Report: Mitt Romney Has Been Working Behind the Scenes in Anticipation of a Trump Impeachment Trial

The following is an excerpt from Blaze Media’s daily Capitol Hill Brief email newsletter:

According to a new report, Mitt Romney may not be planning on challenging President Donald Trump on the campaign trail, but he’s making moves to undermine him in a likely Senate impeachment trial. Vanity Fair reports that Romney has “firmly decided” against primarying the president, but he has been reaching out to key Republican Senate offices on the subject of impeachment.

“He could have tremendous influence in the impeachment process as the lone voice of conscience in the Republican caucus,” a Romney adviser told the magazine, though the senator’s office didn’t comment on the story. “Romney is the one guy who could bring along Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Ben Sasse. Romney is the pressure point in the impeachment process. That’s why the things he’s saying are freaking Republicans out.”

The longtime, intermittent feud between Romney and Trump has heated up again amid Democrats’ push for impeachment and the foreign controversy behind it. After Romney called Trump’s suggestion that China and the Ukraine look into Joe and Hunter Bidens’ alleged corruption “wrong and appalling,” Trump responded the next day by calling Romney a “pompous ass” who “never knew how to win.” (For more from the author of “Report: Mitt Romney Has Been Working Behind the Scenes in Anticipation of a Trump Impeachment Trial” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Gang Member Released Under First Step Act Wanted for Murder

It’s exactly why proponents of the bipartisan leniency for violent drug traffickers and gang members didn’t want a transparent debate in Congress over the bill. It’s why they stifled all dissent and rammed the biggest change to federal prison sentencing in three decades through the House on a “suspension vote” with no debate or hearings during the last moments in session last year, when all eyes were focused on the pending government shutdown. They didn’t want you to know they’d be releasing people like Joel Francisco of Providence, Rhode Island.

In order to perpetuate the lie that we are somehow unjustly incarcerating too many people for too long and that there is a general over-incarceration problem, particularly in federal prison, phony conservatives joined liberals in selling the First Step Act as nothing more than “prison reform,” never telling the fact that it dramatically cut sentencing for thousands of hardened criminals. They told us it would only affect first time, low-level, non-violent offenders. In reality, federal prosecutors only pursue the worst criminals in a given area, who are often gang leaders fueling widespread violence, and convict them on drug charges. That is why CR is the only legislation scorecard that had the fortitude to score against this travesty of a bill.

In February, when the first wave of prisoners were released, Joel Francisco was among them. Who is Joel Francisco? According to Cmdr. Thomas Verdi, deputy chief of the Providence Police Department, quoted in the Providence Journal, he is a “cold, evil, violent person.”

“Some criminals deserve to spend their lives incarcerated,” Verdi said. “Joel is one.”

Yet like most people in federal prison for drug charges, he was officially “only” convicted as a crack dealer. He was sentenced to life in prison in 2005 because it was his third conviction. That sounds harsh, but he was hit with the maximum sentence because he was a Latin Kings gang leader who was believed to be responsible for a lot of violence in the city. The incarceration of people like him is the single most important factor in driving down the murder rate since the 1990s.

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which raised the quantity of crack cocaine needed to trigger the sentencing guidelines to be more on par with the levels of powder cocaine. Among the many retroactive jailbreak provisions of the First Step Act of 2018 was section 404, which applied the leniencies of the 2010 act to crack dealers already convicted prior to enactment. Francisco was one who was released under the retroactive reduction of sentencing for repeat crack dealers. 2,600 federal inmates are potentially eligible for retroactive reductions under this provision, according to the Marshall Project.

During the debate over the bill, Senator Mike Lee claimed that “nothing” in the bill gives inmates “early release.” Sen. Tom Cotton replied by specifically warning about the crack cocaine provision. As of July, 1,691 inmates were released early just under section 404.

According to the Providence Journal, Francisco was accused of attempting to break into an ex-girlfriend’s home in July, and a knife was found on the scene, but he was not reincarcerated. Now there is an arrest warrant out on him for the stabbing of Troy Pine, 46, who was found dead last Wednesday night in a local bar. Francisco was scheduled to be arraigned for the attempted domestic violence and break-in charges on October 15, but he is now a fugitive.

The sad thing is that none of the foolish pro-criminal politicians in the White House or Congress from either party will be made to answer for Francisco and God knows how many others like him who have been released. As I’ve chronicled almost daily at CR, there is an epidemic of repeat violent offenders going on to commit heinous murders and rapes, yet the media seldom reports how and why they were let out of jail. The same way the “abolish ICE” movement doesn’t want you to know how many heinous crimes are committed by deportable aliens who should have been removed, the “abolish prison” crowd doesn’t want you to know how many murders were committed by repeat drug offenders and other offenders who were released from prison.

