVID itself.
Del Guidice: Looking at their vote by proxy provision, can you detail for us, for people who don’t know, what would this do? How would this change Congress? If you could say three or four things [about] what vote by proxy does, what are those things?
McCarthy: What proxy does [is] it gives the power away. It lets the power rest with only 20 people. It cannot be held accountable.
What’s so sad about this [is] just a few short weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi said actually on our floor, “We are the captains of the ships. We are the last to leave,” but proxy voting calls on Congress to actually abandon the ship, to be the first to leave for months or even possibly the rest of the session. So members never have to come back.
And this is more than about just opening a campus. This is about bringing back the voice of the American public. They are the ones who gave the voice to their constituents. But now that voice isn’t even being heard because just 20 people decide what passes and doesn’t.
Del Guidice: How would proxy voting change historical precedent?
McCarthy: Well, it goes against everything, which I believe is unconstitutional. How can 20 people determine there’s a quorum if the people are not here? Any bill that would be passed via proxy to determine a quorum I would believe wouldn’t stand the constitutional challenge.
… Think for a moment—you have a constituency, you go to your member of Congress and you want them to represent their district, but they pass their vote to another member who’s never been there, never heard from him, and they get to cast that vote.
Del Guidice: … Since you mentioned that, how could vote by proxy especially affect more moderate Democrats who sometimes do cross the aisle to work with Republican counterparts? How could that specifically affect them?
McCarthy: How it would affect them personally—I’m sure Nancy Pelosi will get their votes. So they may be a moderate or say they are, but they’re going to give their vote to the liberal wing of the party and they’re going to have no say.
They don’t have an ability inside a committee to change the course, to make the bill different or better. It only comes to the floor and they have no control over beating back because one member stands up there, here’s 10 votes to your one.
Del Guidice: With proxy voting, could a member choose who gets to cast their proxy vote or is it basically chosen for them?
McCarthy: They can choose. But what do you think the speaker’s going to be able to do? The speaker’s probably going to choose for them if they cannot come back.
If they’re on the floor and we’re bringing up a debate, a different amendment to change the bill and others, they have no say, the proxy gets to determine how the vote goes.
Del Guidice: So does proxy voting … essentially pave the way for an electronic remote voting system completely?
McCarthy: Well, it also puts in there that people can just stay home. And this goes against what I believe everyone wanted and the Founders, they wanted members to assemble. They wanted members to work.
If you remember Roger Sherman, now he’s the only Founder to sign all four great state documents. He said this in 1789, “When the people have chosen a representative, it is his duty to meet others from different parts of the union and consult and agree with them to such acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community.”
Now, Sherman is right, especially in a pandemic. Our presence is important. We are essential and we should be working.
Now, if you’re not here and not working, there is no voice for your district. And that’s what matters. It matters to our Constitution, it matters to our institution, and it matters for all those who come after us because that’s exactly what you’re talking about, that they would change the constitutional behavior.
If you look Article One, Section Three, Four, or Five, they believe Congress should meet.
Del Guidice: … Would [vote by proxy] become the new normal for Congress? And if so, how would that happen?
McCarthy: Right now they say it’s only during COVID, but I believe it will just continue on. We’ve watched that time and again, because it empowers the speaker more power, and that’s what she craves the most.
…
Del Guidice: When it comes to proxy voting, are there security risks involved too for the House, if everything were to move online?
McCarthy: Big security. If 20 people are given all the power, how does that person that gave their proxy away know if the bill changed or [if the] amendment was brought up or others? Just those 20 people can decide whatever happens.
Del Guidice: Looking at things from just a larger perspective regarding the bill, the latest coronavirus bill that was passed, what was your perspective on that bill as a whole, proxy voting aside?
McCarthy: The bill did not reflect what the country needed or desired because it never went through committee. It was written just by Nancy Pelosi. And the main elements of the bill were things that the Democrats from the socialist wing of the party have been trying to pass all year, long before COVID ever came through.
You look at the Democrats’ most important bill, H.R. 1. That dealt with federalizing the election, taking the power away from states. Well, they put that in the bill.
Releasing people from prisons—that’s something that they’ve been trying to do some quite time. Prioritizing illegal immigrants, making sure they’re receiving money instead of Americans themselves, that was in the bill as well.
So if you watch, a number of these bills had already passed by the Democrats and that’s what they hope to make.
Remember what the No. 3 Democrat Jim Clyburn said to all the conference, he believes COVID is a perfect time to restructure government in their view.
You’ve got freshmen congresswomen who love the idea that when the price of oil drops so hard that people are losing their jobs, they said they loved it.
They believed that they shouldn’t pass the bill when we were putting forth money for small businesses because they believed COVID gave them a leverage to actually restructure government, much like the majority whip set. And then we had [former Vice President] Joe Biden saying the exact same thing.
They don’t look at COVID as an opportunity to solve a virus and a concern for all of America. They look at it as an opportunity to restructure government in a more socialist, liberal view.
Del Guidice: In light of that, Congressman McCarthy, lastly, how do you think the U.S. should be dealing with COVID right now and what the House’s role is in addressing COVID?
McCarthy: The first thing we should do is make sure the $3 trillion we already passed gets implemented out there. The next thing we should do is make sure when it’s in the antibodies and the vaccines have all that they need to continue moving forward.
We should not be focusing on cannabis or election law or prisoners or others. We should focus on what keeps Americans safe.
The virus is here. We did not invite it, we did not ask for it, but we will defeat it together, if we work together.
But the idea of what the Democrats have done, using this as an opportunity to restructure Congress, so just 4.5% of Congress can decide what bill gets passed and others, instead of have a reflection of the nation themselves, that everybody has a voice in their government, but this is shutting it down.
Just why they keep government shut down itself, instead … Congress itself should be working because we are essential, what does that say to every truck driver that brings the food in or to the doctors or the dispatchers if Congress won’t work, but they will?
Del Guidice: Congressman McCarthy, thank you so much for unpacking this issue for us and for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast.
McCarthy: Thank you so much.


