‘It’s an abuse of power’: GOP seeks recourse for Schiff snooping on Congress and press

Loading

A decision by the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to obtain and publish the call records of the top Republican on the panel has sparked outrage and a demand for answers by GOP leaders, who said they might seek “recourse.”

Republicans want to know why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff obtained and published call records tied to Rep. Devin Nunes, a California colleague and the top Republican on the panel, in the panel’s 300-page impeachment report released earlier this week.



Republicans told the Washington Examiner that Schiff obtained 3,500 pages of phone records, including calls between Nunes and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as well as calls between Nunes and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.

A top Republican aide told the Washington Examiner the GOP is considering “a wide variety of strong responses” to Schiff’s actions.

In an exchange Friday with Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Republican Whip Steve Scalise, of Louisiana, demanded to know what Democrats planned to do with the stack of call records. Scalise said it appeared Schiff was politically targeting Nunes and journalist John Solomon, who wrote about alleged Ukraine collusion with Democrats.

“How many other members of Congress is the chairman spying on?” Scalise said to Hoyer in the House floor exchange. “This is unprecedented. I’ve never seen a chairman of a committee abuse their subpoena power to go after other members of Congress that they have political agreements with or members of the press that they have political disagreements with. That’s over the line. It’s an abuse of power.”

Hoyer said his “knowledge of the matter … is not very deep,” but said Schiff was not spying. “They did receive information as a result of subpoenas and discovery … but I’d have to get a greater knowledge of the information … to give a broader response.”

Republicans have grown increasingly alarmed over the published call data since Schiff released the report on Tuesday.

Schiff included the calls to back up the report’s assertion of “a smear campaign” against then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

Schiff identifies Nunes as one of the “key players” in the “scheme” to smear Yovanovitch and get Trump to remove her.

Schiff cited a Solomon article that reported Yovanovitch played a role in blocking U.S. visas for Ukraine officials who wanted to come to the United States and disclose efforts by Democrats to undermine the 2016 Trump campaign.

“Over the course of the four days following the April 7 article, phone records show contacts between Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Parnas, Representative Devin Nunes, and Mr. Solomon. Specifically, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Parnas were in contact with one another, as well as with Mr. Solomon,” the report states. “Phone records also show contacts on April 10 between Mr. Giuliani and Rep. Nunes, consisting of three short calls in rapid succession, followed by a text message, and ending with a nearly three-minute call. Later that same day, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Solomon had a four-minute, 38-second call.”

The report includes a series of calls from Parnas to Nunes in April, but most are only a few seconds long. Nunes has said he does not recall speaking to Parnas in an eight-minute call and a one-minute call that is also included in the record.

Schiff obtained the records from AT&T using a subpoena, and he did not seek the records of Nunes or Solomon. Instead, data referencing the two men were swept up in subpoenas of the phone records of both Giuliani and Parnas, who was recently indicted for funneling foreign money into U.S. campaigns.

Schiff defended obtaining the Nunes and Solomon data and said it suggested wrongdoing by Nunes, who Democrats have long vilified for his alliance with Trump.

“I find it deeply concerning at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Schiff said Tuesday.

Democrats have discussed taking action against Nunes over the calls, although it is not clear what rule he violated, if any, by talking to either Parnas or Giuliani.

Hoyer, on Tuesday, said, “there are serious questions” about the calls between Nunes and Giuliani and Parnas. He said Democrats “need to look at them and see what action ought to be taken if any.”

Nunes said he was likely discussing the Mueller report during his calls with Giuliani.

“I remember talking to Rudy Giuliani, and we were actually laughing about how Mueller bombed out,” Nunes said on Fox News.

Republicans want to know more.

Rep. Greg Walden, of Oregon, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the telecommunications industry, wants the GOP to take action in response to Schiff’s acquisition and use of the Nunes and Solomon data.

“I’m deeply troubled by it,” Walden said on C-SPAN’s Newsmakers.

“Are you criminally investigating Devin Nunes? Is that what’s going on here?” he said.

Walden said he was surprised AT&T turned over the information, and he wants to know more about the other data Schiff acquired through subpoenas and how he plans to use it.