If not for the Providence Journal, I would never have known about this case, and undoubtedly, there are countless others who are now back in the criminal underworld, yet their stories will never be told. Sob stories of victims are never told by Kim Kardashian and Ivanka Trump, but only those of cartel traffickers.

During the very short debate over the First Step Act in the Senate, Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and John Kennedy, R-La., proposed a simple amendment that would have required Congress to publish a quarterly report on how many prisoners were released, a history of their rap sheets, and any updates on those who are rearrested for crimes. Real simple, right? After all, if the entire point of the bill, according to “conservative” proponents, was to place convicts in special “anti-recidivism” programs to magically rehabilitate them before being released, don’t they want to see the results and gauge the progress?

In reality, they wanted zero accountability. 17 Republicans and every Democrat joined together to defeat this amendment. The ignorance and groupthink surrounding this cult was so contagious that it passed the Senate 87-12 and the House of Representatives 358-36. Many members I spoke to at the time really thought the bill was about prison reform, aka the quality of the food or the beds in prison, not an early release bill.

But we all knew the truth that, given that the prison population is composed of mainly violent criminals, it was inevitable that a movement dedicated to lowering prison numbers rather than to public safety would lead to the release of people like Francisco. Even as they were promoting the “nonviolent, low-level, first-time offender” lie to the public, a group of phony “conservative” groups sent a letter to senators opposing another amendment from Cotton that would have barred violent offenders from early release. They finally admitted the truth after all these years. They bemoaned the fact that Cotton’s amendment “would make virtually all federal prisoners ineligible for earned time credits, with the exceptions of low-level drug offenders and white-collar criminals.”

It’s nice to know that the president now realizes that he was scammed. Now it’s time for him to demand reforms to the “reforms.” During the campaign against Hillary Clinton in August 2016, Trump warned, “There is no compassion in allowing drug dealers, gang members, and felons to prey on innocent people.” Sadly, even though Hillary wasn’t elected, we got that “compassion” anyway. Now it’s time for an agenda of true compassion rooted in public safety. (For more from the author of “Gang Member Released Under First Step Act Wanted for Murder” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

More Evidence Emerges Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired for Pregnancy

New evidence emerged Monday that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been untruthful in telling voters she was fired from a teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant.” . . .

The Free Beacon’s Collin Anderson reported:

RIVERDALE, N.J.—The Riverdale Board of Education approved a second-year teaching contract for a young Elizabeth Warren, documents show, contradicting the Democratic presidential candidate’s repeated claims that she was asked not to return to teaching after a single year because she was “visibly pregnant.”

Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was “accepted with regret.”

The minutes also confirm a key detail from the 2007 interview: namely, that Warren was hired on an “emergency” basis because she lacked the necessary education qualifications, despite graduating from George Washington University with a degree in speech pathology, and supposedly pursuing a lifelong dream of being a public school teacher. (Read more from “More Evidence Emerges Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired for Pregnancy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Rejects NYC’s Attempt to Get Second Amendment Case Thrown out

New York City’s latest effort not to have to go to court over one of its gun laws failed at the Supreme Court on Monday. Justices told the city’s lawyers to wait until December to try again.

The case in question is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. [NYSRPA] v. City of New York, New York, which asks whether New York City’s laws about transporting a licensed, unloaded, and locked firearm to a residence or shooting range outside the five boroughs is consistent with the Second Amendment.

The city has tried to make the case that, because it eased its transport restrictions, that the case is now moot. The Supreme Court, however, didn’t see it that way Monday when it issued an order denying New York’s “suggestion of mootness” and adding, “The
question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.” Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for early December.

Back in July, the city filed a document making the case for mootness after it put out a new set of regulations that it said “give petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit.”

Lawyers for the petitioners in the case — the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association — responded to that by saying the case should nonetheless go before the court.

New York state law requires licenses for handgun ownership that are issued by local authorities; these are either a “possess on premises” or concealed carry permit. The case began over six years ago in March 2013 and deals with the former. Under New York City’s previous set of regulations, a Federalist Society blog post explains, “a New Yorker whom the City itself has licensed to possess a handgun cannot transport her handgun to a weekend second home (even to exercise the core constitutional purpose of self-defense), to an upstate county to participate in a shooting competition, or even across the bridge to a neighboring city for target practice.” (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Rejects NYC’s Attempt to Get Second Amendment Case Thrown out” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

House Dems Subpoena Pentagon and White House Budget Office

The chairmen of three Democrat-led House committees have sent out a new batch of subpoenas to Trump administration officials as part of the ongoing impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump.

