Dems Demand Copy of Unredacted Mueller Report

By John Semmens — Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent NewsDespite the fact that the copy of the Special Counsel's released to the public shows less than 10 percent was redacted and despite the fact that a completely unredacted copy is available for key members of Congress to read (an opportunity no Democrat has yet to seize), Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, demanded that Attorney General Barr turnover a completely unredacted copy or join him in petitioning the courts to void the law prohibiting grand jury testimony and classified information from being published.“Speaker Pelosi has already publicly characterized Barr as immoral, unethical, corrupt and unpatriotic,” Nadler pointed out. “If Barr wants this vilification to stop he will need to accede to our demands. Just because Special Counsel Mueller declined to press charges against many of those who testified in his grand jury proceedings doesn't mean they should get off scot-free. Everyone knows that Trump and his minions represent the dregs of humanity. Anything we can do to make this clear to the American public is vital to the survival of our democracy. Having the means to publicize selectively edited excerpts from the redacted portions of the report is essential to this effort's success.”Sen. Dick Durbin seconded Nadler's remarks and added a demand that Barr “recuse himself from any further involvement connected with any investigations of the heroic government officials who have been covertly working to reverse the monumental error of electing Donald Trump president. He should follow the example set by his predecessor Jeff Sessions, who correctly stepped aside to allow the intelligence community to continue their efforts to save the country from this tyrant. There is no good reason why these patriots should have their livelihoods endangered and their reputations smeared for doing the right thing.”Barr rejected these demands, pointing out that “my predecessor's dereliction of duty is not an appropriate model for how an Attorney General should proceed. Whether those who spied on and conspired against candidate, and later president, Trump, thought they were doing the right thing shouldn't shield them from the consequences of doing illegal things. We will continue to investigate, and if we find evidence that supports the prosecution of any of the individuals involved, those prosecutions will go forward.”A most disconcerting development for the Democrats was the release of CNN poll results indicating that nearly 70% of respondents favor the investigation being carried out by the Department of Justice. Even worse, 76% of Democrats surveyed endorse this investigation. CNN talking head Chris Cuomo pronounced himself “gobsmacked by these results. This is contrary to everything I believe should have happened based on our reporting. How could our audience have gone so far off the rails?”Meanwhile, Late Show host Steven Colbert expressed a desire to “wring the neck” of Barr, citing “the Constitution's unalienable right of the people to abolish the government and institute a new government more to our liking” as a justification. “Trump and his henchmen are on the verge of undoing the legacy left us by President Obama,” he said. “Surely, this warrants the same sort of extreme action taken by the Founding Fathers to end the tyranny they faced in 1776.”China's Role in US PoliticsFormer presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for Chinese hackers to “get Trump's tax returns” and suggested that “our media would richly reward you.” She intended these remarks as a reminder of Trump's jibe during the 2016 campaign asking if the Russians could find the 30,000 emails she deleted and advising them that they would be richly rewarded by the US media.However, Clinton's joke is not only stale, it runs counter to her repeated claims that Trump's 2016 joke was “proof he colluded with Russia.” If her copycat call for Chinese intervention in the 2020 isn't a lame attempt at humor, then by her own previous reasoning it implicates her in a scheme to illegally secure foreign meddling in the next presidential election.Whether Clinton could credibly pass off her remarks as a joke is dubious, though. The Clinton's have been the recipients of Chinese money in the form of contributions to Bill's 1996 reelection campaign and donations to the Clinton Foundation.Continuing this tradition, the current front-runner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden, also has had some questionable interactions with the Chinese government. After a 2013 visit to China to discuss trade and technology, Biden's son Hunter's company received a $1.5 billion equity investment from the Chinese government. Coincidentally, Biden now downplays the idea that we have anything to fear from China's theft of technology from US companies or its hostile moves in the South China Sea.Rival presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), though, criticized Biden's “casual dismissal of the Chinese threat. Their unfair trade practices may enrich their American friends in high places, but they are stealing jobs from American workers. From his words and his deeds it is clear that the American people shouldn't trust Joe Biden to defend their livelihoods if he were to become president.”O'Rourke Touts “Budget Green New Deal”Democratic presidential candidate, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Tex) sought to stake out a middle ground vs. more radical opponents by offering what he dubbed “a Budget Green New Deal” with a price tag of only $5 trillion vs. the $93 trillion over ten years cost estimate of the American Action Forum.