Ukraine: “Honey-Hole” for U.S. Political Corruption

Ukraine has certainly been in the news of late. It seems that its being in the U.S. news so much has to do with some pretty sketchy political corruption.

Former VP Joe Biden’s son Hunter has been stuck in the spotlight of Ukraine the past few months because of his excessive compensation from Burisma — a Ukrainian gas company — for which he served as a Board member. He received significant payment for his service.

The spotlight on Hunter was there because of his father’s intervention while Vice President in a Ukrainian government corruption investigation of Burisma. The Vice President forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor on that case in exchange for the U.S. release of $1 Billon of aid to Ukraine. That was the beginning of “Ukraine-Gate.” And “Ukraine-Gate” is alive and well. The Bidens are certainly not the only American political family involved in Ukraine’s corruption.

The husband of Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly took $700,000 from firms connected to a Ukrainian oligarch who has allegedly been “accused of ordering contract killings.”

      Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL)

The husband of Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly took $700,000 from firms connected to a Ukrainian oligarch who has allegedly been “accused of ordering contract killings.

Public records show that Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s husband, Robert Powell, spent much of the last ten years as general counsel for companies owned at least in part by Igor Kolomoisky, a wealthy Ukrainian businessman involved in banking and mining. In federal financial disclosures, Mucarsel-Powell reported that her husband of 15 years earned most of their household income during the previous two years — at least $695,000 — from a ferroalloys trading corporation associated with Kolomoisky.

The connections between Robert Powell and Kolomoisky were first reported by Daily Beast reporter Betsy Swan last year — who also highlighted some of the allegations that have been made against the Ukrainian oligarch.

Swan reported in April 2018 that the FBI was “investigating” Kolomoisky over “potential financial crimes, including money laundering, according to the sources, who say the probe is wide-ranging and has been underway for quite some time. Kolomoisky has not been indicted for ‘initiating or participated in any global crime,’ and a lawyer representing him said he denies any wrongdoing.”

“Kolomoisky has a host of enemies. He’s been accused of commissioning contract killings,” Swan continued. “And in 2016, Ukraine’s central bank nationalized Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank because it didn’t have enough cash. Billions of dollars disappeared from its coffers because it lent so much to Kolomoisky associates, according to the FT. The move was widely viewed in the West as a victory for transparency and good governance, in a country whose politics are impoverished on both counts.”

Robert Powell’s connections to Kolomoisky could create a significant distraction for Democrats during their impeachment hearings since they launched their inquiry into President Donald Trump over a July 25 phone call that he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Democrats claim that Trump pressured Zelensky into investigating former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, which Democrats claim amounts to a quid pro quo or bribery.

So far, Democrats’ claims that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo or bribery have largely not been substantiated in their public impeachment hearings as multiple witnesses, including Ambassador Marie YovanovitchSenior NSC official Tim MorrisonAmbassador Kurt Volker, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland all testified that there was no quid pro quo during the phone call.

In a separate report, The Daily Beast noted that the connections between Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s husband and the Ukrainian oligarch left many concerned.

“Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who focuses on Russia and Ukraine, said the link is concerning, citing accusations that Kolomoisky has been involved in billion-dollar criminal schemes and contract killings,” The Daily Beast reported. “He called the ties ‘highly suspicious.”

“When you work for a guy like that, you know what you’re dealing with,” said Edward Chow, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There should be no illusion of what you’re dealing with, even if the business you have to conduct for him in the United States is spotless. You know where the wealth came originated. There should be no reason not to know because everyone knows.”

We would be remiss if we did NOT mention the allegations that several other political heavyweights have sons connected directly or indirectly to Ukraine in business dealings. Those “heavyweights” include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, and former Secretary of State John Kerry. There are numerous stories from several sources that confirm the Ukrainian involvement of these. There are several stories that discredit these allegations. But it is factual that Ukraine has, in the past, been a “honey-hole” for financial corruption. After all, why would so many from the political and economic world in the U.S. have any ties to Ukraine? “Follow the Money.”

We’re not into Conspiracy theories at TruthNewsNetwork. But what we ARE into is ferreting out the truth. We learned that in the world of politics, where there is smoke, not only is there currently a fire, the fire started burning long before the smoke was noticed.

Steve Hilton of FOX News did a story on his Sunday night show detailing some more of Ukraine/U.S. political, financial “smoke:” (Hilton’s words in italics)

Remember Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business partner in Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings? He had previously been a top fundraiser for John Kerry, who was Secretary of State at the time. And soon after Devon and Hunter joined the Burisma Board, the company channeled $90,000 to a lobbying firm called ML Strategies, which was headed by none other than David Leiter, John Kerry’s former chief of staff.

That’s handy because then-Secretary of State John Kerry himself has visited Ukraine with promises of U.S. aid and assistance. Well, Leiter registered as a Burisma lobbyist in mid-2014. But in the year leading up to that, he gave close to $60,000 to Democrats, including a select group of U.S. senators who would later be instrumental in pushing cash towards Ukraine’s energy sector, directly in line with Burisma’s interests.

He donated to Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., four times and to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., three times. A month after the last of those donations, both Markey and Shaheen were among four senators who wrote a letter to President Obama that said, “We should leverage the full resources and expertise of the U.S. government to assist Ukraine in improving its energy efficiency, increasing its domestic production and reforming its energy markets.”

This was at a time when Democrats were waging war on fossil fuels, opposing fracking, and trying to shut down U.S. energy production. American natural gas was terrible for the environment. Still, Ukrainian natural gas was good for the campaign coffers when it involves Hunter Biden’s business interests and John Kerry’s former chief of staff. As Hilton points out, Sen. Markey’s hypocrisy runs particularly deep:

Sen. Ed Markey was the Senate sponsor of the Green New Deal! He wants to shut down gas production in America. Yet he personally intervened with the Obama administration to send your tax dollars to boost Ukraine’s gas production. And not just once.

Not only did he write that letter to Obama, but he sponsored multiple pieces of legislation that called for more U.S. assistance and aid specifically to help Ukraine’s natural gas sector, including one that “directs the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to prioritize support for investments to increase energy efficiency, developed domestic oil and natural gas reserves and develop renewable energy sources in Ukraine.”

Democrat senators take campaign cash from Ukrainian interests while urging Ukraine to help remove a duly elected President from office, and these are the people who would vote in an impeachment trial.


In this Ukraine “thing,” there are indeed deep and intense financial ties between U.S. political heavyweights and family members and Ukraine oligarchs. We’ve heard of relations that include the sons of Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry in addition to those of Hunter Biden. Let’s be honest with each other:

  • What does Ukraine have that U.S. financial institutions (represented by the sons of these very-connected politicians) want or need?
  • Why have these ties with Ukraine been political rather than just one international company doing business with another international company put together by politicians?
  • In the case of the Bidens, why are they being given free passes — even the former VP who publicly confessed of his bribery of Ukraine officials?
  • What were ties to former top Ukraine government officials with Barack Obama? What were the details of those ties?
  • Why do Congressional leaders from both parties ignore discussions of past and current Congressional involvement in Ukraine?

We don’t have “for-sure” answers to these questions. But Americans want and deserve answers to these and other questions. What is now absolute is that there is an entirely different level of accountability for those who serve in the federal government from average Americans in regards to ties with foreign governments. It appears to ordinary American citizens that legislators have advantages. They and their family members are allowed to be part of “questionable” business interactions with a foreign government and elites in those countries approved to do work with the U.S. These people have been called the “Deep State” and other names. Regardless of the group name, it is real, IS working and functioning.

One good thing about our 24/7 news capabilities is that we are privy to much more news detail than ever before in history. That’s good. What’s terrible is that the determination to provide news facts is controlled totally by private news organizations. Each of those involved holds a political perspective. It seems that those political perspectives determine not only what see and hear; they decide the actual substance of the stories.

That’s at least as scary as the above-reported financial involvements of politicos and siblings with the nation of Ukraine.

“Follow the Money”

What Makes Something Right or Wrong?

In this impeachment process, much of everything else of important in our government has been pushed to the rear. Unfortunately, some things that should have been dealt with much earlier join those “gonna have to wait” matters on the back shelf.

Sadly, if one specific of those things that have been in the cue for consideration had been dealt with by Congress, we probably would not be planning on a House impeachment vote next week. So why don’t we today take it off the shelf ourselves and discuss it.