Monday’s subpoenas went out to the Department of Defense’s recently confirmed Secretary Mark Esper as well as White House Office of Management and Budget acting Director Russell Vought and are for documents related to Ukraine military aid. The legal demands were sent by the Democratic chairmen of the House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees — Reps. Adam Schiff, Calif., Elijah Cummings, Md., and Elliot Engel, N.Y., respectively.

“Pursuant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, we are hereby transmitting a subpoena that compels you to produce the documents set forth in the accompanying schedule by October 15, 2019,” the chairmen wrote in letters to Esper and Vought.

The news release from the three top Democrats explains that the documents are necessary to evaluate “the extent to which President Trump jeopardized national security” by withholding foreign aid and asking Ukrainian officials to look into the matter of a since-scuttled investigation of a company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

The release cites one story from the Washington Post and another from the New York Times that the funds were halted ahead of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

According to the Times story, Trump “personally ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine” ahead of the phone call” and “issued his directive to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, who conveyed it through the budget office to the Pentagon and the State Department, which were told only that the administration was looking at whether the spending was necessary,” according to two administration officials.

“The enclosed subpoena demands documents that are necessary for the Committees to examine this sequence of these events,” the chairmen wrote, “and the reasons behind the White House’s decision to withhold critical military assistance to Ukraine that was appropriated by Congress to counter Russian aggression.”

The subpoena schedule for Vought and Esper includes documents, meetings, and communications going back to Jan. 1, 2019.

In prepared congressional testimony given last week, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker told Hill investigators that he became aware of a hold on financial assistance to the country about a week before the phone call “and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position.”

However, he also testified, “As I was confident the position would not stand, I did not discuss the hold with my Ukrainian counterparts until the matter became public in late August.”

“The issue of a hold placed on security assistance to Ukraine also came up during this same time I was connecting [a Zelensky aide] and [Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy] Giuliani,” the former envoy said elsewhere in the statement. “I did not perceive these issues to be linked in any way.” (For more from the author of “House Dems Subpoena Pentagon and White House Budget Office” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump Is Going to Pull U.S. Troops out of Syria – Here’s What Republicans Are Saying

President Trump weighed in on his administration’s decision to begin pulling U.S. troops out of northern Syria ahead of a Turkish military operation in the region, saying it was time for Americans to “get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars.”

(Read more from “President Trump Is Going to Pull U.S. Troops out of Syria” HERE)

_______________________________________________

White House Clarifies: Donald Trump Moving 50 Troops Within Syria, Not out of the Country

By Breitbart. A Senior White House official clarified Monday that President Donald Trump was not immediately withdrawing troops from Syria, after Trump’s phone call with the Turkish president.

“This does not constitute a withdrawal from Syria. We’re talking about a small number of troops that will move to other bases within Syria,” the official noted, citing 50-100 troops in the region.

The White House arranged for an official to brief reporters in a call after Republicans in the foreign policy establishment universally condemned Trump’s decision, announced on Sunday night and promoted on Twitter on Monday morning. (Read more from “White House Clarifies: Donald Trump Moving 50 Troops Within Syria, Not out of the Country” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Here’s What Republicans Are Saying About Trump’s Decision to Pull Troops from Syria

By The Daily Caller. Republicans took to Twitter on Monday in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to pull U.S. troops from northern Syria.

The decision will allow Turkey to invade the country and potentially attack Kurdish fighters, who allied with the U.S. to defeat ISIS, according to a New York Times report.

Some Republicans who often side with Trump opposed the decision. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — who has been a staunch supporter of the president in recent years — for example, went on a Twitter rampage Monday expressing his disapproval of the move, which he called “sad” and “dangerous.”

“I don’t believe it is a good idea to outsource the fight against ISIS to Russia, Iran, and Turkey. They don’t have America’s best interests at heart. The most probable outcome of this impulsive decision is to ensure Iran’s domination of Syria. The U.S. now has no leverage and Syria will eventually become a nightmare for Israel,” Graham began.

(Read more from “Here’s What Republicans Are Saying About Trump’s Decision to Pull Troops from Syria” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

AOC: Trump’s Attacks on Schiff Are Anti-Semitism

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) probably says and tweets more remarkably ignorant things than anyone in Congress — perhaps more than anyone in the United States. Her latest attack on President Trump regarding his attacks on California Democrat Adam Schiff may be her dumbest hot-take yet.

Yes, the Democrats work from an identity politics-based playbook all of the time, but this is a stretch even when applying their ever-changing rules.

The post she’s tweeting here as a source for her charge is from The Intercept, and was written by Mehdi Hasan, a noted Iran and Ilhan Omar apologist.

Speaking of Omar, the most outrageously laughable aspect of this concern-trolling by AOC is the fact that half of her “Squad” are openly raging anti-Semites. Omar is so awful that she inspired a condemnation resolution by her own party after she had been in office only a month.

This is Barack Obama’s legacy. White males who are Catholic, Protestant, or atheist are the only people subject to public criticism. Democrats hide their lunacy behind identity shields. (Read more from “AOC: Trump’s Attacks on Schiff Are Anti-Semitism” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Report: Biden Advisers Knew His 2018 Ukraine Comments Would Cause Problems

Advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden reportedly said they knew his 2018 comments on Ukraine would be problematic.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate spoke on corruption at a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington, D.C., where he recounted a trip he made to Kyiv, Ukraine, in 2015, BuzzFeed reported.

Biden described telling former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that Ukraine’s prosecutor general must be fired or the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees — a story which three former Biden officials knew would be problematic, they told BuzzFeed on condition of anonymity. . .

One of the former officials added that when Poroshenko fired former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2016, “it had nothing to do with Burisma,” the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat. The former vice president’s son joined the board of Burisma Holdings in 2014.

“I obviously believed that there was nothing improper, but, especially because there is so much scrutiny you never want there to be anything that appears in any way inappropriate,” one former official told BuzzFeed. “At no point did anyone think or believe that Shokin was investigating Burisma, so it wasn’t that. It was more, the appearance of him getting that job not because of his own achievements but because of his connection.” (Read more from “Report: Biden Advisers Knew His 2018 Ukraine Comments Would Cause Problems” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Weekend Bar Shooting Leaves 4 Dead, Several Injured (VIDEO)

A Kansas City bar fight appears to be the reason behind a shooting that killed at least four and wounded five more early Sunday morning.

According to reports from the scene, there was a fight at the bar earlier in the night and at least one person involve in that fight left the bar and returned with a firearm.

At 1:27 a.m. local time, at least one shooter, a Hispanic male, entered the private, members-only Tequila KC bar and started shooting, striking nine people and killing at four Hispanic men. The names of the victims have not yet been released, nor have the names of any potential suspects.

Juan Ramirez of Kansas City, Kan., told reporters that his 29-year-old nephew was among the victims, adding that he left behind a six-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter. “We’re just in shock and disbelief,” he said. “I don’t wish this upon anybody.” . . .

Police spokesman Thomas Tomasic told reporters the handgun shells had been found at the scene, adding, “Detectives are here and are looking at any surveillance. This is definitely one of those that we’re going to do everything very slowly, very methodically and correctly.” (Read more from “Weekend Bar Shooting Leaves 4 Dead, Several Injured (VIDEO)” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Fauxahontas Was Just Caught in Another Lie

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has repeatedly said she was a special needs school teacher but she was fired because she was “visibly pregnant.” It’s become part of her typical stomping speech, a part of her so-called “resume.” . . .

During a 2007 interview with Harvard Law Professor Leo Gottlieb, Warren explained the education she obtained. She graduated from high school at 16 and received a full ride scholarship to George Washington University as long as she took part in their debate team. She obtained a degree in Speech Pathology and Audiology. She taught for a year and started graduate school to obtain her certificate so she could receive a permanent position at the school. She ultimately walked away from teaching and went to law school.

“I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I’d married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ’emergency certificate,’ it was called,” Warren explained.

“I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’ My husband’s view of it was, ‘Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.’ And I was very restless about it.”

“So, I went back home to Oklahoma — by this point we were living in New Jersey because of his job — I went back home to Oklahoma for Christmas and saw a bunch of the boys that I had been in high school debate with and they’d all gone on to law school, and they said, ‘You should go to law school. You’ll love it,'” Warren recounted. “‘I said, ‘You really think so?’ And they said, ‘Of all of us, you should have gone to law school. You’re the one who should’ve gone to law school.’ So, I took the tests, applied to law school, and the day my daughter, who later became my co-author, turned two, I started law school at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey, which at the time had the nickname of being the ‘People’s Electric Law Company,’ a really crazy place. (Read more from “Fauxahontas Was Just Caught in Another Lie” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE