Hasil gambar untuk media hukum indonesia

Schiff Impeachment Report Offers Nothing But Predetermined Conclusion

“Funny: The dueling Republican and Democratic reports on the findings of the House Intelligence Committee hearings have one big thing in common: Neither offers hard evidence that President Trump committed a single impeachable offense. Yes, Rep. Adam Schiff, who helmed the hearings, says otherwise. But he’s been seeing ‘more than circumstantial evidence’ against Trump for three years now, since the early days of the ‘collusion’ probe,” the New York Post editorial board writes.

“The GOP report accurately noted that Schiff only created a ‘misleading public narrative’ based on ‘hearsay, presumption and emotion’: Not one witness testified to the clear ‘quid pro quo’ that Democrats advertised would be exposed, nor to the ‘bribery’ they later talked of.”

Yes, Trump wanted President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government to look into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and into Burisma and its hiring of Hunter Biden. He had Rudy Giuliani and US diplomats push hard for such investigations, and raised it directly with Ukraine’s president in the now-famous July 25 call.

The Schiff report insists that chat was timed to bring the pressure campaign to a “crescendo.” In fact, the congratulatory call was prompted by the historic landslide win for Zelensky’s party in parliamentary elections just four days before.

Another telling omission: Democrats note that Trump canceled a trip to Warsaw, where he’d have met Zelensky for the first time, but don’t mention that he sent Vice President Mike Pence instead — because hurricanes were causing havoc on the East Coast. Most important, Zelensky has repeatedly denied that he felt any undue pressure.

Yes, Schiff insists Trump wanted “sham investigations” — that is, ones that would frame Joe Biden, whom the report repeatedly terms Trump’s most “feared” 2020 opponent. Yet not a single witness or other piece of evidence has even hinted that Trump asked for such predetermined, fake results.

Ironically, it’s Schiff’s “investigation” that worked that way.

Impeachment inquiry is an unfair, politically biased ordeal: Judiciary Committee member

Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., serves on the House Judiciary Committee.

“House Democrats do not seem to grasp that they cannot legitimize such an illegitimate process halfway through. This process has been unfair for the president and the Republicans from the start, with Democrats ignoring the historical precedents outlined in the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. When it comes to Trump, Democrats have created a whole new set of rules,For them, the end justifies the means, no matter how devoid of due process and fairness those means are.” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) writes in USA Today.

Should the chairman and the committee change course, perhaps the president will reconsider. But with no clarity, he does not have to bow to Democrats’ arbitrary deadlines and demands. When the rules are properly outlined and due process is ensured, only then should he consider sending his counsel to the Judiciary Committee.

Until then, this hearing should not be presented or perceived as President Trump’s chance to present a defense or prove his innocence. The rules have been rigged against him.

Jerry Nadler’s bag of tricks for next round of impeachment hearings

“‘No one is above the law,’ Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists. Now get ready for the switch: At the hearing, Democrats and their hand-picked legal experts will argue that a president can be impeached even if he hasn’t broken a law. Suddenly, impeachment isn’t about upholding the rule of law. Why the switch? Because Dems don’t have the goods to show Trump has committed a crime, even after three years of the Mueller investigation, followed by Schiff’s televised spectacle.” Betsy McCaughey writes in the New York Post.

Expect more deceptive claims from Nadler, including these:

“The Framers wanted impeachment to apply broadly.” Sorry, but the record is airtight on this one. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the Framers considered grounds for impeachment. On Sept. 8, George Mason suggested that bribery and treason were too narrow, and proposed adding “maladministration.” But James Madison objected, explaining that “so vague a term will be equivalent to” saying the president serves at the pleasure of the Congress.

The Framers didn’t want to duplicate the British system, which made the executive dependent on Parliament. Mason’s idea was dropped, and the Framers instead agreed to the more specific term “high crimes and misdemeanors,” where “high” meant offenses committed while in high office, such as embezzling public funds.