dailysignal--2020-05-21--The Game of Truth

The Game of Truth

When newly minted White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany took the stage last week for the first time—the first time a Trump press secretary has issued a formal conference in over six months—she encountered a ravenously bloodthirsty media gaggle .
It was ready to pounce .
Would they be able to totally eviscerate her as they had a slew of her predecessors ?
Well , no .
She turned the tables on them all .
Predators , it seems , had become prey .
While the task of how to feed and water the Washington press corps is no secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what ’ s more impressive is when a White House press secretary can feed them the food of their own making .
And so it happened .
They served it up warm .
It came about 25 minutes into the press conference .
Jeff Mason , Reuters ’ White House correspondent , asked : Of course not .
Would you like to take the media ’ s entire record back , McEnany replied .
Does Vox want to take back that they proclaim that the coronavirus would not be a deadly pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take back that they told Americans to ‘ get a grip , the flu is bigger than the coronavirus ’ ?
Does The Washington Post , likewise , want to take back that , ‘ Our brains are causing us to exaggerate the threat of the coronavirus ’ ?
Does The New York Times want to take back that , ‘ Fear of the virus may be spreading faster than the virus itself ’ ?
Does NPR want to take back that the flu was a much bigger threat than the coronavirus ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post .
Would they like to take back that the government should not respond aggressively to the virus ?
From her perch atop the bully pulpit , McEnany did not wait around for replies .
It was a “ drop the mic ” moment .
But the point still stands .
The mainstream media have printed various misinformed or later-to-be-corrected statements about the impact of COVID-19 , mainly because they ( like most of America ) were still learning about the spread of the virus and its potential public health implications .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in real time .
The difference is that he is blamed by the media for every statement he makes .
If it ’ s true , then it ’ s insensitive , and if it turns out to be inaccurate , then it was a blatant lie .
At this point , it seems that the mainstream media exists solely to refute and oppose anything the president says .
Of course , President Donald Trump is not perfect .
He exaggerates .
He makes blanket statements without caveat .
And he is known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretching reality .
Those who have come to know him and work with him on a daily basis understand his foibles .
But they also understand that the president is merely human .
He breathes the same air and eats the same food we all do .
He has hopes and dreams for his own life and for America that echo our own .
Despite his many faults , he was duly elected to lead the country ; he has our best interests at heart .
But the media ’ s raison d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , but solely in opposition .
When the president goes left , whether right or wrong , the media go right .
It is as if they have abdicated their roles as fact-finders and investigators and turned into repudiators .
This is laziness at its worst .
It lacks credibility and betrays an emotional bias that goes to the heart of truth and falsehood .
If the media is so readily able to embrace falsehoods merely to combat the president , are they not just as guilty of the betrayal of truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps the most cynical media iconoclasm centers around the seeming glee some pundits take in the tanking economy .
It is almost as if they embrace forced closings and their devastating economic effects as the welcome price of ridding the country of Trump .
Forget about the folks who are suffering .
Forget about working mothers with children out of school and nowhere to go .
All these pundits have to do is show up at their laptops and type away from the cushy surroundings of their high-end condos .
But they aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices of laying off workers or letting crops rot in the field .
For them , reopening the economy is synonymous with losing the political battle .
We all want a free press that is able to question the official line .
As a media pundit and commentator , I often question the president ’ s approach .
But it bears asking whether a press is truly “ free ” when it is bound by its preconceived notions of truth and falsehood .
Perhaps ideological constraints on fairness and objectivity devalue their roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagined when they enshrined the First Amendment .