When’s It Right and When’s It Wrong?

For years I have posted frequently here at TruthNewsNetwork, “Just because you think something’s wrong doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” But I don’t stop there: “Just because you think something’s right doesn’t mean it’s right.”

We all have examples of that from our own lives. That happens with our kids, our employees, our spouses, and even with friends and co-workers. But seldom do any of us take that as the “end” of our conversations.

It’s almost comical how we respond to things that we see and hear by automatically assuming as our default position the exact opposite of what we see and hear. I guess that’s human nature. I’m not a philosopher or a mental health professional, but I see it in my life over and over again. It’s not always me doing so, but it is sometimes. It’s pretty much an occasional occurrence in every person’s life, I am sure.

Yep, it’s human nature.

You have probably never heard of William Kingdon Clifford. He is not in the Rolodex of great philosophers – perhaps because his life was cut short at the age of 33 – but I cannot think of anyone whose ideas are more relevant for our “connected” digital age. It might seem strange that we are talking about a Victorian Brit whose most famous work is an essay from nearly 150 years ago. However, reality has caught up with Clifford. His claim that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” is no longer just a philosophical thought:  it’s now a technical reality.

InThe Ethics of Belief (1877), Clifford gave three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly only what we have evidence for, and what we have thoroughly investigated.

His first argument starts with the simple thought that our beliefs influence our actions. (Makes sense) Everyone should agree that our behavior is shaped by what we take to be true about the world – by what we believe. Remember my philosophy shared just a few days ago: “Perception IS Reality?“ If I believe that it is raining outside, I’ll bring an umbrella. If I believe taxis don’t take credit cards, I make sure I have some cash before jumping into one. And if I believe that stealing is wrong, then I will pay for my goods before leaving the store. The fact that we believe what we believe makes what we believe REALLY important — especially to us. If/when we act on false beliefs in our lives usually puts us in bad places. In some cases, they can threaten our lives. If the singer R. Kelly really believed the words of his song “I Believe I Can Fly,” I guarantee you he would not be around by now. In his case, his perception would certainly NOT be a reality! But it is not only our taking care of ourselves that is at stake here. Our beliefs and actions impact everyone around us, and false and unrealistic beliefs can put our fellow humans at risk. We’ve all seen and heard of groups of people who follow cult leaders and end up dead. James Town is one example of that. “Thinking” you’re right certainly can kill others who act on what we think is right.

The most natural objection to this first argument is that while it might be true that some of our beliefs can cause some people to do things that may be devastating for them, most of what we believe probably doesn’t amount to a hill of beans to most folks. Claiming that it is wrong in all cases to believe with only insufficient evidence seems like a stretch. I think critics had a point – had – but that is no longer so. In this world in which we find ourselves, just about everyone’s beliefs are instantly seen and processed by everyone in our immediate world. And because of instant electronic worldwide access, for just pennies a day what things we do are available to a global audience, every single belief has the capacity to be monumental in the way Clifford imagined.

If you still believe this is an exaggeration, think about how beliefs fashioned in a cave in Afghanistan lead to acts that ended lives in New York, Paris and London. Or consider how influential the blather pouring through your social media feeds have become in your very own daily behavior. In the digital global village in which we now live, false beliefs cast a wider social net. Clifford’s argument might have been nothing more than opinion when he first made it but is no longer so today.

The second argument Clifford provides in support of his claim that it is always wrong to believe based on insufficient evidence is that when we lazily or with little forethought create our beliefs we open true door to making doing so in that way normal for us. That begins to permeate every area of our lives. And that, of course, spills over into the lives of though with whom we live, work, and socialize. Clifford puts it nicely: “No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character.”

Translating Clifford’s warning to our digital “everyone-is-connected” age, what he said is that careless believing turns us into easy prey for fake-news purveyors and conspiracy theorists. Letting ourselves take ownership of these false beliefs is morally wrong because the cost of OUR mistake becomes also a cost for a society that can be devastating. Yes, it’s tough to stay focused with so much 24/7 information and data all around us. REAL awareness is a much more precious virtue today than it ever was since the need to sift through conflicting information has skyrocketed.

Clifford’s third and final argument as to why believing without evidence is morally wrong is that because we are communicating OUR beliefs, we have the responsibility not to damage any already proven knowledge. In Clifford’s time, the way in which our beliefs became common knowledge was through speech and writing. Because of this method to communicate, ”our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought’ become ‘common property.’” Subverting this ”heirloom,” as he called it, by adding false beliefs is wrong because everyone’s lives ultimately rely on this vital, shared resource — OUR opinions (information).

While Clifford’s final argument sounds true, it again seems a little far-fetched to claim that every little false belief we hold is a moral attack on common knowledge. Yet reality, once more, is comparing favorably with Clifford, and his words seem prophetic. Today, we truly have a large barrel of beliefs into which all of our commitments are being added: it’s called Big Data. You don’t even need to be active in posting on Twitter or ranting on Facebook: more and more of what we do in the real world is being recorded and digitized, and from there software algorithms can easily interpret what we believe before we even express a view. In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used to make decisions for and about us. And it’s the same trove of data that search engines use that WE use to seek answers to our questions of which turn into new beliefs. Add the wrong ingredients into the Big Data recipe, and what you’ll get is a not-so desirous outcome. If there was ever a time when critical thinking was so important, it is certainly now.

Every one of us needs to be really careful not only about expressing our ideas, but to make certain our ideas are based on facts. And that is not easy, but certainly is critical. 


There’s not a lot to summarize: the story speaks for itself. Let it suffice to say that if members of the House of Representatives had dealt with today’s content here before getting into impeachment, we might not even be here. Maybe I’m wrong. After all, to make certain one is right or accept one is wrong would mean someone is required to objectively consider facts and evidence before taking any objective action. But the Majority in the House has NO inclination for honesty in consideration. There’s so much corruption in this process it makes my skin crawl. It’s plain evil.

From a Biblical perspective: “We war not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers of the air.” 

Hmm…that “powers of the air” sounds a little like data and the internet to me. I know they have the internet in Congress. I watched as one Judiciary Committee Democrat during yesterday’s impeachment hearing tuned in the “President’s Cup Golf Tournament” during the Committee hearing. Seems like someone might have had a mixup in timing of choices!

The Universal Seed of ALL Corruption: “SELF”

It’s hard for most Americans to fathom why there is so much venom spewed among members of Congress and this Administration these days. I’ve been asked over and over the last few years why there is so much anger and hatred. It’s not Democrat Party or Republican Party hatred and even violence. It’s an American problem. But what is its source?

First, please understand that it is not new — it’s been bubbling beneath the surface for decades. But its hidden agenda protected America from its penalties: hatred and anger. But as it began to be seen four or five decades ago, people began to implement its use more often and more boldly. Its basis is the commonality of all men and women: self.


There are many different theories and definitions of “self” among professional psychologists. Many agree that the “self” consists of a person’s conscious and unconscious aspects, their personality, cognitions or thoughts and feelings. All these traits or aspects combine together into the person’s core identity. Other synonyms for “self” are soul, ego, personality, or individual. To dumb-down the definition of “self” to use in this conversation, let’s just consider “self” as “everything in our lives pertaining to you and me individually and seen, identified, and applied in our lives by OUR choices.” To simplify it, each of us though an individual “self” have much in common, including the basic traits of all humans. Self Actualization lives in all of us. That’s the trait that pushes us each to maximize what we can for ourselves in every way possible. The basic element of that is that it naturally pertains to us alone. Bring others into the picture, and the picture completely changes.

How does this apply to this minefield in which we find ourselves individually and as a nation?

Almost every American has asked at one time or another, “How do people go to Congress in one economic class, spend time on Capitol Hill, and leave Washington as multi-millionaires?” The answer to that is at the core of our discussion today.

Before we get into exactly what is going on, know this: from 2010 through 2016 — the last year for which we can find statistics — not a single person who served in the House of Representatives and the Senate has seen a decline in net worth. Net worth is the measure of the value of their total assets minus any debt they may hold. This includes the current 435 members of the House and 100 Senate members. Also included is every member of the House and Senate who has left office during that time. How does that happen when Congressional salaries are about $170,000 a year?

