WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY AND A HOLLYWOOD ACTOR? APPARENTLY IT’S A BRAIN!
YOUNG CONS Reports: Amal Clooney appeared before the United Nations this week, sounding for all the world like President Donald Trump.
Clooney, a human rights lawyer and the wife of actor George Cloney, was there to talk ISIS and the failure of the U.N. to have effectively dealt with the subject.
Unlike many in Hollywood who seem to think criticizing radical Islamic terrorism is somehow racist, Islamophobic and bad, Amal Clooney pulled no punches when it came to criticizing ISIS.
Amal is a human rights lawyer who is simply doing her job. She is representing victims of ISIS rapes and kidnappings. Not criticizing the U.N. for their indifference to ISIS or their weak efforts on justice would be incredibly lazy and even dishonest on her part.
“I am speaking to you, the Iraqi government, and to you, U.N. member states, when I ask: Why? Why has nothing been done?” she said, dramatically adding, “Don’t let ISIS get away with genocide.”
If U.N. does not crack down on ISIS, “history will judge us, and there will be no excuse for our failure to act,” Amal Clooney warns pic.twitter.com/T3HDDpCOIg
While her husband has criticized Trump, Amal was much more positive toward him.
Amal’s own husband called Trump a ‘xenophobic fascist’ for proposing an extreme vetting immigration process. Amal, on the other hand, expressed subtle optimism regarding Trump’s willingness to fight ISIS. “The president-elect has said that fighting ISIS is actually a priority,” she said. “So it may be that there can be progress, and obviously everyone has to respect the outcome of the democratic process here, and we have to hope for the best.” Her husband, George, told the press he was ‘proud’ of her ‘very important’ work against ISIS.
It would be terrific if she, as a different voice on the subject, is able to reach more people.
But what did some of the media concentrate on about her being at the United Nations?
However, most did seem to recognize the importance of the subject so hopefully that pushes the issue just a bit more.
HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP
“Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance.
Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.”
Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump.
Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon.
“Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.”
Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday.
The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.”
But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?
At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.
“The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:
For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
. Obama’s Iran nuke deal
Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server
Obama IRS targets conservatives
Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters
Obamacare & Obama’s false promises
Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
Benghazi-gate
Operation Fast & Furious
5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl
Extortion 17
‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law
Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
Illegally conducting war against Libya
NSA: Spying on Americans
Muslim Brotherhood ties
Miriam Carey
Birth certificate
Executive orders
Solyndra and the lost $535 million
Egypt
Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’