When newly minted White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany took the stage May 1 for the first time—also the first time a Trump press secretary has held a formal conference in over six months—she encountered a ravenously bloodthirsty media gaggle. It was ready to pounce.
Would they be able to totally eviscerate her as they had a slew of her predecessors? Well, no. She turned the tables on them all. Predators, it seems, had become prey.
While the task of how to feed and water the Washington press corps is no secret to those in the press secretary business, what’s more impressive is when a White House press secretary can feed them the food of their own making. And so it happened. They served it up warm.
It came about 25 minutes into the press conference. Jeff Mason, Reuters’ White House correspondent, asked:
Kayleigh, in a previous life, before you were press secretary, you worked for the campaign. And you made a comment, I believe on Fox, in which you said President Trump will not allow the coronavirus to come to this country. Given what has happened since then, obviously, would you like to take that back?
Of course not. Would you like to take the media’s entire record back, McEnany replied:
Does Vox want to take back that they proclaim that the coronavirus would not be a deadly pandemic? Does The Washington Post want to take back that they told Americans to ‘get a grip, the flu is bigger than the coronavirus’? Does The Washington Post, likewise, want to take back that, ‘Our brains are causing us to exaggerate the threat of the coronavirus’? Does The New York Times want to take back that, ‘Fear of the virus may be spreading faster than the virus itself’? Does NPR want to take back that the flu was a much bigger threat than the coronavirus? And finally, once again, The Washington Post. Would they like to take back that the government should not respond aggressively to the virus?
From her perch atop the bully pulpit, McEnany did not wait around for replies. It was a “drop the mic” moment. But the point still stands.
The mainstream media have printed various misinformed or later-to-be-corrected statements about the impact of COVID-19, mainly because they (like most of America) were still learning about the spread of the virus and its potential public health implications.
The president was learning, too, in real time. The difference is that he is blamed by the media for every statement he makes. If it’s true, then it’s insensitive, and if it turns out to be inaccurate, then it was a blatant lie.
At this point, it seems that the mainstream media exists solely to refute and oppose anything the president says.
Of course, President Donald Trump is not perfect. He exaggerates. He makes blanket statements without caveat. And he is known to protect himself to the point of stretching reality.
Those who have come to know him and work with him on a daily basis understand his foibles. But they also understand that the president is merely human.
He breathes the same air and eats the same food we all do. He has hopes and dreams for his own life and for America that echo our own. Despite his many faults, he was duly elected to lead the country; he has our best interests at heart.
But the media’s raison d’etre exists, not in the truth, but solely in opposition. When the president goes left, whether right or wrong, the media go right. It is as if they have abdicated their roles as fact-finders and investigators and turned into repudiators.
This is laziness at its worst. It lacks credibility and betrays an emotional bias that goes to the heart of truth and falsehood. If the media is so readily able to embrace falsehoods merely to combat the president, are they not just as guilty of the betrayal of truth they accuse the president of committing?
Perhaps the most cynical media iconoclasm centers around the seeming glee some pundits take in the tanking economy. It is almost as if they embrace forced closings and their devastating economic effects as the welcome price of ridding the country of Trump.
Forget about the folks who are suffering. Forget about working mothers with children out of school and nowhere to go. All these pundits have to do is show up at their laptops and type away from the cushy surroundings of their high-end condos. But they aren’t forced to make the hard choices of laying off workers or letting crops rot in the field. For them, reopening the economy is synonymous with losing the political battle.
We all want a free press that is able to question the official line. As a media pundit and commentator, I often question the president’s approach. But it bears asking whether a press is truly “free” when it is bound by its preconceived notions of truth and falsehood.
Perhaps ideological constraints on fairness and objectivity devalue their roles as the investigators and revealers the Founders imagined when they enshrined the First Amendment.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-05-27--Twitter Official Overseeing Misinformation Efforts Is Anti-Trump Partisan Who Donated to Planned Par

Twitter Official Overseeing Misinformation Efforts Is Anti-Trump Partisan Who Donated to Planned Parenthood

The Twitter official overseeing the tech company ’ s efforts to combat misinformation is a left-wing partisan who in the past has derided President Donald Trump as a “ wretched orange man ” and said he donated to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
Yoel Roth , Twitter ’ s head of site security , is the man in charge of the platform ’ s fight against election-related misinformation .
Some of Roth ’ s past political comments from 2016 and 2017 began making the rounds in conservative circles Tuesday after Twitter fact-checked a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would result in widespread fraud .
Roth announced in September 2016 that he was donating $ 100 to Clinton ’ s campaign , writing : “ We can ’ t f— around anymore.
” In another post-election tweet , Roth sneered at so-called flyover states , writing : “ I ’ m just saying , we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.
” The day after the 2016 election , he tweeted a receipt showing what he said was the beginning of monthly donations to three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legal , and the Southern Poverty Law Center .
In one January 2017 tweet , Roth derided Trump ’ s voter base as a “ lunatic base of online trolls.
” He ’ s previously likened White House employees , including White House counselor Kellyanne Conway , to Nazis .
Roth worked at Twitter during the time he made all of the above statements , according to his LinkedIn page .
After Twitter fact-checked his tweet on Tuesday , Trump accused the social media company of “ interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Mail-In Ballots , which will lead to massive corruption and fraud , is incorrect , based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post , ” the president tweeted .
“ Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH , and I , as President , will not allow it to happen !
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] @