Walden said he is also concerned about the data obtained from Solomon, who wrote stories about Ukraine’s cooperation with Democrats in 2016.

“Are we going to have committee chairs in Congress snooping around reporter’s emails and phone calls, and who you talk to? And then releasing it? Under what terms and conditions?”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
48 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Apparently, Schiff is aware of the perjury and corruption Yovanovich has been exposed as committing and is taking steps to establish the cover story that everyone is mean and out to get her.

Hoyer, on Tuesday, said, “there are serious questions” about the calls between Nunes and Giuliani and Parnas. He said Democrats “need to look at them and see what action ought to be taken if any.”

Yeah, why would anyone talk to anyone on the phone? Democrats appear to be getting more worried, either about their weak impeachment case, the Horowitz report, the Durham report, or all of the above and are trying to create the requisite distractions.

Schiff showed us what a police state under Democrats would look like; accusations without evidence, prosecution without proof and justice suppressed through prejudiced rules. Then he shows his absolute disregard for the protections the Constitution is supposed to guarantee. This is yet another reason why their absurd demand for 10 years of Trump’s income tax returns simply for a fishing expedition; no one’s rights should be violated, even if Democrats suffer severe butthurt. Democrats are desperately trying to establish the precedent of violating citizens’ rights whenever they have the political need: the police state.

Perfect he has a CIA anaylist WB to assist him in his abuse of power.
He nabs the phone records of the Presidents attorney?
Nunes was swept up like Trumps campaign was swept up.

It looks like nothing will happen to Schitt. Lindsey already appears to be backing away from his tough talk about getting him on the witness stand. The IG report comes out tomorrow and will most likely reveal crimes, spies, spying, and political bias but will conclude that there were no crimes, spies, spying, or political bias. Just like Hillary’s email scandal and all the other IG reports we will find out once again that there are two sets of laws in this country- one for the dems and DS and one for the rest of us.

@another vet: The thing is the IG is just an investigator, no power at all cant question those that have been fired or resigned, what the AG does in response to the report is how we will determine if the swamp will have a few spoonfuls emptied out of it. Durham has the power to go after those that have resigned or have been fired.
Horowitz is expected to try to protect the reputation of the swamp.

@kitt:

Horowitz is expected to try to protect the reputation of the swamp.

Exactly and he needs to be called out and hammered for it if he does it again. Next, it will be up to Barr and Durham to determine whether or not we are a republic or a banana republic. I don’t think Durham made all those trips to Europe and Barr has made the statements he has made recently because they think everything was hunky-dory and they’re the ones with the big picture.

@another vet: I cant see Horowitz coming out and saying the evidence presented to the FISA court was fully checked as we have sworn testimony that it wasn’t. That alone brings up perjury before a FISA judge for everyone that signed off on it.

Nunes’s most recent story is that he got a call from number belonging to Parnas’s wife, which he routinely passed off to some unidentified member of his staff. Possibly calls to and from Guiliani were accidental butt dials. These things happen, you know. Shiff should be prosecuted for suggesting they might mean something. Oh, yeah. And send me money! (Because the socialist left and the Deep State are trying to silence a man who won’t answer any obvious questions.)

@Greg: Schiff’s story was that Trump explicitly told Zelensky he wanted dirt on Biden, asked him 7 times, and withheld military aid. Nadler says the false accusations are “uncontested”. Pelosi said Trump abused power.

All lies. PROVEN lies. But, you approve of Democrat lies, don’t you?

Shiff was parodying Trump’s “perfect” call. He made his point, but parody seems to be lost on many people, as is irony. My theory is that most of them actually get the point, but don’t want to acknowledge that they do.

@Greg: Yet, funny how that “parody” has found its way into the articles of impeachment. No, Greg, Schiff was LYING. His little “parody” is no different from his lies about Trump obstructing “investigations”, asking Russia to hack the DNC or any of the other lies they’ve bandied about. The reason he “parodied” (aka LIED about) the call is because there was NOTHING impeachable in the call.

Impeachment is pretty serious and no place for a “parody”. Schiff and the Democrats have parodied the Constitution and justice. Despicable liars.

@kitt:

I cant see Horowitz coming out and saying the evidence presented to the FISA court was fully checked as we have sworn testimony that it wasn’t.

We’ve already seen him state there was no political bias in a previous report when there were plenty of text messages and tweets showing the exact opposite so I can very easily see him pulling the same crap again using the excuse that they did the best they could and really didn’t intentionally mislead the court. Just like Hillary didn’t intentionally have over 2,200 classified emails on her computer. She just made over 2,200 honest mistakes you see. It could happen to anyone.

@Greg:

He made his point, but parody seems to be lost on many people, as is irony.

We’re a nation of laws and due process, not “parody”.

@another vet: If you will recall, while the summary said there was little or no evidence of political bias, within the actual findings, ample examples of extreme bias and prejudice was shown.

@Deplorable Me: With Trump ignoring their parody impeachment, they can get it through the clown house much faster. No pesky facts and evidence required.
The Senate wont be as tough on the accusers, they can bring in all the mind readers and gabby gossips, but will a supreme court justice allow such things to be presented as evidence for the prosecution?
Its going to be a for real trial, this isnt some dog and pony show for the drooling talking heads on the boob tube. Conspiracy theory and mind reading and perhaps a seance or crystal ball might not fly.

@Nathan Blue: Democrats are a party of parody. Most call it lies, Democrats call it “parody”.

@another vet: #11 Yes we call that the Comey treatment its what his last report was, citing obvious cases of bias he found but not generally finding any.
Mueller did the opposite, he listed thought crimes of obstruction, but no actual obstruction.
A good thing the lottery doesnt work that way, I have dreamed, even bought a no match ticket, do I owe the taxes for 100 million now?

RIP Oscar the Grouch and Big Bird

You really should be working up your spin for the expected release of Inspector General Horowitz’s report on Monday, in case he concluded that there was, in fact, an adequate basis for opening the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia.

Three years of bullshit and conspiracy theory on the right have grown out of the claim that there was no justification.

If there WAS such justification, failure to have initiated the investigation would have been nothing less than dereliction of duty.

@Greg:

Three years of bullshit and conspiracy theory

That’s what the Democrats have provided. That is ALL the Democrats have been doing. And, they have failed.

Where is the EVIDENCE Schiff and the rest of the lying Democrats said they HAD IN THEIR HANDS that PROVED Trump colluded with Russians, your first unfounded accusation that totally collapsed? What happened to it? Apparently it NEVER existed and you’ve all been LYING.

@Greg: The first FISA was on Carter Page who has never met Trump. sure sounds like collusion to me.

Barry Berke of the LawFare Group is now testifying, giving his reasons why Trump should be impeached. Remember, the LawFare Group are as dirty a leftwing group as they come. And here is the super-duper part of this; the American taxpayer are paying for this radical left winger to testify since he is part of Nadler’s committee staff.

In just five minutes, I counted at least five times Jabba the Hutt Nadler violated parliamentarian rule. This isn’t a hearing, this is a lynching.

@retire05: I find it significant that Democrats keep equating investigating corruption with investigating Biden. Don’t they realize that is an admission of what everyone already knows… that Biden extorted Ukraine and was protecting corruption?

@Deplorable Me:

The Dems don’t care. Al Green (D-Tx) admitted if Trump is not impeached, he will win reelection.

Now, I’ll get told by the radical left wingers on FA I would support Trump if he shot someone. I didn’t think Clinton should have been impeached (although he committed perjury) so there’s that.

@retire05: Green is right and, most likely, the gross abuses committed by Democrats almost assures Trump’s reelection.

@Deplorable Me@retire05: Green shows that “Impeachment so easy a Caveman can do it”.

@retire05:

Is Lawfare as dirty a leftwing group as they come or are they simply dirty because they and Berke have been hired as the Democratic special oversight counsel?

Your knowledge of parliamentarian rule also seems contingent on your partisan preferences. But then what isn’t?

@Ronald J Ward: Currently Burke, who Nadler sometimes declares is a witness and is sometimes their staff, is questioning a Republican witness. Nadler is showing he has NO rules but what he invents at any particular moment based on what he wants at that moment.