“The key to cost-effectively achieving the desired results is to focus on the minimal public sector outlays required to simply outlaw all fossil fuels and police the enforcement of this rule,” O'Rourke explained. “Others have gone astray by trying to calculate the huge private sector costs in terms of lowered employment and lowered standards of living. In my view, these are not legitimate problems. They are features.”“Global warming was not a threat before fossil fuels took over our economy,” he pointed out. “Consequently, the most expeditious path toward averting its catastrophic consequences is to simply reverse course. Folks were able to live meaningful lives without the polluting modern conveniences that we've become addicted to. Sure, walking rather than driving to work narrows the scope of employment opportunities, but it also means that buying local will be the only viable option for most people. This will help people to get to know their neighbors in a way reminiscent of bygone days.”Beto's proposal was assailed by rival presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) who pointed out that “in bygone days there was no public welfare program. Everyone was forced to support themselves or rely on the kindness of others. Today, government benefits provide for the needs of those unable or unwilling to work. The $88 trillion Beto proposes we could save under his program would deny this population's right to sustenance.”For his part, O'Rourke maintains that “the millions of newcomers crossing into our country from Mexico are used to working for a living. This will benefit many in unexpected ways. Many Americans who come home from a day at the office to face a plethora of household chores will be able to acquire one or more of these newcomers ready to perform these chores. New social bonds between master and servant will enrich lives currently wasted on idle entertainments like TV, video games, and joyriding. Life will be more earthy and fulfilling.”Dem Touts Abortion “Efficiency”The argument for late-term abortion and infanticide reached a new low in the Alabama House of Representatives this week when Rep. John Rogers (D-Birmingham) opposed legislation that would outlaw abortions except in cases where the mother's life was imperiled by letting the pregnancy result in birth.Rogers vociferously denounced “the foolish and futile effort to prevent expecting mothers from disposing of children they do not want. The toll on society from blocking the birth of unwanted individuals is vast. Everyone connected to these children, as well as the children themselves, are headed for immense suffering and expense. Handling the problem before it can fester into a societal scourge by terminating the fetus is both more merciful and efficient.”Fellow Democrat Rep. Merika Coleman (Birmingham) defended Rogers' position, saying that “until we can assure that every child has adequate health care it makes sense to winnow the herd of those most likely to suffer under the present horrific inadequacies of the system. If we can't guarantee a child will have a happy life I see no problem from sparing them pain by euthanizing them before they are aware of what's happening. Even if they suffer a few moments of pain during the procedure they are saved from a wasted lifetime.”Despite Democrats' objections, the law passed the House. It is also expected to pass the Senate. The ACLU of Alabama promises to sue. Executive Director Randall Marshall called the legislation “unconstitutional. In 1973 the US Supreme Court decided that women have an unalienable right to abort unwanted children. Since federal law is supreme, no state has the authority to infringe on this right.”Jeb Bush Defends Sanctuary CitiesSeeking to ensure that he can never again run for office, former Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush took issue with current Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis' support of legislation aimed at penalizing cities that provide sanctuary for illegal alien criminals.“I just don't see sanctuary cities as a problem,” Bush asserted. “Immigrants coming to the United States is an act of love. We should all be welcoming them. It shouldn't be left to a daring few communities to bear the sole burden of sheltering them.”Even in the case of immigrants with a criminal history, Bush was adamant that “the fact that criminals come to the United States shows that they, too, love us. They could have continued their profession in their countries of origin, but they took the trouble and effort to come here. That ought to count in their favor.”A Satirical Look at Recent NewsJohn Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect.” His work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh program. This post is also available on Facebook.Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.