Indeed, some have invested smartly in the stock market, in commercial real estate, personally owned businesses that thrived, or added great inheritances. But I dare to say that if we looked at the net worths of 535 randomly selected Americans plus the several hundred others who were replaced in Congress, there would be a large number who saw actual decreases in their net worth during that period.

There is one benefit of being in Congress for which those average Americans are not eligible: the benefits of serving in Congress are known in Louisiana as “lagniappe.” Lagniappe is something that is added at no additional cost to whatever you purchase.

Congressional Lagniappe

The ”Big Lagniappe: Lobbying benefits. If you are unaware of these extras, every significant business, non-profit, labor union, and municipality from every sector in America pay for law firms to represent them in legislative matters before Congress that are of  importance to them. Those lobbying firms receive tens of millions of dollars to sway the votes of members of Congress who have votes within committees and on the floor of each House that directly impacts each of these entities.

Lobbyists are masters at using those millions to reach into the lives of members of Congress. We will not get into all the laws and regulations that control lobbying but know this: a significant amount of those lobbyist dollars find their way into the lives of Congressional members. They cannot simply write legislators checks as bribery, but they can find jobs for family members — Cush jobs that pay big bucks with incredible benefits. Universities are often “open” to scholarships for those close to members of Congress. Luxurious vacations in the Caribbean and the South Pacific, speaking engagements, all come with dollars and cents attached. And it’s all legal.

Don’t misunderstand what I am referencing: numerous honest and hardworking legislators have taken an oath of office and are straight-shooters and above reproach in the service of their constituents. These would NEVER participate in any underhanded financial home runs like these mentioned above. But many DO participate in those. History proves it.

Being in Congress means access to information that often is unavailable to ordinary Americans. Sometimes constituents do see some of that info, but not at the same time or same manners as do lawmakers. One example of this resulted in the House passing legislation signed into law to prevent insider trading. Do you want to know what that law is called? ”The Pelosi Law.” Nancy Pelosi and her husband received inside information about commercial real estate property far in advance of any information about it became public. They invested, news hit the media, property values soared, and they cashed in. It happens with stocks for which companies are about to receive approval for sale from the government, and their values assuredly will skyrocket when they hit the market. Members of Congress buy early before the public has that chance and make millions.

Then there’s merely selling Congressional influence. I doubt much of that is actual bribery. But it indeed happens. In Washington, a legislative opportunity is based on who you know. Then it became who you know and when you know any specifics. Now it’s getting access to people who make those things happen.

It all boils down to one thing and one thing only: Money.

“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭6:10‬ ‭

I’ve heard this Scripture quoted this way: “Money is the root of all kinds of evil.” That’s not true. Money holds no inherent evil. It’s the way money is used. And the purpose for its usage is determined by who controls the money.

But it gets worse. Decades ago, D.C. hawkers discovered that while money got most things accomplished, there were other avenues to get to cash that made doing so quicker, smoother, and made getting Lagniappe along with money a sure thing. What is that thing? Power. Think about it: with sufficient power, one gets everything — including money!

”Self” is the driving force for money. “Power” is the driving force for cash with a bunch of Lagniappe. The seed formerly was money. Now it is power.

Here’s the Answer

Self Actualization starts all this. And that’s a necessary human trait that alone is not evil. It leads many to create jobs and establish and grow companies. It pushes those who want to help others to medicine, social services, and charitable operations. But the type that exists and is developed to gain and maintain power to accumulate everything that Self wants is plain evil.

Enter the Deep State.

Yep: it’s real. The Deep State is comprised of all kinds of folks. But today we concentrate on those in Washington, D.C. Through these last decades, politicians discovered the Power key to the accumulation of all the things they wanted. They built a bureaucracy. In that system, THEY make all the rules, THEY control who gets in and who is not allowed, THEY find opportunities for their members. In finding ways to protect their Dragon, they unify in attack mode to protect their domain and their fellow members against exposure and, when exposed, the rabid defense of all who might attack.

And that’s what we are seeing today.

  • Did you wonder why the rabid and unsubstantiated non-stop assault on Donald Trump? It began before his inauguration. Within an hour of his swearing-in, the Washington Post released a story with this headline: “The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway.”
  • Have you wondered why so many members of Congress suddenly decided to retire or not to run for re-election since Trump’s election? Never before have such numbers of those doing so occurred. What might be the reason for “some” of those not finishing terms or deciding to leave Congress?
  • Have you, like many Americans, tried to understand the hatred for Donald Trump in the shadow of the most significant economic recovery in at least 50 years that has dramatically impacted the lives of every living American? Most think it’s time to be happy and thankful. To this day, House Democrat leadership refuse even to mention these economic benefits.
  • Do you wonder why Democrats are rushing through this impeachment process? Do you wonder why they have refused to allow the President representation in these hearings, the right to question and cross-examine witnesses, bring in and present their witnesses, present evidence, question evidence presented by Democrats? Why has there been no due process, no consultation with the Minority about hearing structure and content? After all, in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes, the Minority party was offered the same hearing opportunities as the Majority. Dems operating this way with the Trump matter is historical.
  • Why would Democrats not understand that if this process stands, every future president will have a Democrat-controlled House holding a gun to his or her head? “If you as President don’t do our bidding, we’ll impeach you!” This impeachment process would permanently alter American history with no Constitutional authority.

Why are Democrats and other Deep Staters So Adamant?

Here’s the big reason for all of this. Deep Staters — try as they have — cannot take control of Donald Trump! That is driving them insane.

Think about it:

  1. He came to D.C. as a billionaire. He certainly doesn’t need the money. That’s unlike the Obamas and the Clintons who moved into the White House having moderate net worths. When both couples left, each couple left with $100 million+ of wealth. How did that happen and continue to blow-up after leaving? From influence and quid pro quo. (Heard that term lately?)
  2. He ran numerous billion-dollar corporations that employed hundreds of thousands of people with locations across the U.S. and around the World. His power and influence rivaled that of those “supporters” that enabled the Clintons to accumulate their wealth, peddling their influence both during and after their presidencies. Trump doesn’t need or want that.
  3. Trump’s predecessor was obsessed with what HE was and did do while in office, regardless of the impact on Americans — even when negative. Trump too obsesses, but his obsessions are outwardly for all to see, not just by what he says but what he does at improving the lives of Americans. And he’s the only president in my history who has fulfilled his campaign promises to voters immediately after taking the oath of office! 

The Deep State does not know what to do about Donald Trump. They knew after those accomplishments started piling up that if they let them continue uninterrupted, he not only would serve a second term, but his accomplishments would expose the Deep State’s true power and control methods to Americans. And they knew that exposure would ruin the Swamp they created for all Deep State compadres in which to thrive. In short, Trump immediately began destroying their “deal too good to be true.”

And expose those things, and the guilty parties are precisely what the President has done.


That’s it. It certainly is not an intricate mystery. But it certainly has been well-hidden. During the day today, think through the things that have happened in the U.S. the last decade or so that you have wondered, “How could they let that happen?” It is most likely, those in the Deep State were conducting “business as usual.”

Let’s watch and see. I, for one, desperately want this to get to the Senate for trial and for the Senate to use the test to (through public and continuous testimony of those guilty of numerous federal violations) expose the Deep State to Americans.

If that is not allowed, you can be confident the Deep State existence among Republicans will be confirmed. The only realistic explanation for those Conservatives in the Senate to not let such testimony happen is they are Deep State members who are desperate to maintain their status quo.

God help them! Their exposure would undoubtedly be known to the World.

They’ll be toast!


Horowitz Report Realities: They Aren’t Good for Dems

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz appeared before Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) Intelligence Committee Wednesday to answer questions about his report on the FBI investigation’s basis and inception. The 434-page report, Horowitz penned one point and one only that gave the Lame-Stream Media and Democrats a possible out for the rampant corruption in the Trump investigation. He stated there was no provable partisan political bias that started the FBI investigation. He did not indicate there was no political partisanship among those who investigated.

The Media danced; Democrats threw victory parties; fired FBI Director James Comey and Obama former CIA director John Brennan decided to excoriate the President via Twitter for their exoneration they perceive from the Horowitz Report. Those thoughts are far from the truth.

