Inside Tad's Mind

Below is an email I received from Congressman Chris Stewart in reply to a message I sent to him and my reply to it. My original message took the Congressman to task for making a factually untrue statement in his newsletter regarding the testimony of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the original message. I pointed out to the Congressman that for him to have made the claim that there was "... no obstruction" required either that the Congressman had not read the Special Counsel's report and wasn't paying attention during the hearing , in which case he is negligent, or he read it and didn't understand it, leading to the conclusion that he is incompetent in his position, or -- if he read and understood the report and testimony -- he was deliberately misleading his constituents.  DISTRICT OFFICES 420 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE, #390 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801) 364-5550 253 WEST ST. GEORGE BLVD, #100 ST. GEORGE, UT 84770 (435

On Thursday of alst week, the House Committee on the Judiciary voted to adopt rules for conducting an inquiry in to whether that committee should recommend Articles of Impeachment to the full US House of Representatives. Today the committee held its first hearing, having called, by subpoena Cory Lewindowski, Rick Dearborn, and Robert Porter. Only Lewindowski appeared. Dearborn and Porter were blocked by the White House based on a very controversial claim of "absolute immunity" from testifying, and Lewindowski repeatedly refused to answer questions based on a letter from the White House directing that his testimony be limited to only those matters specifically addressed in the Mueller Report. Lewindowski used those instructions as a mechanism to delay answering questions while he verified the content of the report, and declined to answer any questions about any other conversations he may have had with Trump or anyone else within the White House. Primary sources matter in ana

Let me begin this essay by stating unequivocally that I do not support or advocate for abortion. If a pregnant woman were to ask me for advice I would not counsel abortion unless there wasn't any other viable alternative after ensuring that the woman was aware of the physical and emotional consequences. Like most political questions, Reproductive Rights has multiple facets. At its core, it is a legal question. Roe v. Wade is legal case law, the new anti-abortion bills in Alabama, Missouri, Utah, etc. are legislative measures trying to create law as is the new Kansas Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion. Examined solely as a legal question, the question is, "when does the fetus acquire rights, and when do those rights supersede the mother's rights to bodily autonomy?" As a purely  legal matter, the answer is arbitrary. This can be clearly seen in the diversity of the new state laws running from Alabama's draconian legislation b

As a career sailor in the U.S. Navy, I have taken the oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" on four occasions. That oath is still binding, and it prompts me to write what follows. Members of Congress, both Representatives in the House and Senators take a similar oath. The point of this article is to illustrate that some members of the House and Senate are not living up to their responsibilities of that oath. The case for Congressional investigation The Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election ( Mueller report) found, " The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its compter network. Releases of hacked materials--hacks that pub