The Twitter official overseeing the tech company’s efforts to combat misinformation is a left-wing partisan who in the past has derided President Donald Trump as a “wretched orange man” and said he donated to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of site security, is the man in charge of the platform’s fight against election-related misinformation.
Some of Roth’s past political comments from 2016 and 2017 began making the rounds in conservative circles Tuesday after Twitter fact-checked a Trump tweet predicting that universal mail-in voting would result in widespread fraud.
This person is the “head of site integrity” at Twitter pic.twitter.com/hyZcl5VIe0 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) May 27, 2020
Roth announced in September 2016 that he was donating $100 to Clinton’s campaign, writing: “We can’t f— around anymore.”
In another post-election tweet, Roth sneered at so-called flyover states, writing: “I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.”
Massive anti-Trump protest headed up Valencia St. ? San Francisco. pic.twitter.com/GFYQyrAZZD — Yoel Roth (@yoyoel) January 21, 2017
The day after the 2016 election, he tweeted a receipt showing what he said was the beginning of monthly donations to three left-wing organizations: Planned Parenthood, Lambda Legal, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In one January 2017 tweet, Roth derided Trump’s voter base as a “lunatic base of online trolls.” He’s previously likened White House employees, including White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, to Nazis.
Yes, that person in the pink hat is clearly a bigger threat to your brand of feminism than ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. — Yoel Roth (@yoyoel) January 22, 2017
“Today on Meet The Press, we’re speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days…” —What I hear whenever Kellyanne is on a news show — Yoel Roth (@yoyoel) January 22, 2017
Roth worked at Twitter during the time he made all of the above statements, according to his LinkedIn page.
After Twitter fact-checked his tweet on Tuesday, Trump accused the social media company of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election.”
“They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post,” the president tweeted. “Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”
Twitter’s press office didn’t return an email seeking comment.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-05-28--In the History of the US Congress, House Democrats’ New Proxy Voting Is Radical

We have been reminded in this time of pandemic that necessity is the mother of invention .
People have modified many regular activities .
They ’ ve gone to telework and contactless delivery and even virtual church services .
And now the House of Representatives has adopted a resolution that , for the first time , no longer would require members to show up to vote .
That resolution is being challenged in a court case filed on behalf of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , 20 other Republican House members , and four of their constituents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the House or Senate floor .
Committees even hold field hearings around the country , and members spend time in their states or districts .
But since the House and Senate were established in 1789 , their members have shown up to take official votes .
No crisis ever has changed that commitment .
Not when the Capitol was burned to the ground during the War of 1812 , not the Civil War , not the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 , or even the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
Nonetheless , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adopt House Resolution 965 , which authorizes the speaker to designate a period during which one member may cast a vote for , and even “ record the presence of , ” up to 10 other members .
This attempts to change both of the fundamental features of how any legislative body operates .
A majority of members must be present to transact business , and a majority of those present are required to take action .
The Congressional Research Service has declared this principle applies to Congress .
In one report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires that a quorum , or a simple majority of the Members , is to be present on the floor when the House of Representatives transacts business.
” And in another publication , it declared that the “ text of the Constitution clearly envisions the House and Senate meeting and voting in person.
” This is Legislative Procedure 101 , and it should have been enough to prevent something this radical .
But there ’ s more .
A report by the House Rules Committee Democratic staff , dated March 23 , conceded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest rule changes in the last century ” and would “ raise serious security , logistical , and constitutional challenges.
” This “ novel method of voting ” has “ no parliamentary history or basis.
” It would require “ major changes to foundational House rules ” and “ almost certainly cause unintended consequences.
” The report concluded : “ While arguments can be made in favor of its constitutionality , to avoid a court challenge , it is inadvisable to use unprecedented parliamentary procedures on critical legislation.
” The report even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to the pandemic .
It said the best option was to proceed under “ existing House rules and current practice , ” which explicitly prohibit proxy voting .
But those concerns and alternatives from its own staff fell on the deaf ears of the House majority leadership .
Hours after adopting this resolution , they used those “ unprecedented parliamentary procedures ” to pass the HEROES Act , a $ 3 trillion monstrosity that is a far-left shopping list masquerading as a coronavirus relief bill .
The court challenge that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 26 outlines the many provisions of the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly require that members be present for the House to do business .
Using unambiguous words like ‘ meeting , ’ ‘ assemble , ’ ‘ attendance , ’ ‘ present , ’ ‘ absent , ’ ‘ recess , ’ ‘ sitting , ’ and ‘ seat , ’ the Constitution clearly requires Members of Congress to be actually present in the House or Senate chamber to be counted as part of the quorum necessary for either House to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor .
Other words that appear throughout the Constitution , such as ‘ adjourn ’ ‘ preside , ’ and ‘ quorum , ’ likewise bespeak , especially when viewed in context , the Framers ’ understanding of the House of Representatives and the Senate as deliberative bodies , where the People ’ s representatives would gather together , face to face , to debate and address the issues of the day .
Numerous provisions embody this understanding .
The complaint then delineates the many provisions of the Constitution that require members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business .
The challengers contend that in light of these provisions , “ there can be no serious dispute that the Constitution does require Members of Congress—Senators and Representatives—to assemble in person if they are to be counted as present toward the Quorum Requirement contained in Article I , Section 5 or if they are to cast a vote from the floor of either House.
” The primary response will be that the Constitution gives the House and Senate authority to “ determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
” That is true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Supreme Court unanimously held in United States v. Ballin ( 1892 ) , neither the House nor Senate may “ by its rules ignore constitutional restraints.
” In this current controversy , this lawsuit seeks to answer whether this exercise of the House ’ s rule-making authority is constitutional .
Until this issue is resolved , the validity of any laws passed using this new rule will be subject to doubt .
Some might point to the practice of proxy voting in legislative committees , but that practice does not support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Judiciary Committee , for example , members must be physically present to establish a quorum and , although proxy votes are recorded for the committee record , they do not count in the tally when the committee reports bills or nominations to the full Senate .
This new House rule creates the strange situation of establishing a quorum by counting members as present who are , in fact , absent .
It allows the House to do business with as few as 20 members present , with each controlling the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attempt something so radical is the fear of failure under the traditional legislative practice that the Constitution requires and Congress has always followed .