The Framers couldn’t specify federal law violations, because there were no federal laws yet. But today, it’s hard for any citizen to steer clear of the tangled web of federal laws. Still the impeachers can’t find a law Trump’s broken.

“Impeachment is political.” That’s what the Democrats want you to accept, but the Framers envisioned the Senate trial as a legal proceeding, with senators under oath to be impartial.

Even so, Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 65 that impeachment could someday hinge more on “the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of guilt or innocence.” What’s happening now is Hamilton’s worst nightmare.

“Congress has a duty to impeach.” The opposite is true. The Framers gave Congress discretion to do what is best for the nation. Removing corrupt federal judges comes close to an obligation, because otherwise they would serve for life. But voters will have an opportunity to remove Trump in less than a year. Congress has more pressing duties, like passing the US-Mexico-Canada trade treaty, on which 200,000 jobs hinge.

Commentary: You wouldn’t buy a car without knowing the price. So why are health care prices hidden?

How much is this MRI going to cost me?

“Most Americans have no idea what a health care service costs before they get it. If we expect to lower health care costs, that must change.” That’s why in June, President Trump signed an order to eliminate barriers to price and quality transparency to protect American patients, and increase competition, innovation and value in the health care system. The federal agency I lead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is taking swift action to implement it. CMS Administrator Seema Verma writes in the Chicago Tribune.

By January 2021, under the recently finalized hospital price transparency rule, hospitals will be required to post the negotiated rates insurers actually pay for services and the cash price the hospital is willing to accept directly from a patient. To further help consumers, hospitals will be required to share price information on the internet for common shoppable services, including more complex bundled services like joint replacements. All of this information will be posted in a common format that makes it easier for consumers to compare prices across hospitals.

CMS also has proposed new rules that would make prices more transparent for health plan members. These rules would require employer-based and individual market health plans to provide personalized access to pricing and out-of-pocket costs through a standardized web tool. Additionally, health plans would be required to make negotiated prices publicly available to consumers, researchers, employers and developers interested in developing new tools to help consumers.

Those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of preposterously high and unpredictable health care pricing will no longer be able to hide.

These powerful interests will complain that price information remains proprietary to their business. But their claims don’t hold water. This information is already available to patients in their explanation of benefits — but only after they’ve received care. These rules simply require that the same information be shared upfront.

They’ll complain that transparency will take away negotiating power and will increase health care prices. You’ll also hear services, especially emergency services, aren’t shoppable, and that patients don’t use shopping tools when available. Don’t be fooled. These complaints are all about protecting profits.

Main Street counts on trade with Mexico and Canada

“Between impeachment, all the hearings and testimonies which have essentially turned Congress into a TV courtroom, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stall tactics which have prevented Congress from taking up key priorities, partisan politics has once again taken over, and things in Washington are not getting done”—including the important U.S.–Mexico–Canada trade deal to modernize NAFTA, writes Sarah Chamberlain, CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership, in The Washington Times.

One important example of this is the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, also known as USMCA. This Thanksgiving marked the one-year anniversary of the expiration of this agreement, and Congress is losing a critical opportunity to support a staggering 176,000 new domestic jobs and a boost of more than $68 billion to the U.S. economy. That may not mean a lot on K Street, but it means a lot on Main Street.

Under this agreement, exports to Canada and Mexico would increase to $19 billion and $14.2 billion, respectively. It would ensure more cars and parts are made in the U.S., and support our manufacturing sector, representing a boost of over $600 million a year for the industry. And, currently, our farmers must pay an extra fee to Canada in order to sell poultry, dairy and eggs in the Canadian marketplace. This proposal would eliminate that fee.

Now Congress needs to follow suit, push aside partisan politics and get this for Main Street America.

WEST WING MHI Hasil gambar untuk media hukum indonesia

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google

You are commenting using your Google account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )

Connecting to %s