First, Horowitz did not say there was NO political bias that started the investigation. He said his team could not PROVE it was the basis for its beginning. There’s a big difference. Why do I say that? Throughout the report, Horowitz detailed dozens and dozens of examples of the political bias of members of the F.B.I. and DOJ that certainly played into a one-sided investigation.

Further, he identified seventeen specific examples of what he termed severe “errors” by the FBI. He used errors instead of labeling those instances “criminal acts” because the job of his team was not to investigate criminal matters but to find facts to prepare a report. If there are exposed criminal acts — and there are positively egregious criminal acts — Federal Attorney John Durham, who is now conducting a separate and criminal investigation, will handle those.

Is the Horowitz report a slam-dunk for President Trump?  It depends on which media source to which you read, listen, or watch to get the “truth” of the report. No matter which source you use for your information, be confident of this one thing: there will be indictments, and people will be prosecuted for grave crimes before this is complete. This is complete…” is not going to be for some time. I can picture a scenario in which we are still dealing with F.B.I.wrongdoing during the 2016 election cycle and beyond for several years to come. The fishing net has caught-up a bunch of fish.

Let’s dig in.

There were serious errors in the applications for secret eavesdropping warrants.

  • Mr. Horowitz found that F.B.I. Officials appeared to discount evidence that did not support probable cause to wiretap Carter Page while playing up information that seemed to justify one. “That so many fundamental errors were made by three separate, handpicked teams on one of the most sensitive F.B.I. Investigators briefed to the highest levels, and that F.B.I. Officials expected it would eventually be subjected to scrutiny, raised important questions regarding the F.B.I. chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process,” the report said.


  • The Inspector-General did not speculate whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would have granted the application — renewed three times — to wiretap Mr. Page anyway. But he said the F.B.I. should review the actions of everyone who had a hand in drafting the applications. And he identified in each form where information verifying a fact was not included.


  • Relying on the F.B.I.’s information, the Justice Department first obtained court approval to wiretap Mr. Page in October 2016. The wiretap application portrayed Mr. Page, who had recently stepped down as a Trump campaign aide and had close ties to Russia, as a suspected unregistered agent of a foreign power. Mr. Horowitz found dozens of examples of missing or flawed documentation in the applications to wiretap Mr. Page. By the way, while the FBI intimated in all of the FISA warrant applications that Carter Page was a known Russian operative, Page was NOT working for Russia, but was a C.I.A. operative working directly with the CIA! Guess what: then CIA Director John Brennan knew that and hid it from all.


  • The applications relied heavily on information provided by Christopher Steele, a British former intelligence agent whose research was funded first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals, then by Democratic organizations. Mr. Steele told the F.B.I. that he based much of his information on a confidential source. But when the F.B.I. Interviewed that person, the source failed to back up some of Mr. Steele’s assertions, the report said. For instance, according to the F.B.I. Interview, the source saw “nothing bad” about communications between the Trump team and the Kremlin, and never discussed WikiLeaks with Mr. Steele, according to the report. The F.B.I.’s failure to inform the court of those discrepancies was a severe error, Mr. Horowitz said. “Despite the inconsistencies between Steele’s reporting and the information his primary sub-source provided to the F.B.I., the subsequent FISA renewal applications continued to rely on the Steele information, without any revisions or notice to the court,” the report stated.


  • The F.B.I. also failed to notify the court after it learned that Mr. Steele was “desperate” to undercut Mr. Trump, the report said. Kevin Clinesmith, a low-level F.B.I. lawyer, altered an email from the C.I.A. to incorrectly state that Mr. Page was not a source for the intelligence agency. That error was then repeated in an application to renew the warrant. Mr. Horowitz has referred his findings of Mr. Clinesmith to possible criminal investigation for making a false statement.

The Attorney General said the F.B.I. failed to justify the steps it took to investigate the Trump campaign.

John Brennan

Attorney General William Barr praised one element of the Inspector General’s findings, saying the report showed “malfeasance and misfeasance” and “clear abuse” of the wiretap application process by the F.B.I. But Mr. Barr also suggested that he disagreed with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusion that the F.B.I. had sufficient reason to open an investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia.

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Mr. Barr said in a statement.

John H. Durham, a federal prosecutor whom Mr. Barr appointed to run a separate criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, backed Mr. Barr’s findings in his own highly unusual statement. “Last month, we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened,” Mr. Durham said.

Were there problems with the use of informants?

Mr. Horowitz concluded that the F.B.I. did not attempt to place informants or undercover agents inside the Trump campaign, but he found that the current policy for using informants should include more oversight.

As part of the Russia investigation, F.B.I. Agents authorized the use of at least one informant to determine whether Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos were working with the Russians. The informant met with the two men while they were still associated with the campaign.

The use of the informant, Stefan A. Halper, a Cambridge professor, has led Mr. Trump and his allies to accuse the F.B.I. of spying on his campaign. The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, has defended the bureau against accusations of spying. On two separate occasions, A.G. Barr in interviews (one in testimony before a Congressional committee) stated that it is clear the F.B.I. DID spy on the Trump Campaign. When asked that question in Wednesday’s hearing, Mr. Horowitz also stated the F.B.I. spied on Mr. Trump.

Mr. Horowitz’s team scrutinized the F.B.I.’s roster of informants for any work they might have done in connection with the Russia investigation. He found that the F.B.I. did not try to infiltrate the campaign itself. And the inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. used informants to interact with anyone on the Trump campaign before the official opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The inspector general said Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who met with Mr. Papadopoulos and offered him dirt on Hillary Clinton, was not an F.B.I. informant.

How Bad Was It?

In a partial example of just how vile was this investigation by the F.B.I., watch this snippet between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and I.G. Horowitz:

Put in perspective, Horowitz made it clear in Wednesday’s testimony that the Steele Dossier WAS part of the initial FISA warrant application and each FISA renewal. He also stated an F.B.I. attorney in dramatic fashion edited an email to prove that Carter Page was indeed working with Russia. The actual email said precisely the opposite.

Fired F.B.I. Director James Comey immediately after the Horowitz Report release ran to Twitter to say this:

In the Horowitz hearing, the Inspector General stated this: “No one was vindicated in this report.” Further, Horowitz noted that Comey violated numerous guidelines and broke federal statutes. Regardless of what Comey claimed, you can bet the John Durham investigation will result in Comey indictments with at least one trial to follow.

Peter Strozk

Who else was tagged for wrongdoing in the Horowitz Report? Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, John Brennan, James Clapper, that unnamed F.B.I. attorney who forged a FISA application, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and that list is just getting started. Many more will face the Grim Reaper when the dust settles on all this.


What this has exposed is what many have believed not only existed but has thrived in Washington for years: a Deep State. What precisely does that mean?

  • James Comey is likely going to be remembered as the most corrupt F.B.I Director in U.S. history.
  • John Brennan lied multiple times before Congress, and this report reveals he hid many facts from the DOJ attorneys, investigators, and conned the FISA courts to gain illegal access to surveillance of the Trump Campaign.
  • There was deep political bias through numerous levels of employees in several Intelligence agencies. While it was first thought that corruption was specifically within senior management members of several of those agencies, it now appears it made its way through numerous levels in the F.B.I., C.I.A., D.N.I., and other agencies. It is certain that even though F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray has stated he has already taken suggested “corrective actions” within the F.B.I. contained in the Horowitz Report. If he has done so, it is apparent that he had to have at least known about the wrongdoing that occurred under Comey if not personally complicit.
  • It is expected that in the Durham criminal investigation that members of the Obama F.B.I. and DOJ and probably even some from the White House staff will be implicated.

The Deep State is real. But the above government employees did not act alone. There were those in Congress that at least knew much of what was happening. If evidence confirms that, here’s what that means: some workers in the three Constitutional branches of government — Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches — will be implicated. But there’s one more:

Though not Constitutional, today’s Media took an active role in this fake collusion investigation into Donald Trump. The Media are guilty of suborning perjury, falsifying information used in news reports, and knowingly presented through corrupt government officials defaming information about Trump officials while publicly supporting the lies of those active in this coup d’état.

In the committee hearing in his opening remarks, Sen. Lindsey Graham finished with this advice to us all: “Don’t judge the personnel of our Intelligence Agencies based on this. This does not tell the story of those agencies. We’re better than this.”

I like Mr. Graham, who I consider a great conservative lawmaker. But, in this case, I am now inclined to disagree with the Senator. I feel that far more than have previously been thought to be “great Americans committed to the Rule of Law” that work within these agencies have been, and probably are, driven by gross political bias. And I’m not referring to political ideals which every American has the right to hold. For decades, members of the Government were undoubtedly encouraged to support and vote for their political preferences. But they were instructed to leave their political perspectives at home — no partisanship was allowed on the job in which they work for ALL Americans.

That’s changed: the Deep State has a much bigger choke-hold than I suspected on the heart that beats to keep our nation alive.

Wake up, America!


Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress: Huh?

Here we go!

The House Judiciary Committee introduced the first two Articles of Impeachment. They plan to present to the full House of Representatives for a vote to impeach the President: “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress.” The Abuse of Power claim alleges President Trump insisted that Ukraine’s President Zelensky immediately jump-start corruption investigation into Hunter Biden, Vice President Joe Biden’s son, or would risk losing foreign aid. The Obstruction of Congress claim is for actions taken by President Trump to keep current and former members of his Administration from honoring Congressional subpoenas to appear before various House committees to answer questions about matters that occurred in the White House.

These certainly are serious allegations made in these two draft Articles of Impeachment. And, if true, will portend egregious actions to be taken against the President. “If true”  in form and content will determine the outcome of the charges. Let’s take a look at the context of the allegations and any historical precedent on which the Judiciary Committee has based them.

Abuse of Power

According to the House Judiciary Committee, the reason President Trump mentioned to Zelensky the previous investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged corruption was to force Ukraine to investigate Biden or lose U.S. aid. His demands for Ukraine to do so were to discredit Joe Biden as a candidate running against Trump in 2020.

(Just as a reminder: that Ukrainian prosecutor was fired because of a threat by then-Vice President Biden of the withholding of $1 billion in U.S. foreign unless the Ukrainian prosecutor doing the investigation was fired. In fact, in clear video evidence of Biden bragging about the incident, Biden gave Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor.)

While you are considering the validity of this specific article of impeachment, consider the following:

  • In all of the testimonies of those brought into closed-door and the subsequent public hearings on these matters, not one single person provided evidence showing that was the President’s intention. The several people who heard the conversation when asked about the alleged Trump quid pro quo, none could factually state President Trump did such.
  • President Trump (or any U.S. President) has an oath-of-office mandate to take responsibility that any money from American taxpayers given to foreign governments in the form of aid is being used legally and for the purposes upon which the support was made. VP Biden was appointed by President Obama to oversea corruption investigations in Ukraine and was purportedly doing so during those meetings.
  • President Zelensky has, on numerous occasions, stated there was no quid pro quo, no request by the President or anyone else in the Trump Administration to investigate Hunter Biden as a prerequisite for foreign aid. Ambassador Sondland, who participated in that process, recalled a conversation with Mr. Trump in which Sondland asked what Trump wanted from Ukraine. President Trump stated he wanted nothing but Ukraine to do the right thing: no quid pro quo.
  • There is an actual treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine dating back to 1999 in which both nations agree to partner to identify and prosecute political corruption of any kind that impacts either country. That is a formal treaty, not merely an executive action taken by a president. That means Congress approved the deal. That treaty prompted Obama to send Biden to oversee corruption in Ukraine. Biden committed Abuse of Power in taking his actions to protect his son.

Note: Rep. Adam Schiff, during this impeachment probe unilaterally subpoenaed cell phone companies AT&T and Verizon for the telephone records of numerous people who “allegedly” had conversations about this alleged abuse of power. Several of those whose records were provided are Rudy Guiliana, reporter John Solomon, Rep. Devin Nunes (D-CA) and others. Schiff had no legal authority to do so. Schiff released to the public information regarding some of those callers and those calls. In some states, those actions are illegal.

In doing so not only did he unilaterally violate the law, the release exposed private telephone information and content of members of the media — a violation of the First Amendment.

Schiff did not release all of the calls or identity of all of the callers on the receiving end of calls. But who else on those call records somewhere down the road could be exposed for some alleged wrongdoing just because Schiff wants to hurt them or blackmail them into preventing exposure!

Schiff’s actions were definitely his Abuse of Power as the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Obstruction of Congress

President Trump’s reason for preventing current and former members of his administration from appearing before Congress was Executive Privilege. We hear that term used quite often. What is it?

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications.

Of course, stopping someone from responding to a subpoena to cover-up illegal activity would be Obstruction. But in this case, Mr. Trump personally demanded all applicable information be provided not only to Congress for investigations but to Robert Mueller’s team. The Trump Administration had produced 2 million pages of documents to Robert Mueller. And this all is available to each House oversight committee. And those committees have access to all the witness testimony from the Mueller case. But that isn’t good enough.

That said, past presidents have, on numerous occasions, ignored Congressional subpoenas for their staff members because of executive privilege. No Congress has ever used his doing so as a precursor to Impeachment. Want recent examples?

  • Eric Holder refuses to provide subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents. The investigation of the botched Fast & Furious investigation is perhaps the most significant example of the Obama administration using executive privilege to justify their refusal to cooperate with an investigation. Holder refused to provide subpoenaed documents to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
  • Lois Lerner refuses to testify on IRS targeting. Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS when they were inappropriately targeting conservative and tea party groups, appeared before Congress in May 2013. She gave a statement but refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. Republicans called her back in March 2014, when she pulled the same stunt. At the time, Rep. Elijah Cummings blasted Republicans for wanting to question Lerner.
  • Ben Rhodes not allowed to testify on Iran Nuclear Deal. The Iran Nuclear Deal was so bad Obama didn’t even try to get Senate ratification for it, and much of the negotiations were done without Congress notified. When Congressional Republicans wanted to get answers after Ben Rhodes (the failed novelist turned Obama speechwriter turned top foreign policy adviser to Obama) let it spill to the New York Times that the administration relied on a false narrative to sell the Iran deal to the public, the White House wouldn’t let him testify, using the “separation of powers” excuse.
  • Treasury officials blocked from testifying on Obamacare subsidies. When Obama started making all sorts of unilateral (and illegal) changes to Obamacare, Republicans were none too happy about the abuse of power. When Obama’s IRS decided to expand Obamacare subsidies to be used in federal exchanges in addition to state exchanges, the Obama administration refused to allow Treasury Department officials to testify on the rule changing process, using the excuse that the issue was soon to be decided in the Supreme Court.
  • White House refuses to allow the political director to testify. In 2014, Democratic operatives were concerned that the Obama White House wasn’t doing enough to help in the forthcoming midterms. In response to these concerns, Obama launched the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach. This raised eyebrows for some, who were concerned that Obama and his minions were using White House resources for political activity. So, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began investigating in order to make sure the White House was complying with civil services laws designed to prevent executive branch employees from engaging in political activity. David Simas, the director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was subpoenaed, but the White House refused to allow him to testify before Congress. In a letter to Congress, White House Counsel Neil Eggleston claimed Simas was “immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties” and thus would not appear before the committee.
  • Justice Kagan’s Obamacare conflict of interest. Before being nominated as a justice for the  Supreme Court, Elena Kagan served as solicitor general for the Obama administration, during which time she was heavily involved in crafting a legal defense for Obamacare. This conflict of interest was important since issues revolving around Obamacare would be going before the Supreme Court. Federal law dictates that Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves when their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Naturally, the Obama administration didn’t want Kagan to recuse herself from any Obamacare-related cases. So, when the House Judiciary Committee requested documents and interviews to get a clear understanding of her role relating to Obamacare while she was solicitor general, the Obama/Holder Justice Department refused to comply. When Eric Holder testified before the committee, he claimed to not know about the request.
  • Refusal to provide subpoenaed Solyndra documents. Remember the Solyndra scandal? The Obama administration wasn’t exactly interested in letting Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities when they investigated how the Obama administration could have given them a considerable loan when they were going bankrupt. When House Republicans subpoenaed documents for their investigation, the Obama White House fired back, claiming their request would put an “unreasonable burden on the president’s ability to meet his constitutional duties.” House Republicans accused the Obama White House of hiding information, and they responded with accusations of a partisan investigation.
  • Refusing to let the White House social secretary testify on party crashers scandal. In 2009, two-party crashers successfully got by the Secret Service during a state dinner, succeeding in meeting and shaking hands with Barack Obama. Congress investigated the breach in security, but when White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers was asked to testify before Congress, the White House refused to let her testify. Obama’s press secretary explained during a press briefing that  “…based on the separation of powers, the staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress.”
  • Fighting subpoenas in the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation investigation. When the Obama administration inexplicably dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia, many questions were asked as to why. The NBPP had dressed in paramilitary uniforms outside of polling places in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, and the case against them, which was started by the Bush administration, and the Obama administration won the case by default when the NBPP didn’t show up in court to defend themselves, but the DOJ decided to dismiss the charges. Former Justice Department attorney (and current PJ Media contributor J. Christian Adams) quit his position in the Justice Department to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the case and confirmed the racial motivation behind the decision to drop the case against them.

I just had a thought about the claim that the President is Obstructing Congress by not allowing his folks to testify or turn over information Congress want to hear and receive from them: how does Congress know there is anything for which the President is hiding from them? They haven’t seen it! How can they charge Obstruction of Congress when there’s nothing there for him to obstruct?


There’s no “meat on the bone” of Democrats’ Impeachment process. “Bribery, Treason, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are the requisite presidential actions necessary to impeach a president. Those are from the U.S. Constitution, not from some lawyer’s opinion. When each of the legal experts that supposedly had evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing was asked this question, “What action did the President take that are impeachable?” not one person could name a single thing. Monday’s hearing in which attorneys for House Democrats testified about Trump impeachable offenses, 100% of their testimony was based on this one word: “Opinion.”

No doubt, some people do not like President Trump. No doubt, some members of the political bureaucracy in Washington don’t like actions Trump has taken. But the opinions of those who feel that way are not sufficient to impeach a president!

It is anti-American for any public servants to believe the removal of any President can be justly implemented based solely on political partisanship. Just imagine the U.S. government holocaust that would ensue in those circumstances. We would certainly see the political party in power in the House either actually or just through threats control for partisan purposes the acts of every president. “If you don’t do exactly what we want you to do, we will impeach you!”

If the House impeaches President Trump — and that is appearing more likely each day — every president going forward will face that as an inevitability. Some who are qualified for the office will refuse to run, not wanting to consider that with a win, they will probably be impeached — not for doing something wrong other than just being a member of a political party not in control of the House.

Who is completely left out of this conversation? The American people. Don’t forget that 63 million Americans voted to elected Donald Trump. This House of Representatives is about to remove Mr. Trump with no regard for the American voters who put him in the White House. To those who state that doing so IS Constitutional, consider this: in less than one year, American voters will once again pick a U.S. president. Do Democrats in the House think Americans are too stupid to see and understand what is going on? Do House Democrats feel they must step in and save us all from Donald Trump?

If you believe that way, God help Americans from such an environment. Our forefathers knew such a situation and left their homeland to get away from it. Tyranny and Despotism were alive and well in Europe at the time. My ancestors came to America to make something better. We have.



The Beginning of The End

It’s over! President Trump is done: his presidency is in tatters, NATO nation leaders laugh at the American president, American voters have lost confidence in President Trump’s ability to lead, and the nation is doomed.

That’s the message that has been presented to Americans for month after month by the American Press. While doing so non-stop since the 2016 election, they giggle with glee for Trump’s non-existent failures! The irony of all this? Americans don’t agree with them!

Likely Articles of Impeachment Content

It is not likely the House Judiciary Committee will complete as soon as this week’s proposed Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. What will those probably include?

The articles of impeachment are likely to cover two major themes — abuse of office and obstruction. But they could be divvied up into multiple articles.

An impeachment article accusing Trump of abuse of office, or abuse of power, would focus on the findings of the Ukraine investigation and his efforts to persuade the Ukrainian government to investigate Democrats as the U.S. withheld military aid. That conduct is the focus of a House Intelligence Committee report that will be presented to the Judiciary panel for consideration in a Monday hearing.

Some lawmakers have suggested that Democrats could break out “bribery” as a separate article. It would likely center on Trump withholding the aid and also withholding a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in exchange for the political investigations.

Obstruction articles could be broken up into obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice, or the two could be combined.

The administration’s repeated refusals to provide documents and testimony would serve as the basis for an article charging Trump with obstruction of Congress. If Democrats decide to draft an article on obstruction of justice, it could mention the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The Impeachment Process

If the House continues down the impeachment road, here is how it will most certainly look like:

  • The Judiciary Committee will present their finalized charges — “Articles” — to the full House for approval by a House vote. Each Article will be presented, debated, and determined by a House vote one at a time.
  • It is likely as few as three Articles to as many as five or six will be presented, considered by the House, and determined by votes whether to move forward.
  • At the completion of the House process, however many of those Articles are approved by the House will then be presented to the Senate for a trial.
  • The Senate could actually via a motion determine to not even take impeachment under consideration. That is unlikely to happen.
  • If/when the Senate initiates a trial, each “charge” (or Article) will be presented by an appointed prosecutor who will present evidence that will include documents and the testimony of witnesses. The President’s defense team will also counter with the cross examination of each prosecution witness presented as well as evidence. Then the defense team will also present witnesses and evidence that the prosecution will also cross examine and challenge as desired.
  • U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. He will have total control of the process of the Senate trial according to Senate rules. When trial details are completed a vote will be taken. The President would if found guilty of any charges be removed from office.


How likely is it that President Trump will be removed from office? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Most Americans when confronted with facts of Democrats’ allegations will shake their heads in disbelief this is actually happening. Sure, many Americans disagree with the President’s demeanor, his way of speaking, his brash, confrontational communication, and even his bragging. But most Americans question those things are impeachable offenses.

But I must be honest: this is only the third time in U.S. history this has happened. And the fact the Democrats are actually pushing down this road with the tremendous across-the-board Trump accomplishments that have and are significantly impacting Americans is scary. Common sense should dictate impeachment of a president might be appropriate for criminal activity by a President or unethical actions in office that include ”bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no one has presented any evidence of any of those necessary wrongdoings by this president.

Because those facts have not been sufficient to shut the door on impeachment is giving millions of Americans pause: this really could happen!

Fear is gripping the hearts of millions! This fear is of a government that is considering overturning the votes of 63 million Americans. Their doing while ignoring not just those voters but the best economic data in the nation in decades should make all Americans afraid. The fear is that Democrats just might pull this off.

The next two weeks will show the World exactly where the U.S. is in support of the Constitution, the American people, and the Rule of Law. If Democrats succeed in this, it will be the death-nail in history’s greatest country ever.

Democracy will die.



Michael Horowitz Part II

Conservatives for months have been waiting breathlessly for the release of the Horowitz report on the sources and the basis for the inception of the FBI investigation into collusion with the Russians by the Donald Trump campaign. Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. His report was expected for release in the late Spring of 2019. It will be released to the public Monday, December 9.

Supposedly the delays are the result of witnesses who, for whatever reasons, did not cooperate with Horowitz regarding testimony early in the investigation but decided to come forward late. Their doing so is rumored to be because of fear of Federal Prosecutor John Durham, who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate all the 2016-2017 matters in the election. These matters include the Clinton Foundation, FISA warrant applications and all details about the warrants, and who the players were in the surveillance of members of the Trump campaign by the FBI. Durham, unlike Horowitz, has subpoena power. He can convene grand juries (and probably already has), interrogate witnesses, and has wide latitude to obtain evidence of wrongdoing. It is expected many who are included in the Horowitz report are subjects of Durham’s investigation. They are choosing to cooperate with Horowitz so as to not make themselves Durham’s targets for their lack of cooperation.

                   President Trump with U.S. Attorney General William Barr

Just a week after Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz’s report on the Obama administration’s spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 was published, The Washington Post released another supposed leak.

Attorney General Barr apparently disagrees with the Inspector General that Obama officials and agents were justified in spying on Trump’s campaign and Trump’s transition team, according to the Washington Post report.

Barr may include a formal letter in the report or may publicly state his concern.