We have been reminded in this time of pandemic that necessity is the mother of invention.
People have modified many regular activities. They’ve gone to telework and contactless delivery and even virtual church services. And now the House of Representatives has adopted a resolution that, for the first time, no longer would require members to show up to vote.
That resolution is being challenged in a court case filed on behalf of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., 20 other Republican House members, and four of their constituents.
Much of Congress’ work takes place off the House or Senate floor. Committees even hold field hearings around the country, and members spend time in their states or districts. But since the House and Senate were established in 1789, their members have shown up to take official votes.
No crisis ever has changed that commitment. Not when the Capitol was burned to the ground during the War of 1812, not the Civil War, not the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, or even the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Nonetheless, on May 15, the House voted 217-189 to adopt House Resolution 965, which authorizes the speaker to designate a period during which one member may cast a vote for, and even “record the presence of,” up to 10 other members.
This attempts to change both of the fundamental features of how any legislative body operates. A majority of members must be present to transact business, and a majority of those present are required to take action.
The Congressional Research Service has declared this principle applies to Congress. In one report, it stated that “the Constitution requires that a quorum, or a simple majority of the Members, is to be present on the floor when the House of Representatives transacts business.”
And in another publication, it declared that the “text of the Constitution clearly envisions the House and Senate meeting and voting in person.”
This is Legislative Procedure 101, and it should have been enough to prevent something this radical.
But there’s more. A report by the House Rules Committee Democratic staff, dated March 23, conceded that this would be “one of the biggest rule changes in the last century” and would “raise serious security, logistical, and constitutional challenges.”
This “novel method of voting” has “no parliamentary history or basis.” It would require “major changes to foundational House rules” and “almost certainly cause unintended consequences.”
The report concluded: “While arguments can be made in favor of its constitutionality, to avoid a court challenge, it is inadvisable to use unprecedented parliamentary procedures on critical legislation.”
The report even outlined other ways to conduct House business in response to the pandemic. It said the best option was to proceed under “existing House rules and current practice,” which explicitly prohibit proxy voting.
But those concerns and alternatives from its own staff fell on the deaf ears of the House majority leadership.
Hours after adopting this resolution, they used those “unprecedented parliamentary procedures” to pass the HEROES Act, a $3 trillion monstrosity that is a far-left shopping list masquerading as a coronavirus relief bill.
The court challenge that this report warned of and that was filed May 26 outlines the many provisions of the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly require that members be present for the House to do business.
The complaint states:
Using unambiguous words like ‘meeting,’ ‘assemble,’ ‘attendance,’ ‘present,’ ‘absent,’ ‘recess,’ ‘sitting,’ and ‘seat,’ the Constitution clearly requires Members of Congress to be actually present in the House or Senate chamber to be counted as part of the quorum necessary for either House to do business and to cast their votes from the floor. Other words that appear throughout the Constitution, such as ‘adjourn’ ‘preside,’ and ‘quorum,’ likewise bespeak, especially when viewed in context, the Framers’ understanding of the House of Representatives and the Senate as deliberative bodies, where the People’s representatives would gather together, face to face, to debate and address the issues of the day. Numerous provisions embody this understanding.
The complaint then delineates the many provisions of the Constitution that require members be present for the House to do business.
The challengers contend that in light of these provisions, “there can be no serious dispute that the Constitution does require Members of Congress—Senators and Representatives—to assemble in person if they are to be counted as present toward the Quorum Requirement contained in Article I, Section 5 or if they are to cast a vote from the floor of either House.”
The primary response will be that the Constitution gives the House and Senate authority to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
That is true, as far as it goes. But as the Supreme Court unanimously held in United States v. Ballin (1892), neither the House nor Senate may “by its rules ignore constitutional restraints.”
In this current controversy, this lawsuit seeks to answer whether this exercise of the House’s rule-making authority is constitutional. Until this issue is resolved, the validity of any laws passed using this new rule will be subject to doubt.
Some might point to the practice of proxy voting in legislative committees, but that practice does not support what House Democrats have done.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, members must be physically present to establish a quorum and, although proxy votes are recorded for the committee record, they do not count in the tally when the committee reports bills or nominations to the full Senate.
This new House rule creates the strange situation of establishing a quorum by counting members as present who are, in fact, absent. It allows the House to do business with as few as 20 members present, with each controlling the votes of 10 others.
The only reason to attempt something so radical is the fear of failure under the traditional legislative practice that the Constitution requires and Congress has always followed.


dailysignal--2020-05-28--There’s Plenty of Blame to Go Around for COVID-19 Pandemic