This proceeding you so ardently support is nothing but a joke, a circus, a farce, a lie, biased and prejudiced. No wonder you like it.

@Ronald J Ward: Why dont you explain the rule to us, or is your ignorance that a witness has conflicts of interest and should not also be an advocate confuse both Nadler and yourself.
If the man is a witness as Nadler stated he should have been sworn in, if not he should not have cast dispersion. definition: formal. : to say harsh critical things about someone or someone’s character. He tried to discuss his political opponents respectfully, without casting aspersions.
Yes its a dirty group hence it isnt called Lawfair just and honest, its Lawfare a declaration of war.

The Republicans are DESTROYING the Dems today in the hearing…almost feel sorry for them…if they weren’t committing treason.

Reps: strong, direct, and completely focused on the facts.

Dems: emotional, irrational, and caught without any real point beyond being sore losers, and scared of their corrupt dealings in Ukraine coming to light.

Today just won Trump the election, if it didn’t already.

The Republicans are DESTROYING the Dems today in the hearing…almost feel sorry for them…if they weren’t committing treason.

I suppose it keeps your minds off the fact that a deficit of one million-million dollars per year might be a clue that something about the Trump economy isn’t as advertised.

We’re not hearing much about the astonishing benefits of Trump’s brilliant negotiations with Kim Jong-un lately, either. Nor about the many benefits of dumping the Iran nuclear deal, or progress with our trade war with China.

Nor about the fact that Mitch McConnell has around 100 bills passed by the House sitting on his desk that he isn’t bothering to deal with. What exactly has the republican senate done during the past year, anyway? The Democratic-majority House has been handling a full legislative load, even while conducting investigations of the Trump administration.

@Nathan Blue:

The Republicans are DESTROYING the Dems today in the hearing…almost feel sorry for them…if they weren’t committing treason.

How hard can THAT be? Their statements are all, “Trump did this” and “Trump did that” when, in fact, there is absolutely, irrefutably NO evidence of any such thing. Their entire case is based upon “this happened, so Trump MUST have been wanting to do THAT!!” It is practically unbelievable that grown adults would present such garbage as “fact”, be we are talking about Democrats here. Desperate, sore loser, biter, crybaby Democrats.

Then, this bird brain Burke starts raking Castor over the dead coals and Republicans erupt; Nadler has declared Burke a witness, but now he is staff… WTF? Of course, Nadler just ignores all the inconsistencies, abuses, violations and ineptitude. Damn, what a colossal JOKE.

@Greg:

We’re not hearing much about the astonishing benefits of Trump’s brilliant negotiations with Kim Jong-un lately, either.

You also haven’t heard or any nuclear tests or ballistic missiles flying over Japan. At least Trump tries something other than bribing; Lord, if he did what Obama did with Iran, he’s be impeached for that, too.

The fundamental problem is that Trump supporters don’t care any more about his official misconduct than they do about his past personal misconduct or his general presidential incompetence. He can simply lie, and tell them how great he is, and it will all be enthusiastically accepted as God’s own truth. He knows this. He gloated about it when he publicly observed that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. He can actually say such a thing, and his rally crowd will cheer him. An that’s how America’s light may go out, washed away by a tidal wave of stupidity and cynicism.

At this very moment, Donald Trump is on FOX News, lying about the Inspector General’s conclusions the same damn way he lied about the Mueller Report.

@Greg:

The fundamental problem is that Trump supporters don’t care any more about his official misconduct than they do about his past personal misconduct or his general presidential incompetence.

That’s because there has BEEN no misconduct. All the violations have been committed by Democrats, which is why they are so desperate to get all this blamed on Trump. They all speak as if they have documents and testimony of proof of wrongdoing, where in actuality EVERYTHING THEY HAVE is opinion and presumption, and much of that is refuted by hard evidence.

But there HAS been presidential misconduct. The baldfaced, slanderous lies that he was just telling to the American people in front of a live television camera about the Inspector General’s conclusions are egregious presidential misconduct. And that sort of crap is now expected on a routine daily basis. That’s how corrupted the presidency has now become. Trump has rendered honesty and truth irrelevant. He has befouled the entire political and media environment to set things at his own comfort level, because he couldn’t exist and thrive in an environment where truth and honesty matter.

