JUST IN: GOP Takes Charge, Democrats Seethe As “Provable Evidence” Sent To DOJ
December 13, 2017
Democrat Representative Elijah Cummings spent 19 years practicing law and demands that the House Oversight Committee, of which he is ranking Democrat chair, is the proper place for hearing claims against the president. Cummings, whose Maryland congressional district is heavily gerrymandered to make him impossible to unseat, seeks to use the committee to make political hay of claims against Trump, rather than allowing an honest investigation into the claims.
As Al Franken’s replacement is being named and John Conyers is vacating his seat, it seems that Democrats are pushing on the idea that Trump should be investigated as well. They have made the demand of Trey Gowdy , a Republican congressman from South Carolina and chairman of the House Oversight Committee, even going so far as to have Democrat congresswoman from Florida Lois Frankel present him with signatures from Democrats demanding an investigation into claims against Trump.
Gowdy’s response was terse and to the point: “This Committee, nor any other Committee of Congress, does not, and cannot, prosecute crimes . This is true for many reasons but especially true in crimes of this serious nature.” Gowdy’s response continued on to point out that “Those alleging sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct deserve to be interviewed by law enforcement professionals, and charging decisions should be made by prosecutors based on the quantum and quality of the admissible and provable evidence.”
Trey Gowdy would be one to know. After all, he spent years of his life working in law, as well as working as a prosecutor. Drawing on that experience, Gowdy sent along the letter to the proper authority, the Department of Justice’s head and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the former Senator from Alabama. He further pointed out that “The victims deserved and received our compassion, patience, and gratitude at both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office while I was there.”
Trey Gowdy, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina, spent 22 years practicing law, most of it as a prosecutor for the government. It is likely that he knows precisely what he is talking about when he recommends the proper venue for hearing claims made against President Donald Trump, whether Elijah Cummings wants to admit that or not.
Democrats , however, thinking they know better than Gowdy, who spent twenty years prosecuting various crimes at levels both state and federal, were infuriated by the decision. Elijah Cummings, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, who spent 19 years in the practice of law, disagrees with Gowdy.
Cummings, who sits in a safely gerrymandered congressional seat, says that claims of sexual harassment are within the bailiwick of the committee, and that they are able to hear such complaints. He has also previously disagreed with Gowdy concerning whether the House Oversight Committee was the proper place to hear matters concerning Michael Flynn, even though there was a criminal investigation led by Robert Mueller at the time.
According to Cummings, “Congress is in the midst of a critical and long-overdue examination of allegations against its own Members—both before and after they were elected to Congress.” Cummings goes on to say that the House Oversight Committee is the perfect place to hear claims against the President of the United States of America, concerning sexual harassment claims.
Trey Gowdy suggested to Elijah Cummings and his Democrat allies that the proper place for the hearing that they demand is in the Department of Justice, not in a political committee in the House or Senate. Jeff Sessions spent much of his life prior to becoming a Senator from Alabama as a prosecutor for the government, and has shown that he is more than capable of hearing complaints against the President of the United States.
Gowdy’s retort to Cummings and Frankel stated that any allegation that falls short of criminal conduct should be reported to the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over “allegations related to fitness for office and non-criminal matters.”
Realistically, it seems like the Democrat party is not truly interested in ‘justice’ of any sort. As any prosecutor could tell you, proving a crime a decade or more after the fact is nigh impossible; in fact, it’s part of the reason why United States law has limits for how long past the commission of a crime criminal charges can be brought against an individual. At a certain point, bringing charges for many crimes becomes pointless.
Further, it seems that they’re simply looking for a chance to posture in a committee while talking about what a terrible man Trump is because his language is coarse. It’s notable that when there were multiple claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and harassment, as well as a concept called ‘command rape’, many Democrats (including Elijah Cummings), felt that the charges did not merit a hearing, let alone debating where the hearing should take place.
Congresswoman Lois Frankel, a Democrat from Florida, collected signatures in an attempt to bully Trey Gowdy into bowing to her whims. Obviously, her attempt resulted in failure, as Gowdy has declined to hear the charges and suggested a more appropriate venue.
The idea of due process also includes a proper process for where evidence or claims should be heard. If the women accusing Trump (the ones who haven’t been debunked) are making the same claims they made during the election season, then Congressman Gowdy is correct, and they should be heard by the Department of Justice.
As Gowdy, a prosecutor with 20 years of experience pointed out, “Those alleging sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct deserve to be interviewed by law enforcement professionals, and charging decisions should be made by prosecutors based on the quantum and quality of the admissible and provable evidence.”
The Democrats are simply looking to make cheap political hay after two of their members were forced to resign to avoid dragging the DNC down with them. The Democrats in the last election cycle had a lot to say about arbitrarily ‘believing women’ without evidence, and they now have cause to regret it, and are looking to find a way to utilize their faux moral standard to damage the Trump presidency.
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
I tell you what I want to know. I want to know where every cent of that $17,000,000 (17 million dollars) went to and each and everyone of the Congressmen or Congresswomen who caused us to have to pay it out because of their actions.
Aren't we getting a little tired of being treated like the children instead of the employer of these people who are suppose to be mature adults, but seem to think they are above the law and above having to answer to us?
Here, Here.
Cummings is just another political hack in line with Maxine Waters (although he doesn't slobber when he talks). It seems he "will do anything" to have the President removed from office.
It doesn't help that Gowdy has put Cummings in his place several times in front of, not only the comittee but congress as a whole.
You got that ass backwards. It was Mr. Cummings who put Gowdy in his place.
Riding high on the unicorn today aren't you?
Trey Gowdy Shuts Up Belligerent Elijah Cummings During Hearing
Trey Gowdy Interupts & Embarrasses Elijah Cummings Hilarious
I'll wait for your proof.
I don't see what you saw there. Not surprised.
Think you need to watch the videos linked Tessy - you're in for a huge surprise.
I'm not surprised either. Elijah Cummings is a blithering political hack.
We'll see whose in for a huge surprise!!!!!
1st, what videos are you talking about? The video Jeremy posted is almost a year old, and has nothing to do with Trump's sexual misconduct. Nor, frankly, does Gowdy "shoot down" Cummings in the clip. They are having a disagreement about the treatment of certain witnesses.
That's what I mean when I said I didn't see what retired in NC saw - in no way did Gowdy put Mr. Cummings in his place.
I was wondering about those videos also. What videos?
I'll wait for your proof that Gowdy put Mr. Cummings in his place.
It's with my comment. All you have to do is click on the links. Need directions?
I've already broken it down as close to Barney level as I could for him. Unfortunately I don't deal in crayon.
Gowdy properly schooled Cummings on the rule of Law.
As Gowdy, a prosecutor with 20 years of experience pointed out, “Those alleging sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct deserve to be interviewed by law enforcement professionals, and charging decisions should be made by prosecutors based on the quantum and quality of the admissible and provable evidence.”
And you know John that this thread has nothing to do with the alleged sexual misconduct of the President also - right??? Right???
Get back on topic - please.
Sometimes your lack of recognition of what is going on is a trip.
This is the first sentence of the seeded article.
Democrat Representative Elijah Cummings spent 19 years practicing law and demands that the House Oversight Committee, of which he is ranking Democrat chair, is the proper place for hearing claims against the president.
The "claims against the president " they are referring to are the claims of the 16 women who allege Trump sexually assaulted them or sexually harassed them.
Not so - the question that led up to that was whether the Committee was the proper format for impeachment hearings against Slick Willie asked by Gowdy - to which Cummings replied that they were for investigating the "claims against the President. They're also investigating him drinking 12 cans of Diet Coke a day, he plays golf better than Obama, his hair hasn't turned grey, they can never predict what he's gonna say/do next, he's busting all the Obama regs, he's actually willing to/is working with Congress on immigration/taxes/health care, and he pays his own salary. There are some though, who want him impeached simply 'cause he's a non-politico who beat the odds and had the EC/people elect him as our present President. Oh, and he hasn't drawn any lines in the sand yet.
Cummings is a Serial Leaker as he continuously releases information from the Committees he has served on before the Committees have actually decided what to do with said information. Do you remember any of the Congressional investigations into Hillary's actions as Secretary of State? Cummings was placed on most of those Committees and in every single case information that should not have been released before a decision by the Committees was released BY HIS OFFICE!
No he didn't.
"Further, it seems that they’re simply looking for a chance to posture in a committee while talking about what a terrible man Trump is because his language is coarse. It’s notable that when there were multiple claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and harassment, as well as a concept called ‘command rape’, many Democrats (including Elijah Cummings), felt that the charges did not merit a hearing, let alone debating where the hearing should take place."
Past non-action will ALWAYS come back to bite you in the ass Mr. Cummings.
Just ask ANY of your fellow members in congress.
"Equal rights, fair play, justice, are all like the air: we all have it, or none of us has it. That is the truth of it."
Maya Angelou
So can everybody just admit that the whole Russia thing is a flop and the Dems just want to redo the 2016 election instead of putting up new ideas or (heaven forbid) working with the GOP?