According to leaks, behind the scenes at the Department of Justice, there appears to be a disagreement over one of Horowitz’s central conclusions about the origins of the Russian investigation. The conflict could be the beginning of a significant rift within the federal agency over the controversial issue of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been influenced by Horowitz’s “logic” to conclude that the FBI had a sufficient basis to open their investigation on July 31, 2016. Horowitz will testify in the Senate on Dec. 11 about the findings of the investigation into possible FISA abuses.

For more than a year and a half, Horowitz has been investigating an alleged abuse of FISA by the Obama Justice Department and FBI during the 2016 elections against President Trump.

But the report is more than just a FISA abuse; it is a whole conspiracy campaign against President Trump orchestrated by the Democratic Party in cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies. The IG report will also likely result in the declassification of documents requested by high-ranking Republican legislators for several years.

Republicans and President Trump had argued that the FBI’s alleged FISA abuses, which occurred when the federal agency sought criminal links between Trump’s campaign team and Russia during the 2016 campaign, were politically motivated.

In fact, in recent months, several documents have been uncovered that corroborate those claims, for example:

  • Text messages obtained by Fox News showed that before the FISA application was approved, FBI agents were dealing with a senior Justice Department official who had “continued concerns” about “possible bias” of a source pivotal to the application.
  • The 2016 messages, sent between Lisa Page and then FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also revealed that members of the intelligence bureau circulated at least two ‘anti-Trump’ blog articles.
  • These text messages were based in part on information from former British spy Christopher Steele who cited Page’s alleged links to Russia. The FBI assured the FISA court that the media independently corroborated Steele’s claims, but it later came to light that Steele had previously leaked those data to the press.
  • The FBI did not clearly state that Steele worked for a company hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Much of the Steele dossier has been discredited or unfounded. In fact, the extensive report by special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign members and the Kremlin.

The “Disagreement”

Reports are beginning to float to the surface that Barr is basically saying that Horowitz, confined as he is to examine issues related to the DOJ, doesn’t have the information he and Durham have uncovered as to what other agencies (such as the CIA) and entities may have been doing during the investigation.

He doesn’t have all the information, Barr says, so his conclusion might be appropriate within the limited parameters he had to work with, but there’s more to the story.

That’s it.

It’s not a slam against Horowitz, nor is it a slam against the report. Only an acknowledgment — and a necessary one, given the spin-doctoring that’s been happening in the lead up to the report’s release next week — that Horowitz was limited in the scope of his investigation.

This is actually how governing is supposed to work, with the players showing respect for each other’s roles and taking care not to step on toes. The Obama administration had a different view of how the intelligence agencies were supposed to function, and Barr seems to be thinking back to a time before super-sharing between agencies was a thing.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham warned that if you believe Horowitz and Barr are at odds with each other in their upcoming reports, you’re buying into the spin.

“Be wary of the Washington Post and the New York Times reporting on what is coming up with Horowitz. They have been trying overtime to spin this thing to diminish its effect, to downplay it,” Graham said Monday.

“I can tell you without any hesitation Attorney General Barr has every confidence in the world in Mr. Horowitz,” Graham added. “He believes that he has done a good job, a professional job, and he appreciates the work and the effort he has put into disclosing abuse at the Department of Justice.”


Uncharacteristically, Radio Host Rush Limbaugh has been skeptical of any blockbuster revelations of DOJ and FBI wrongdoing in the Russia collusion probe being included in the Horowitz report. Conservatives have been nervously anticipating the story, hoping that there will be certain damning information added that will result in criminal referrals to the DOJ for the prosecution of those who allegedly illegally created and maintained the allegations of Russia collusion by the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Many Conservatives will be sorely disappointed if no action is recommended by Horowitz.

On the other hand, Federal Attorney John Durham has all the power necessary to do exactly what Horowitz cannot do: grand juries, subpoena witnesses, issue indictments, even conduct arrests. And Durham made an announcement recently that his investigation is now considered a criminal investigation as compared to that of Horowitz.

All this means, Folks, is that we are set for waiting again for any definitive information about alleged wrongdoing by those in the Obama White House, the FBI under James Comey, the Department of Justice under Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and by management at several of the intelligence community departments: specifically John Brennan and James Clapper.

Yes, this is a convoluted and intricate period of digging for the truth. What bothers many Americans is that no one seems to know for certain who are the “guys wearing the black hats” and who “wear the white hats.” Are the investigators in all this clean and objective, or are they “in the tank” for the perpetrators? In other words, millions have queasy stomachs when thinking through it all.

It’s sad to know that any people who work for the American people in government are evil. But there’s one thing that is indisputable: there are plenty of people in our government who are evil. Corruption runs amuck. We must discover who they are, identify their specific wrongdoing, and hold them accountable.

Do you think that will ever happen?


The Hypocrisy of Impeachment ‘98 vs. ‘19

There is quite a bit of hypocrisy festering in the rush by Democrats to send President Trump the “big” Christmas present: Impeachment. Democrat Party leaders are foaming at the mouth about what would certainly be their Christmas gift: Trump’s D.C. departure. No American can truthfully question Dems disdain for the President, no matter what good has happened during his presidency as direct results of HIS policies — and there are many.

Who are the angriest, most voracious, and hate-filled of those Democrats? Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, and others in Democrat leadership. They were all involved in Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment, all were unbelievably vocal, and all expressed very specific ideas about impeachment. Surprisingly, though, their ‘98 views are significantly different from their ‘19 views. That in itself is not surprising. What IS surprising is they seem to either forget or not care that there are recordings in abundance — both in audio and video — that document their flip-flops on not just impeachment of two different individuals, but on the impeachment process itself.

Here are the video and audio segments of those leaders sharing their varying views. We’ll leave the conclusions to the hypocrisy they each reveal when they addressed Bill Clinton impeachment in 1998 and impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019.


For reasoning and reasonable Americans, it is unconscionable that ANY activity on Capitol Hill (or anywhere in Washington D.C.) is initiated and action taken unless it happens for one and only one purpose: the Peoples’ business. Americans are not blind to the partisanship and purely political purposes of the 2019 impeachment activities initiated solely by Democrats.

Is it not stupid for any elected government official to stand and decry the evils of this or any President while all around the nation, far more great things than even Republicans expected in a Trump presidency play out every day? Most Americans find it difficult to even tiptoe past all that to walk down “Impeachment Row.” And with Thursday’s surprising economic numbers that reveal unemployment for Americans at a 50-year low in part due to 260,000 new jobs during the previous month, Americans’ jaws dropped and they shook their heads. Why? Americans do not understand how Congress could even consider impeachment now — not just because of wonderful economic news, but primarily because not a single Democrat witness who each was supposed to be qualified to factually confirm impeachable wrongdoing of Donald Trump when asked could even name one impeachable act on the part of the President!

Yet, according to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Monday, December 9, “evidence” will be presented to the House Judiciary Committee that will initiate votes in the House on several Articles of Impeachment that “will” justify the Senate trying President Trump, convicting him, and removing him from office.

On another day, we will example “Abuse of Power,” one of the allegations against the President Democrats are now claiming. The common denominator in all this: Adam Schiff. In that famous cartoon, Wiley Coyote spent his entire life trying to catch the Roadrunner but just could never get the job done. “Schiff Coyote” is pretty much daily duplicating his namesake’s efforts. But Mr. “Coyote” is chasing “Trump-runner.”

Clinton Donors Charged in Massive Campaign-Finance Scheme

Eight people, including major Hillary Clinton donors and a witness in the Mueller investigation, have been charged in a massive campaign-finance scheme, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.

The individuals conspired to “make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions” valued around $3.5 million in the 2016 election campaign and beyond, according to the announcement. Although the indictment does not explicitly name the recipient of the donations, it is clear that the contributions went to groups allied with Clinton’s presidential campaign.

One of those charged, George Nader, is a Lebanese American businessman who was a witness in the Mueller report. Nader was also caught in 2018 in possession of child pornography but received partial immunity in exchange for testimony in the Mueller investigation. He faces between 15 to 40 years in prison if convicted on child-pornography charges.

Also indicted on campaign-finance charges was Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, who hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in Los Angeles in 2016 and who conspired to conceal campaign donations from 2016 to 2018. Khawaja owns an online-payments company used by, among others, debt collectors, offshore gamblers, and pornographers. The company has made numerous campaign donations to both Democrats and Republicans.