Republicans are questioning Stephen Castor as if he were an unbiased witness having independent knowledge of the situation. Consider the absurdity of this. He’s their paid council in the current matter. They’re simply bouncing their talking points off him. They’re essentially putting their own congressional staff member on the witness stand to testify to the truthfulness of the things they’re attempting to prove true.

@Greg:

We always know what you are guilty of because you accuse conservatives of those things.

In all the years you have been soiling the pages of FA, you have never criticized Obama for the many things he did that should have gotten him impeached. But then, no one wanted Joe Biden as President and Obama knew he was safe, even after people were killed because of his actions.

@retire05, #34:

We always know what you are guilty of because you accuse conservatives of those things.

The reason you think you know is because you’re projecting your own behavior. That Trump is a g*dd*mn liar is an objective truth. It can be proven by comparing what he says with known, objective facts.

Mueller’s report does not actually say what he claims it says. He was not totally exonerated. Inspector General Horowitz’s report does not actually say what he just claimed it says. Horowitz concluded that the investigation was, in fact, justified. It wasn’t the result of political bias, or some goofy deep state conspiracy. It began before the Steele Document existed. These facts are incompatible with Trump’s claims.

@Greg:

Well, you think you are such a legal eagle, please reference a case, ANY CASE, where the prosecuting attorney said “Gee, your honor; we can’t prove the defendant did anything wrong or violated any law but we want them punished because we can’t totally exonerate them.” I will be waiting for that response.

It was clear, upon his own testimony, that Robert Mueller didn’t have a clue what happened in his own investigation.

@Greg: No, there hasn’t. You pretend; you imagine; you fantasize. But you don’t tell the truth.

Obama spied on and investigated candidate Trump, the very thing you claim is impeachable now. You think people don’t realize this?

@retire05, #36:

If the testimony presented thus far in the House hearings had been presented before a judge in a courtroom, the prosecutor could have already stopped in expectation of a guilty verdict. You don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge that sworn testimony in a courtroom is evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to convict, if it’s strong enough to make belief in other possible conclusions unreasonable. This isn’t highly technical legal information known only to lawyers and legal professionals. It’s basic factual information about how the law works.

Trump has kept most of the people who could provide factual testimony that would quickly make the situation completely clear from providing sworn testimony. They have illegally defied congressional subpoenas to keep from testifying. What do you conclude from that? Do you think they’re doing this to conceal Trump’s innocence?

@Greg:

If the testimony presented thus far in the House hearings had been presented before a judge in a courtroom, the prosecutor could have already stopped in expectation of a guilty verdict.

You can’t expect a single person to believe that lie. Not a single charge is backed up with evidence. None. Every single charge is based totally one what someone thought Trump might be thinking, not what he said, did or told anyone to do. Much of THAT is actually refuted with solid evidence, not “presumption”. Republicans have asked each of the Democrat’s “witnesses” if they have seen or have knowledge or evidence of any crime committed by Trump and NONE have responded in the affirmative (mostly, they just sit their looking stupid). No, quite to the contrary, any court of law with a fair judge would have arrested the plaintiffs for making false charges and wasting the court’s time.

@Greg: Fine why dont they rest their case and allow the Republicans to call witnesses and present documents for the defense, no they cant do that they continue with the sham.
Trump has not been found guilty of anything has not been allowed to make a defense, so is innocent as a new born babe in our justice system.
Sweet they are calling the do not prosecute Ambassador the anti corruption Ambassador lololololololololol

@Greg:

But there HAS been presidential misconduct.

Prove it…using legal means and due process, not opinion, conjecture, and partisanship.

The problem is if you make what Trump did “illegal”, now so many other people..mostly Democrats, are now criminals. You don’t even understand what you’re doing.

Won’t matter, though. Any “impeachment” will be found unlawful and loyal citizens will come out in droves to prevent the removal of their lawfully elected President.

Are you ready, greg? How far will you go to steal power for your party? All the way?

@Nathan Blue:

The problem is if you make what Trump did “illegal”, now so many other people..mostly Democrats, are now criminals. You don’t even understand what you’re doing.

