Previous post
Democrats keep finding new sharks to jump and, if it isn’t Maoist Truth Commissions or Nasty Nancy wanting to set up a 9/11-style inquiry in order to shut-out any GOP candidate not hand-picked by Dems, we now have Congresscritter Linda Sanchez (D-mented-CA) trying via HR 484 to strip Trump of any future Federal funds, acknowledgement or even burial in Arlington.
What is a bill of attainder? Simply defined, it is an act of legislation directed at a specific person (or a group of persons) that declares them guilty of something and imposes a punishment without trial. Such bills are specifically banned by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3). Keep that in mind when you find out that Linda’s bill is directed against any former president “impeached twice”. Now, who could that be?
Introduced in late January, H.R. 484, dubbed the “No Glory for Hate Act,” would “prohibit the use of Federal funds for the commemoration of certain former Presidents,” namely those that have faced impeachment proceedings from the House on two separate occasions. The bill would also restrict the use of government funding to “create or display any symbol, monument, or statue commemorating” a twice-impeached president, and it would bar the naming or redesignation of any federal building or land after commander In chiefs in question. (snip)
“We should never glorify the hatred Donald Trump personified as President. This bill ensures that there is no glory for hate — not a building, statue, or even a park bench.” (Linda Sanchez)
And while Sanchez’ bill doesn’t identify President Trump by name, Sanchez confirms it was drawn up specifically to punish him. Regardless of the lack of substance of either of Pelosi’s Impeachment Articles (and even a blatant falsehood in the second set), two Senate trials acquitted the President. Acquitted.
It’s entirely reasonable at this point to wonder how Sanchez got her JD from UCLA. Maybe a few quota-filling sheepskins to keep La Raza quiet? What is obvious is that HR 484 is aimed at depriving Trump of the usual privileges of former Presidents, even those provided by the Former Presidents Act of 1958. And while Linda didn’t go so far as to strip Trump of Secret Service protection, the bill will:
1) Ban any Federal funds, even to States, to create or display any symbol, monument or statue commemorating Trump.
2) Ban Trump from retirement pension, clerical assistants, and free mailing privileges
3) Ban Trump from being buried in Arlington cemetery
The devil is in the details and what is left out of this four-page bill is that the ban of all Federal funds would also apparently cover Trump’s archives on .gov sites, the presidential portrait in the National Gallery, and even a Trump Presidential Library. To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the commemoration of certain former Presidents, and for other purposes.
Sanchez, auditioning for a spot in the Ministry of Truth, is out to snip the last four years from history. Even as she continues to dine on how horribly scared she was on Jan 6 from the LARPer breech, this younger sibling of the braintrust-known-as Loretta Sanchez (who got to Congress via voter fraud) …
Linda has had her own ethical issues.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) on Thursday dropped out of the race to lead the House Democratic Caucus and faced questions about her political future following her husband’s indictment on federal criminal charges. (snip)
James Sullivan, Sanchez’s husband, was charged with misusing federal funds to cover personal expenses. Those alleged improper expenses include two trips with Sanchez to the Kentucky Derby, as well as a trip to Key West, Florida.
Linda’s loyalty is to unions and every unAmerican Woke policy that marches into view from stage left. It doesn’t include 75 million American voters or all the actual good President Trump clearly accomplished.
O’Brien would be proud.
featured image, original composite by Darleen Click
GWB says: two Senate trials acquitted the President
And one of those wasn’t even a real impeachment trial, by Constitutional standards.
What is a bill of attainder?
Quite simply, until something like this is laughed out of committee, and someone introducing it is shunned by all their Congressional colleagues, we can’t say we’re living in a Republic. A Congress rooted in the Constitution would censure her for introducing something so blatantly, facially un-constitutional. Supreme Court justices would call her up and offer to loan her their copy of the august document. Her constituents would run her out of town on a rail (literally). She would live her life in obscurity in some other state. Until that level of ire arises over un-constitutional crap like this, we are not a nation of Laws, but of tyrants.
This is their play for power. This is them deciding they no longer have to hide their tyrannical intentions, since we covered our eyes and voted for the “articulate and bright and clean” 0bama.
1 Comment