Hand raised on the yes and agree vote.
This entire money wasting investigation is in need of Viagra to get rid of it's flaccidness.
"working with the GOP?"
That's funny!
I'm sure it is funny since actually getting things done is counter to the lefts agenda of obstruction.
No what's funny is that the gop will not work with anyone and you're saying - if we would only work with the gop.
That's hilarious!
What's funny is the Democrats thinking they are productive at ANYTHING. Well, aside from destruction.
Arent you the guy that went on one of the other seeds claiming to be an "independent"?
All I ever see you doing here is making ridiculous negative comments about democrats and liberals.
I have this habit of calling out stupidity and idiots when I come across them. And in this seeds instance. The idiot is Cummings.
I am an independent. I have this uncanny ability to think for myself. You should try it sometime.
Sounds like you're talking about the repukes.
Removed, Skirting (BT)
Jeremy, I have read a lot of your comments since you joined here. None of them display any "independent" thinking about politics.
And that's you opinion. It doesn't mean your right, just that you have one.
I stated who I was talking about.
Well John, that opinion doesn't hold a lot of water since it is infinitely fair to say that you ARE very liberal all of the time. No exceptions. You wouldn't know independent thinking if it slapped you in the face and called you daddy.
i certainly can. I left the GOP in 1970 because they were too socialist. The only time I've voted for a Republican since then was Reagan in 80 and 84.
I vote 3rd party because most Republicans are still too socialist. The Dems hate them for not being as radical as they are.
Of course I do. Independents criticize both sides. Independents tend to be more centrist, although someone can be independent of party and be ideologically extreme. An extreme libertarian or leftist anarchist would fall in there.
There are a few true independents on NT, but I don't think there are many. Studies have shown that "independents" tend to vote either usually Democratic or usually Republican.
I am more in favor of supporting the two party system than an extreme liberal. And I do disagree with many things the Democrats do. When we were back in the day when everyone in Congress were supposed to vote their conscience on legislation before them, it was more appropriate to choose to be independent. In today's partisan environment, if you criticize your own party over trivial issues you are just giving ammunition to the other side, so I tend to stay away from criticizing Democrats too much.
We need to get back to when legislators voted their conscience and were not ordered to vote a certain way by the congressional leadership of their party.
Ideology is good for the debate process, but when it comes time to make the final law, you have to have compromise, or the legislation will be overturned when the other party gets power again.
The current tax bill will be a good example of that. If the Democrats get power over government in 2020, as there is a good chance they will, they will overturn the tax breaks for the wealthy that the Republicans are now unilaterally proposing.
Maybe John you should have added "like mine do" to your comment. LOL
No duh but again you have it ass backwards.
Now I like that comment. LOL
I don't listen to someone who throws terrorist threats around on Newstalkers. Spare me your gobbeldygook.
Not a surprise. You do understand that voting third party is the same thing as giving half a vote to both the Democrat and the Republican, don't you? Or the same as not voting at all.
Sorry John but your name and "centrist" are most definitely polar opposites from what i've seen of your work here.
I'm sure you think you are centrist but in reality you are about as far away from centrist as one can get.
If i'm lyin, i'm dyin ..... now my BP and bad cholesterol are a little high but i assure you ..... i'm still very much alive.
I made no terrorist threats. Vowing to support the President of the US and our Constitutional Republic against the tyrannical goal of the left to destroy our Republic is part of the oath I took to defend this country against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic
i have followed the sound advice of our founders
John Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
George Washington, FAREWELL ADDRESS | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796
Claiming to be an Independent and then hewing to the far right wing ranting points is a non sequitur.
I didnt say I am a centrist. Maybe Hal is right and you need some reading lessons.
You claim to be an oathkeeper? One of those guys walking around packing all the time - at the grocery store - at the mall? Oathkeeper? ROTFLMAO!
If you vote third party in the current system, you are throwing your vote away.
You alluded to it.
Maybe like Hal you need some help with reading comprehension as well.
OMG Tessy - where on NV did you learn to make such galactic leaps of incomprehension? Please - take them back.
Have you looked up the definition of partisan yet?
No need to.
Have you looked up the definition of "Sanctimonious" yet?
There's only black or white, right or left in JR's world view.
Your lame attacks on me are always comical, that is the best way to describe them.
Actually, everyone that has ever joined the military has sworn those very words. Your thought that they belong to some redneck organization are simply incorrect.