Well, see that’s not a problem for Democrats. As we’ve seen, they believe they can participate in corruption, extortion, collusion, election tampering and sedition with impunity. No one is above the law… except for Democrats. They HATE the law, for it interferes with totalitarianism; their goal.

@Nathan Blue:

Prove it…using legal means and due process, not opinion, conjecture, and partisanship.

Sworn testimony is evidence, as was previously mentioned. When it comes from many sources and supports the same conclusion, it carries weight. When alternative explanations don’t seem reasonable, it can support a guilty verdict. Direct evidence is not not mandatory. You don’t have to present in court a photograph of Colonel Mustard standing over the dead body with a bloody fireplace poker in his hand.

Let me repeat that question, not that I expect an answer:

Trump has kept most of the people who could provide factual testimony that would quickly make the situation completely clear from providing sworn testimony. They have illegally defied congressional subpoenas to keep from testifying. What do you conclude from that? Do you think they’re doing this to conceal Trump’s innocence?

Indictments and convictions are collecting on the Trump campaign and administration like flies on fly paper. They’re also swarming around various other Trump organization activities. This is not unjust persecution. It’s because everything he’s involved with draws flies.

@Greg:

Sworn testimony is evidence, as was previously mentioned.

There has been NO evidence and, as we have seen with Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe and others, liberals lie under oath because they feel they have impunity (and, for the most part, they do). Their only defense is it is difficult to prosecute an inaccurate opinion stated under oath and ALL your “evidence” is nothing but opinion.

What value is there to appearing before a hearing where you get no representation? In addition, executive privilege would render those witnesses mute anyway. It’s all for show.

Now, why don’t YOU answer where all that evidence you all swore existed, available right at your fingertips, which PROVED Trump colluded with Russians to win in 2016? Your “parody” answer for why Schiff lied instead of relating what was REALLY in Trump’s call was, of course, weak and silly and hardly convincing; he LIED because the truth didn’t help him. But WHERE did all that “evidence” get off to?

Everyone answers questions but you liberals.

@Deplorable Me, #44:

There has been NO evidence and, as we have seen with Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe and others, liberals lie under oath because they feel they have impunity (and, for the most part, they do).

SWORN TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. That’s why people are called to testify in a courtroom. How many times does the obvious have to be stated?

The republican problem is that there’s no reasonable defense for what Trump did. All they can do is pretend nothing improper happened, and rely on Trump to keep the people who have firsthand knowledge that this is a lie from responding to subpoenas to be questioned under oath about what they know.

They’ve also got to pretend that no instruction was give to those people to defy congressional subpoenas, because that, too, is improper and illegal on an individual basis, and nothing less than obstruction and abuse of power of office on the part of the person who gives the instruction.

@Greg:

SWORN TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. That’s why people are called to testify in a courtroom. How many times does the obvious have to be stated?

And all they testified was their OPINIONS. There is NO evidence any of their opinions are based on fact. Furthermore, they have all been asked, under oath, what illegal acts they witnessed, know of or have evidence of committed by Trump. Guess what they all, to a person, said? Just guess, Greg.

And that’s your damned case; NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Democrats try desperately to fabricate something from it, but end the end, nothing plus nothing equals nothing.

You’ll probably see this made abundantly clear in the Senate.

The republican problem is that there’s no reasonable defense for what Trump did.

No defense is necessary. There is nothing to defend. I mean, it’s not like Trump just flat out EXTORTED Ukraine and forced them to do his bidding, then BRAGGED about it on tape or anything. Nothing so bold, stupid and ILLEGAL as that. IF he had done that, it would be really bad… PROSECUTABLE.

Enjoy the decline, Greg. Just remember; you brought it all upon yourselves.

@ Greg “SWORN TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. That’s why people are called to testify in a courtroom. How many times does the obvious have to be stated? ”

When Hillary Clinton Testified that that there was no Classified Material on her server, that was the true evidence, so when they found Classified Material on her server. They had to dismiss that evidence they found all together.

Greg your my hero!

@skyshark91: That, plus Democrats give Democrats carte blanc to commit crimes.