Connect with us

Politics

Should Matthew Whitaker recuse himself from Mueller investigation?

Published

on

No. Not yet.

Matthew Whitaker, the acting Attorney General who took over for Jeff Sessions, is now overseeing Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling. Democrats have referred to his previous statements about the investigation as basis for him to recuse himself.

As long as he doesn’t do anything to hinder the investigation, there’s no reason for him to recuse himself. He won’t be able to subvert the investigation without his actions leaking to the press. He knows it. President Trump knows it.

He will only be acting Attorney General for a maximum of 210 days. He cannot be confirmed to a position that he holds in the interim.

If Democrats were smart, they’d wait for Whitaker to do something detrimental to the investigation before calling for him to recuse himself. But they’re not smart, so making a stink now makes sense to them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Brenda Snipes resigns as Broward County elections supervisor

Published

on

Brenda Snipes resigns as Broward County elections supervisor

The nightmare is over. Brenda Snipes, the Broward County elections supervisor who we believe is either incompetent, corrupt, or both, has submitted her resignation.

I think I have served the purpose that I came here for, which was to provide a credible election product for our voters,” she said in her resignation press conference.

Florida finalized election tallies earlier today after a hand count confirmed the original results. Rick Scott was confirmed as the next Senator, unseating Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL).

It may be a bittersweet end to the 75-year-old’s tenure. She seemed more at ease during the press conference than she has since entering the spotlight once again the day after the midterm elections when Broward County failed to report ongoing results as required by Florida law.

Brenda Snipes submits her resignation as Broward elections supervisor

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-brenda-snipes-resigns-20181118-story.htmlDuring the final days of the recount, Snipes looked exhausted to people who have known her for years. And she foreshadowed an early departure as elections supervisor when she said last week “it is time to move on” but didn’t specify a timetable, saying she wanted to talk to her family.

Snipes was appointed supervisor of elections in 2003 by former Gov. Jeb Bush, after he removed a previous supervisor of elections for incompetence. Bush became one of her critics last week, writing on Twitter it was time for her to go.

Depending on when her official resignation is effective, either Governor Scott or governor-elect Ron DeSantis will appoint her replacement. The position is coming up for election in 2020.

My Take

It’s good that she’s leaving, but at least a part of me was hoping she’d stay and come under the scrutiny of governor-elect Ron DeSantis before the 2020 election. If there was corruption, then it’s important we learn about it sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading

Federalists

What Stacey Abrams gets right about moving forward from the Georgia election

Published

on

What Stacey Abrams gets right about moving forward from the Georgia election

Democrat Stacey Abrams possesses some pretty radical political ideologies. I completely disagree with her far-leftist rhetoric or the agenda she hoped to bring to Georgia as governor. Republican Brian Kemp is the next governor, which even Abrams admits.

But she refuses to concede that she actually lose the election. She’s clear that Kemp is the governor-elect, but she falls just short of saying that his victory is illegitimate.

That’s all political theater. Here’s what she gets right. Georgia and many states need to clean up their election practices. Laws should be passed. Other laws should be removed. Ballot access for American citizens must be protected and the process must be made as easy as possible without jeopardizing accuracy or opening the doors to fraud.

Most importantly, this must be done through a combination of the legal system and the state legislature. At no point should she or anyone else try to turn this into a federal issue.

People on both sides of the political aisle seem to be leaning towards fixing election problems at the national level. This would be a huge mistake. The states must clean their own houses. The residents of the states must be the catalyst. Keep DC out of it.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report