Considering that you told one of the site’s most blatant partisans (besides yourself) to not bother engaging another member because they were partisan, I’d say you need a refresher on both of those words.
Didn't I see you at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff?
That comment is funny. There are only two parties to vote for, so of course they either vote for one or the other. Those two parties make sure that there can never be a third party. They have the system locked up with rules that make it nearly impossible for a true third party to run. So without choice, what are we supposed to do? Not vote?
OK, fair enough.
The point was that many independents are not THAT independent. Someone may vote for the Democrat 80% of the time. But because they vote Republican 1 out of 5 times they say they are independent. Fine.
Frankly, everyone who is not registered with the Board of Elections as a party member is an independent.
Hardly, make a reasoned argument that disproves my current viewpoint and i'll gladly change my stance. The folks that were being referred to are absolutely incapable of that sort of critical thinking. I rarely get a reasonable "non-partisan" argument from the folks in question.
Which leads us back to the reason for my original comment.
Okay, time to tag John now ..... his turn in your tag team event ....
I'm a proud disabled Veteran. The men in my family have served this country in the military going all the way back to Colonial times.
For more than 240 years my family has committed itself to defend this nation from all enemies, whether foreign or domestic.
I'd rather die defending liberty and the Constitution than live in the marxist statist slavery of the left.
Nonsense. Voting for either of the two statist parties is to support enslavement to the State. Samuel Adams is one of my American heroes
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
Samuel Adams The Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
No, I wasn't there. But I did support what they were doing.
That standoff resulted in the Federal Government assassinating an American citizen which I'm sure you loved
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
I have registered as an Independent in NM with the EC Board - but don't get to vote in the primary's 'cause that's just for the big dogs.
I know. It's liberal thinking. I can't bring myself to hit myself in the head with a ball peen hammer or get my head that close to certain body parts to see that POV.
So when the GOP does 1/2 the shit the DNC has, I'll call them on it. I've done it in the past on another site and I'll do it here.
The GOP can't even govern, look at the current Congress and, the Congress over the past almost eight years, nothing has passed in that body and, you still support them.
LIvefreeordie, the fact is they have us by the gonads. No other Party has the voting power to compete with the two main Parties. Voting your conscience is admirable, but all you are doing is sacrificing the vote you would have given to the person from one of the two Parties you would have voted for if you couldn't vote but for one or the other of those two parties. Your candidate is not going to win if he or she isn't from one of the Parties, Democrat or Republican.
The only possible solution for all of this is a Convention of States where term limits are put into place along with other changes, so the overwhelming power of the two parties is taken away, not eliminated, but reduced, giving other parties a chance at possibly winning an election.
There are other things to discuss, but no third party has a chance in hell of winning an election in this country and will not have a chance in hell of winning in the foreseeable future in my opinion.
Agreed.
Says the poster who puts up a meme with Rachel Maddow as a man.
How old are you again? Good grief!
Actually I was quite disappointed that the officers didn't empty every weapon on site into Lavoy's head, then strapped him on to the brushguard of the cop SUV, and driven back to the wildlife refuge with a 60 second ultimatum to the rest of the domestic terrorists on site to surrender or die.
They should pay reasonable wages, but the patriarchs, because no government was preventing them, felt no wages worked out better which is why they decided to just own people instead.
"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
Right, you don't "voluntarily" become a slave, you capture natives yourself with a gun and a rope or buy them from a warlord who did the work for you... If you get caught, apparently God almighty wanted you to be a slave...
"According to Cummings, “Congress is in the midst of a critical and long-overdue examination of allegations against its own Members—both before and after they were elected to Congress.” Cummings goes on to say that the House Oversight Committee is the perfect place to hear claims against the President of the United States of America, concerning sexual harassment claims."
"Trey Gowdy suggested to Elijah Cummings and his Democrat allies that the proper place for the hearing that they demand is in the Department of Justice, not in a political committee in the House or Senate. Jeff Sessions spent much of his life prior to becoming a Senator from Alabama as a prosecutor for the government, and has shown that he is more than capable of hearing complaints against the President of the United States."
Funny how Republicans didn't feel that way when they impeached President Clinton. In fact, the only place where claims of misconduct which may not add up to any actual "crime" may be investigated and discussed IS in congress where the impeachment process has to play out. And even if the charges did amount to a crime it's not entirely clear that the Justice department is the proper place to investigate them when it concerns a sitting President.
" Mr. Kavanaugh, who is now a federal appeals court judge, also concluded that impeachment, not prosecution , was the right way to address a sitting president's crimes."
Clinton was impeached because of evidence proven in a court of law
The impeachment proceedings resumed during the post-election “lame duck” session of the 105th Congress. On Dec. 19, the House impeached Clinton of lying under oath and obstruction charges. Two other counts failed, including one accusing Clinton of abuse of power.
He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and for supposedly obstructing justice since Republicans claimed he told Lewinsky to lie. There was no court of law that tried the President for any crimes prior to the impeachment. There was an independent investigation done by Kenneth Starr, but there was no trial, just evidence presented by the Independent council which had been authorized to investigate the whitewater affair which turned up nothing.
Wrong. The State of Arkansas disbarred Clinton for his perjury as part of a plea deal with the Independent Counsel
It Takes A Plea Agreement
Clinton's `Moment Of Truth' A Meaningful Public Consequence
The breakthrough surely came when someone suggested expanding the negotiation to include the Arkansas disbarment case. Although technically beyond Ray's jurisdiction, the disciplinary proceeding against Clinton was based on the same facts--lying in the Paula Jones case deposition--as the independent counsel's grand jury investigation. Once Clinton's law license was put on the table, a package deal became a real possibility. Clinton would accept a penalty short of criminal conviction, but one which is nonetheless very public and very significant.
The agreement also includes an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing, with Clinton acknowledging that he gave false answers in his Jones deposition. As part of the deal, he was compelled to sign an "Agreed Order of Discipline" which states that he "knowingly" engaged in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." That is the disciplinary equivalent of pleading guilty to obstruction of justice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor).
Snopes is a run by a husband and wife who are operatives of the Democratic party
Let's see where that 17 million dollars went and who we, the taxpayers, bailed out behind out backs and for what reasons.
Of course they are. Reminds me of the Russian collusion, but Cummings wouldn't want to do a heavy duty investigation of the FBI and other intelligence agencies including Hillary Clinton and the DNC about the only collusion we already have proof of collusion with Russian concerning the 2016 elections now, would he? He wouldn't want to have anything to do with that.
The purpose of all this long-overdue examination is as transparent as it can be to quite a few of us. It is solely dedicated to getting Trump impeached and nothing more. The fact is the swamp is swallowing its own every day and it's like a hemorrhage to them and they have to stop it.
Some people say, they don't want people to see how much Trump can do in what took them 40 years to do, but I say they don't want Trump to allow the people to see what they did in the last 40 years or got away with during the last 40 years.
Every true American should be calling for Trump's resignation, for multiple reasons, the worst of which is that he is totally unqualified and unable to perform the duties of president. Having a petty, vindictive child with his hand on the nuclear button should concern the world.
In 3 years, elect someone else if you can.
We survived 8 years of an Anti-American lifelong communist (Comrade Hussein Obama)
I have a question for you Live Free. If everyone in America was as extremist as you are, where do you think our country would be?
living in the dream our founders sought to give us.
A nation formed to keep government out of our lives and businesses. If I'm extremist, then you must think that the founders were all extremists. How long have you hated our country and individual liberty?
My views come from Locke, Burke, Bastiat, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson to name a few.
"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
--John Stuart Mill
Washington and Lee Law Review
Natural Rights And The Founding Fathers-The Virginians
Chester James Antieau
The philosophy of natural rights was championed by such Founding Fathers as Richard Bland, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, George Mason, Robert Carter, Nicholas, Peyton Randolph, George Washington, and George Wythe.
Indeed, it would be amazing if any Revolutionary leader of the Commonwealth could be found who did not subscribe to the doctrines of natural law and right. Moreover, the doctrine was not limited to the select few who directed Virginia's destinies, but was widely held and continually expressed by the popular assemblages throughout the Commonwealth during Revolutionary days.
In their most generalized expressions the Founding Fathers spoke of their natural rights to life and liberty, adding at times, property, and on other occasions, the pursuit of happiness. To some contemporaries the alternative use of property and the pursuit of happiness may seem strange, but to many of the Fathers property meant the right to develop one's properties, that is, his faculties. The particular natural rights on which there was the largest measure of agreement among the Virginians were (i) freedom of conscience, (2) freedom of communication, (3) the right to be free from arbitrary laws, (4) the rights of assembly and petition, (5) the property right, (6) the right of self-government, to which were frequently appended (a) the right of expatriation and (b) a right to change the form of government.
In his Notes on Virginia,
Jefferson wrote: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"18 Speaking there of our natural rights, he concluded: "We are answerable for them to our God."'9 It was in the Summary View in which Jefferson asserted that Parliament had no power to encroach "upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all."
No saying we will survive 4 yrs of Putins lap dog.