The big coronavirus debate is between blaming President Donald Trump and blaming China for the pandemic .
The usual suspects are lined up on each side .
To anybody who pauses to think for a second , it ’ s clear the two options are not mutually exclusive .
But that ’ s still how the debate is playing out in the press .
The list of China ’ s misdeeds when it comes to this pandemic is long .
The rates of infection would be quite different if China had acted responsibly at the outset .
That doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both federal and state levels—has been perfect either .
There ’ s plenty of blame to go around ( and some credit , too ) .
First , it ’ s clear our country should have been better prepared for a pandemic .
It ’ s unfair to blame Trump exclusively on this matter , since our current state of preparedness is defined by policy choices made by many successive presidential administrations .
To take just one example , our national strategic stockpile was established in 1999 .
It holds masks , medicines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situations .
The government is supposed to have supply plans to supplement these stocks when needed .
However , at the onset of the pandemic , the combination of low stocks , extremely limited domestic production capabilities , and foreign restrictions on exports of these goods left us in a bind .
We should have had more equipment stockpiled , but more importantly , we should have foreseen the vulnerability we have created by offshoring the production of these emergency supplies .
We had so few masks at the outset that—in an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other emergency personnel who needed them most—our government chose to lie to us by bizarrely claiming masks are not helpful unless you are a first responder or already sick .
Though this claim was driven by a noble purpose , its falsity was laid bare by countries around the world that mandated mask use in public and saw great success .
The government has now tacitly admitted its early mask advice was never true .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends we wear masks in public places to slow transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice we get from our experts is important .
Breaking that trust was not a great first step .
Another huge U.S. policy mistake—this one mostly at the state level—has to do with nursing homes , which have become ground zero for disease transmission .
Social distancing is difficult in an institutional nursing home environment filled with our highest-risk citizens .
Our greatest national mistake has been failing to protect these older Americans .
In the worst case , New York state actually mandated that nursing homes accept every coronavirus-positive patient .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a single facility in New York City .
The state has now reversed this mandate and passed a new regulation that patients must test negative before regular hospitals can return them to nursing homes .
These are just a few examples of policy mistakes made in the U.S .
There are other policies we can second-guess as well , but none takes away from the case against China .
Reports indicate that the first case of COVID-19 may have been discovered in China as early as November 2019 .
China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by secrecy and misinformation .
Chinese doctors who tried to speak out and tell the truth were discredited or even “ disappeared.
” China didn ’ t even acknowledge human-to-human transmission of the virus until late January .
During this period , China pressured the World Health Organization against declaring the virus a global health emergency .
An intelligence report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security found that “ the Chinese government intentionally concealed the severity of COVID-19 from the International community in early January while it stockpiled medical supplies by both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also isolated Wuhan , the virus hub , from the rest of China while continuing to allow international travel .
When Trump limited travel to the U.S. from China , the Chinese government denounced the action .
Why would China limit domestic travel to the hot spot but allow international travel to continue ?
The entire timeline of China ’ s actions is hard to misconstrue .
This may be a natural disaster , but it was helped along by a disastrous response by those with the power to help snub it at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed over 325,000 people worldwide , according to official counts .
We will need an official accounting of China ’ s disastrous actions before we can fully understand what happened .
The “ blame China versus blame Trump ” narrative perpetuated by the media is yet another sad politicization of an inherently nonpolitical topic .
Trump is in charge of the federal government .
The federal government , despite any politician ’ s claims to the contrary , is never going to respond perfectly to a situation like this pandemic .
The situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reluctance to admit it , our experts still don ’ t fully understand this disease .
Given this dynamic , despite mistakenly downplaying the disease at its onset , the president and his entire team on balance deserve more praise than they have been given .
But even for those who feel otherwise , no amount of U.S. government culpability can negate the Chinese culpability at the outset of the event .
Or , in other words , it ’ s OK Trump-haters ; you can admit China ’ s role in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To do otherwise is to deny reality .

The big coronavirus debate is between blaming President Donald Trump and blaming China for the pandemic. The usual suspects are lined up on each side. To anybody who pauses to think for a second, it’s clear the two options are not mutually exclusive. But that’s still how the debate is playing out in the press.
The list of China’s misdeeds when it comes to this pandemic is long. The rates of infection would be quite different if China had acted responsibly at the outset. That doesn’t mean that the U.S. government response—at both federal and state levels—has been perfect either. There’s plenty of blame to go around (and some credit, too).
First, it’s clear our country should have been better prepared for a pandemic. It’s unfair to blame Trump exclusively on this matter, since our current state of preparedness is defined by policy choices made by many successive presidential administrations.
To take just one example, our national strategic stockpile was established in 1999. It holds masks, medicines, and other protective equipment for emergency situations. The government is supposed to have supply plans to supplement these stocks when needed.
However, at the onset of the pandemic, the combination of low stocks, extremely limited domestic production capabilities, and foreign restrictions on exports of these goods left us in a bind.
We should have had more equipment stockpiled, but more importantly, we should have foreseen the vulnerability we have created by offshoring the production of these emergency supplies.
We had so few masks at the outset that—in an effort to save them for the medical and other emergency personnel who needed them most—our government chose to lie to us by bizarrely claiming masks are not helpful unless you are a first responder or already sick.
Though this claim was driven by a noble purpose, its falsity was laid bare by countries around the world that mandated mask use in public and saw great success.
The government has now tacitly admitted its early mask advice was never true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends we wear masks in public places to slow transmission of the disease.
Trust in the advice we get from our experts is important. Breaking that trust was not a great first step.
Another huge U.S. policy mistake—this one mostly at the state level—has to do with nursing homes, which have become ground zero for disease transmission.
Social distancing is difficult in an institutional nursing home environment filled with our highest-risk citizens. Our greatest national mistake has been failing to protect these older Americans.
In the worst case, New York state actually mandated that nursing homes accept every coronavirus-positive patient. The results were deadly. Ninety-eight people died in a single facility in New York City.
The state has now reversed this mandate and passed a new regulation that patients must test negative before regular hospitals can return them to nursing homes.
These are just a few examples of policy mistakes made in the U.S. There are other policies we can second-guess as well, but none takes away from the case against China.
Reports indicate that the first case of COVID-19 may have been discovered in China as early as November 2019.
China’s initial response to the virus was defined by secrecy and misinformation. Chinese doctors who tried to speak out and tell the truth were discredited or even “disappeared.”
China didn’t even acknowledge human-to-human transmission of the virus until late January. During this period, China pressured the World Health Organization against declaring the virus a global health emergency.
An intelligence report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security found that “the Chinese government intentionally concealed the severity of COVID-19 from the International community in early January while it stockpiled medical supplies by both increasing imports and decreasing exports.”
China also isolated Wuhan, the virus hub, from the rest of China while continuing to allow international travel. When Trump limited travel to the U.S. from China, the Chinese government denounced the action.
Why would China limit domestic travel to the hot spot but allow international travel to continue? The entire timeline of China’s actions is hard to misconstrue.
This may be a natural disaster, but it was helped along by a disastrous response by those with the power to help snub it at the outset.
The virus has now killed over 325,000 people worldwide, according to official counts. We will need an official accounting of China’s disastrous actions before we can fully understand what happened.
The “blame China versus blame Trump” narrative perpetuated by the media is yet another sad politicization of an inherently nonpolitical topic.
Trump is in charge of the federal government. The federal government, despite any politician’s claims to the contrary, is never going to respond perfectly to a situation like this pandemic. The situation is too fluid, and despite their reluctance to admit it, our experts still don’t fully understand this disease.
Given this dynamic, despite mistakenly downplaying the disease at its onset, the president and his entire team on balance deserve more praise than they have been given.
But even for those who feel otherwise, no amount of U.S. government culpability can negate the Chinese culpability at the outset of the event.
Or, in other words, it’s OK Trump-haters; you can admit China’s role in this pandemic without losing your never-Trump street cred. To do otherwise is to deny reality.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-05-28--In History of Congress, House Democrats’ New Proxy Voting Is Radical


dailysignal--2020-05-29--The Folly of Twitter’s Fact Check

The Folly of Twitter’s Fact Check

No American , not even the president , has an inherent right to a social media account .
Tech companies are free to ban any user they see fit .
They ’ re free to fact-check anyone they want , to create a framework of acceptable speech , and to enforce their policies either consistently or capriciously .
They ’ re free to accuse Donald Trump—and only Trump , if they see fit—of being a liar .
They ’ re free to do all of these things .
Even if they shouldn ’ t .
Yesterday , after years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labeled two of Trump ’ s tweets—in which he had claimed that the use of mail-in ballots for large numbers of people would be “ substantially fraudulent ” and result in a “ rigged election ” —as “ potentially misleading.
” It ’ s a mistake for any platform to drop its neutral stance and take on fact-checking duties , a task that ’ s going to be impossible to accomplish either objectively or effectively .
It ’ s going to corrode trust in the brand , but it won ’ t change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tagging some tweets and not others with “ what you need to know , ” it will be staking out partisan positions .
The Trump tweets that precipitated its first fact check are a good example of this .
It would have been far more reasonable for the social media giant to label Trump ’ s ugly and slanderous tweets about Joe Scarborough as misleading .
Instead , Twitter decided to inaugurate its policy by alleging that Trump had dishonestly claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “ a Rigged Election.
” Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be as untrue as saying Russia rigged the election—a claim that politicians such as Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi , along with most major media outlets , have been making for years .
But while the president ’ s rhetoric about voting is debatable , it is also well within the normal parameters of contemporary political discourse .
It ’ s not exactly “ unsubstantiated ” to assert that more mail-in ballots “ would lead to voter fraud , ” as Twitter holds .
There are dozens of instances of potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heritage Foundation has cataloged 1,285 prosecuted cases .
Which is to say that contending that “ voter fraud ” is a problem is no more misleading than contending tax cuts will hurt the poor or that repealing net neutrality rules will destroy the internet .
In practice , “ voter fraud ” is no more a conspiracy theory than is “ voter suppression.
” Both happen on occasion , yet there is no evidence that either has toppled the outcome of any modern election .
The problem is that only one of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information ” tag from Twitter , because only one of these two issues offends the sensibilities of the liberals whose concerns Twitter ultimately cares about .
In another tweet , Trump claimed that everyone in California will be mailed a ballot .
This is factually untrue .
But so is the pinned tweet of former Vice President Joe Biden : “ I can ’ t believe I have to say this , but please don ’ t drink bleach.
” The president never instructed anyone to drink bleach , yet Biden repeats this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements about his record and GOP policies .
Which brings us to the problem : Who will Twitter designate as its judge ?
Its fact-checking page redirects users to debunkings by CNN , The Washington Post , Vox , HuffPost , and other outlets that often deceive their audiences with far more sophistication than the president .
These outlets like to appeal to the authority of experts , but not experts whose conclusions contradict their own .
There is a reason we debate issues rather than appoint “ truth magistrates ” to hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , politics is a dispute not over facts but values .
As is often the case , Trump immediately ceded the high ground by threatening to “ strongly regulate ” or shut down social media platforms .
Such threats are nothing new for this president , who has often menaced media with regulations and legal action , although one can not help but notice a paradox .
Trump never follows through on his destructive threats to inhibit speech but does follow through on his promise to cram the courts full of judges who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while those who talk in the loftiest terms about the press tend to pressure tech companies to constrain interactions , to ban accounts , and to “ fact check ” their partisan foes .
The distress over social media is predicated on the idea that average Americans are too dim to grapple with the messiness of unfettered speech .
Many leftists—those who wanted to institute Fairness Doctrines or overturn Citizens United—admit this openly when they suggest that unregulated speech is corroding “ democracy.
” Trump is the first president to take advantage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
Whether this is helpful to his cause is debatable .
Certainly , we are blessed that the president ’ s policies and rhetoric are often disconnected .
Whatever the case , though , we have an entire industry that stands ready to challenge the veracity of his statements .
We don ’ t need Twitter to join in the fact-checking game .
Silicon Valley doesn ’ t have the resources , knowledge , or people to do it correctly .