Nader also gained access to the Trump administration, meeting with the president on several occasions. Nader has experience in international diplomacy, has served as a diplomatic conduit to the Middle East and Russia, and was an informal adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.

Unreported History of Clinton Campaign Fraud: 2016

Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 was stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they made what was supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, according to multiple sources.

The overcharges were occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks received up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who was a victim of this fraud scheme, filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We got up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department stated. The source claimed that the Clinton campaign had been pulling this stunt since the Spring of 2016. The Hillary for America campaign overcharged small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically didn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we didn’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they stop the charges just below $100. We saw her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who worked for Wells Fargo for over ten years, said that the total amount they refunded customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varied” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who called in attempted to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never got anywhere. “They called the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never got resolved. So they called us, and we just issued a refund. The Clinton campaign knew these charges were small potatoes and that we’d just refund the money back.”

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people were overcharged by Hillary’s campaign, and they had no idea.”

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, was one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March of 2016, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

Roger, who is an attorney, stated that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May of 2016 in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again, and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card, but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the internet, so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped, but they never did.

The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This paralleled what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed.

Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, U.S. Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked U.S. Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger stated that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news KARE-11 ran a story, someone from U.S. Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.

Roger did eventually get a letter from a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign. In the letter, the lawyer wrote that his mother would be removed from their donor list; however, the campaign did not take any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.

“They said that they weren’t accepting responsibility for this, but they’d remove my mom from the donor list,” he said. Roger is less than happy with the way the Clinton campaign handled this nightmare for him and his mother. “This is a load of crap!” Mahre said. “The self-righteousness of politicians drives me insane. If you and I did this, we’d be thrown in jail. This is theft, fraud or wire fraud—it’s a federal crime!”

When Carol’s story became public, Roger said he heard from other people who were ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this happened to other small donors,” Roger said. “People donated $25, but then when they received their credit card statement, they were charged $25 multiple times.”

The Wells Fargo Bank source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department never received one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary did is so messed up, she stole from her poorest supporters.”

Nothing New

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign repaid.

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money, the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.


Do we need even to discuss the obvious here? Consider this:

  • Since the Clintons both entered politics — first in Arkansas, then in Washington and New York — rumors of financial corruption have followed right along with them. Few Americans care to pay the price and invest the time and energy to investigate their financial wrongdoings. Quite honestly, there are quite a few  “wounded” Americans in their political wake! (“Wounded” here is an oxymoron!) You can even look outside the U.S. to Clinton Foundation issues. In Haiti, after the horrific earthquake, millions of dollars that flowed through the Clinton Foundation for aid to Haiti vanished. And financial nepotism put millions more in the pockets of Clinton cronies. Why should this latest DOJ report of Clinton Campaign fraud be surprising?
  • Why do we not hear anything about any of this until after the fact? It seems that either the American Media is oblivious to the “news” that Clintons’ financial wrongdoing has been rampant or that the “Lame-Stream Media” simply do not care. No matter if it’s because of one or both, their doing so is a travesty.

I’ll close with this undeniable thought — my conclusion: Can you imagine how the heads of U.S. Media pundits would be exploding if Donald Trump was implicated in any such matters?

Oh, and then there’s this: what would be happening if the Clintons were back in the White House?


House Republicans Fight Back

Wednesday, December 4, America heard from four Constitutional “experts” about their opinions of impeachment, its foundation, its purposes, its past uses, and how the Constitutional guidelines determine its appropriate uses. At the end of it all, we are no closer to firm and final answers about impeachment as it applies to what is happening in Washington today than we did six months ago. Democrats are on a quest and continually exist in “Dump-Trump” mode. Republicans are on a quest, too. Theirs is “Let’s get about conducting legislative business for the American people.”

Do you notice any similarities in thought between Dems and the GOP? Neither do I. But, as promised, we at TruthNewsNetwork are committed to bringing you the facts that we can discern through research of every applicable D.C. matter that impacts Americans. That promise applies to members and issues of both parties, issues that arise daily in Congress, the White House, and the Judiciary, and every applicable matter in U.S. foreign relations that impact our nation. Here’s our analysis of “Impeach Trump, Part III.”

“Where’s the Beef?”

Democrats have not veered away from their one unified cry about Mr. Trump since even before he won the 2016 election: “We don’t like him. We think he’s unfit to serve as President. We will do anything and everything we can do to drive him out of the White House and even from Washington, D.C.” The only things that have changed in the three years of Mr. Trump’s first term as President are the bullets in the Democrats’ “Dump-Trump” gun they have used. They are Trump Campaign Russian Collusion, the Mueller Investigation, Obstruction of Justice, Emoluments Clause violations, and now we find ourselves in “Ukraine-Gate Part III.” Who’s universally in all of these? Rep. Adams Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Of course, the President is universal in all of this. If he’d go away, so would the faux impeachment!

House Republicans on Monday, December 2, released a report of evidence in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, in which they affirmed none of the Democrats’ witnesses have proof of President Donald Trump’s involvement in bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.

And by working to impeach President Trump since his election, 231 House Democrats are trying to undo the will of nearly 63 million American people who chose him as the 45th president of the United States.

The following are the key findings from the report presented by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

  • President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.
  • President Trump has a long-held skepticism of U.S. foreign assistance and believes that Europe should pay its fair share for mutual defense.
  • President Trump’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma Holdings’ board are valid. The Obama State Department noted concerns about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma in 2015 and 2016.
  • There is indisputable evidence that senior Ukrainian government officials opposed President Trump in 2016 and did so publicly. It has been reported that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative worked with Ukrainian officials, including the Ukrainian Embassy, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump.
  • The evidence does not establish that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election to benefit him in the 2020 election.
  • The evidence does not establish that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Zelenskiy to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump withheld U.S. security assistance to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump orchestrated a shadow foreign policy apparatus to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump covered up the substance of his telephone conversation with President Zelenskiy by restricting access to the call summary.
  • President Trump’s assertion of longstanding claims of executive privilege is a legitimate response to an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.

In summary, House Republicans said the evidence in the Democrats’ probe does not prove their allegations that President Trump abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, a potential political rival, for his benefit in the 2020 election. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy again affirmed he did not discuss with President Donald Trump about a “quid pro quo” involving the withholding of military aid to Ukraine from the United States, which is at the center of the House impeachment inquiry against the president.

In an interview with published on Monday, Dec. 2, Zelenskiy said, “I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. Zelenskiy was answering the question, “When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump’s decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations for which Trump and his allies were asking? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?”

“I don’t want us to look like beggars,” he continued. “But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying,” he added.

This is not the first time Zelenskiy denied the accusation of wrongdoing regarding a phone call between him and President Trump. In October, the Ukrainian president also affirmed: “there was no blackmail” in their July phone call, and there were no “conditions” from the American side.


Yep: this is brief today. Why is it so short? There’s not much to discuss!

What we could do is spend a bunch of your time going back over all the “what-if’s” and “if-only’s.” But we’d still be here next month and probably next year trying to ascertain what this Democrat charade is going to morph into. Until we arrive at the end of all that, we are no longer going to “speculate.” We’ll just let the actions of the Left tell us what they are going to do.

Yes, it appears that House Democrats are going to send to the Floor Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. Probably, the vote on at least several of the likeliest Articles will be approved. And then the Senate will examine whatever Articles of Impeachment make the trip across the Hall.

If that happens, the fun will begin!

Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing that can be funny about all of this. But know this for sure: if a Senate impeachment trial actually occurs, every bit of the dirty laundry from the past four to six years will be brought before the American public through witness and document subpoenas. And it all will be exposed every day INTERNATIONALLY!

Just imagine that witness list: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, Peter Steele, James Clapper, John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, etc.

Don’t forget about three witnesses that will undoubtedly appear before the Senate: former Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even former President Barack Obama.

Do Democrats want all of the wrongdoing on the part of their minions in the Deep State to appear daily for the next year on national television? Do they want to take the chance that members of their own “crew” will face indictment(s), millions of dollars in legal defense costs, public embarrassment and humiliation, and the destruction of their personal and professional lives, all in an attempt to rid D.C. of President Trump?

“Hey Nancy: Tag, You’re It!”