As the fake news media continues to call President Donald Trump racist for shining a light on the horrifying situation on the ground in Baltimore, Maryland, a shocking new story of a 24-year-old murdered in the city in broad daylight has emerged through local media.
Police are currently investigating a shooting in West Baltimore that left a 24-year-old murdered in broad daylight earlier today, showing the decline of the once prosperous city.
Officers canvassed the area for potential suspects and victims. The officers discovered evidence of a shooting and received information that a possible victim left the area just before they arrived.
Shortly after, they were dispatched to an area hospital to investigate a walk-in shooting victim who was looking for treatment.
The 24-year-old was identified as the victim from Edmondson Avenue.
President Trump derided Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) for bashing President Trump’s border wall, noting that he has been a “brutal bully” over the wall “when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous.”
The president added that his “District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess”, and encouraged Cummings to spend more time in Baltimore to “clean up this very dangerous & filthy place.”
….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2019
The mainstream media and Democrats quickly used these tweets to call President Trump racist, when even local media agreed with the president when he was running for office in 2016.
Before the hyper-partisanship set in completely with the fake news media, the Baltimore Sun published an article declaring that Trump is correct about his assertion that Baltimore and other large Democrat-run cities are disaster zones.
The op/ed was written by Sean Kennedy at the Maryland Public Policy Institute in Nov. 2016, shortly after Trump was elected to the White House, admitting the problems with Baltimore that Trump brought up were in fact legitimate.
“Donald J. Trump is known for his hyperbole, but not all of his ideas are a stretch. Our inner cities are a “disaster,” as he said in the final presidential debate — and they should be officially declared so,” Kennedy wrote.
Americans are also being reminded that only three months ago, the former Mayor of Baltimore fled the state amid federal raids over corruption charges. She later resigned from her office in disgrace.
Big League Politics will continue to provide coverage as more horrifying and unsettling stories come out of Baltimore.
What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?
Trying to make sense of a messy situation.
Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.
A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”
As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.
This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.
Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”
In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.
Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.
“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”
If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.
Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.
So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.
Tech3 days ago
MeWe Goes Big Tech Authoritarian, Opts for Political Censorship
White House2 days ago
Biden’s White House Considering Banning Conservative Media from Press Briefings
Deplorables2 days ago
Donald Trump’s Team Officially Disavows the ‘Patriot Party’, Affirms the GOP Belongs to Trump
Congress3 days ago
SURRENDER CAUCUS: 17 House RINO Freshmen Pledge Loyalty to President-Imposed Joe Biden
Free Speech4 days ago
British Police Officer CRIMINALLY CHARGED for Sharing George Floyd Meme in WhatsApp Group
Politics3 days ago
FINAL BETRAYAL: Mitt Romney Pushes Unconstitutional Impeachment Trial of Private Citizen Trump
Fake News Media3 days ago
Jim Acosta Calls Conservative Media a “Disinformation-Industrial Complex” and “Potential Existential Threat”
Congress3 days ago
Madison Cawthorn Once Opposed Electoral College Certification…Now He Says Biden’s Victory was Legitimate