No American, not even the president, has an inherent right to a social media account. Tech companies are free to ban any user they see fit.
They’re free to fact-check anyone they want, to create a framework of acceptable speech, and to enforce their policies either consistently or capriciously. They’re free to accuse Donald Trump—and only Trump, if they see fit—of being a liar. They’re free to do all of these things.
Even if they shouldn’t.
Yesterday, after years of pressure from media and Democrats, Twitter labeled two of Trump’s tweets—in which he had claimed that the use of mail-in ballots for large numbers of people would be “substantially fraudulent” and result in a “rigged election”—as “potentially misleading.”
It’s a mistake for any platform to drop its neutral stance and take on fact-checking duties, a task that’s going to be impossible to accomplish either objectively or effectively. It’s going to corrode trust in the brand, but it won’t change a single mind.
Once Twitter begins tagging some tweets and not others with “what you need to know,” it will be staking out partisan positions. The Trump tweets that precipitated its first fact check are a good example of this.
It would have been far more reasonable for the social media giant to label Trump’s ugly and slanderous tweets about Joe Scarborough as misleading. Instead, Twitter decided to inaugurate its policy by alleging that Trump had dishonestly claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “a Rigged Election.”
Even if this contention were entirely baseless, it would be as untrue as saying Russia rigged the election—a claim that politicians such as Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, along with most major media outlets, have been making for years.
But while the president’s rhetoric about voting is debatable, it is also well within the normal parameters of contemporary political discourse.
It’s not exactly “unsubstantiated” to assert that more mail-in ballots “would lead to voter fraud,” as Twitter holds. There are dozens of instances of potential voter fraud investigated every year. The Heritage Foundation has cataloged 1,285 prosecuted cases.
Which is to say that contending that “voter fraud” is a problem is no more misleading than contending tax cuts will hurt the poor or that repealing net neutrality rules will destroy the internet.
In practice, “voter fraud” is no more a conspiracy theory than is “voter suppression.” Both happen on occasion, yet there is no evidence that either has toppled the outcome of any modern election.
The problem is that only one of these two issues will earn a “more information” tag from Twitter, because only one of these two issues offends the sensibilities of the liberals whose concerns Twitter ultimately cares about.
In another tweet, Trump claimed that everyone in California will be mailed a ballot. This is factually untrue. But so is the pinned tweet of former Vice President Joe Biden: “I can’t believe I have to say this, but please don’t drink bleach.”
The president never instructed anyone to drink bleach, yet Biden repeats this incessantly, along with numerous other misleading statements about his record and GOP policies.
Which brings us to the problem: Who will Twitter designate as its judge? Its fact-checking page redirects users to debunkings by CNN, The Washington Post, Vox, HuffPost, and other outlets that often deceive their audiences with far more sophistication than the president. These outlets like to appeal to the authority of experts, but not experts whose conclusions contradict their own.
There is a reason we debate issues rather than appoint “truth magistrates” to hand down verdicts: For the most part, politics is a dispute not over facts but values.
As is often the case, Trump immediately ceded the high ground by threatening to “strongly regulate” or shut down social media platforms. Such threats are nothing new for this president, who has often menaced media with regulations and legal action, although one cannot help but notice a paradox.
Trump never follows through on his destructive threats to inhibit speech but does follow through on his promise to cram the courts full of judges who have deference for the First Amendment, while those who talk in the loftiest terms about the press tend to pressure tech companies to constrain interactions, to ban accounts, and to “fact check” their partisan foes.
The distress over social media is predicated on the idea that average Americans are too dim to grapple with the messiness of unfettered speech. Many leftists—those who wanted to institute Fairness Doctrines or overturn Citizens United—admit this openly when they suggest that unregulated speech is corroding “democracy.”
Trump is the first president to take advantage of direct, instantaneous access to millions of Americans. Whether this is helpful to his cause is debatable. Certainly, we are blessed that the president’s policies and rhetoric are often disconnected. Whatever the case, though, we have an entire industry that stands ready to challenge the veracity of his statements.
We don’t need Twitter to join in the fact-checking game. Silicon Valley doesn’t have the resources, knowledge, or people to do it correctly.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM