Trump Impeachment Reboot Is On The Way: Confirmed

This from FOX News: “Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, in an interview Wednesday, would not rule out a new impeachment effort against President Trump over his alleged interference in the criminal case of his former associate Roger Stone. Federal prosecutors on Monday had recommended a sentence of between 87 and 108 months in prison for Stone’s conviction on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.”

But in a stunning reversal, as FOX News first reported, leadership at the Justice Department overruled the prosecutors on the case, scaling back the proposed sentence for Stone, which immediately led Democrats to accuse Trump of interfering in the process by tweeting about his displeasure with the DOJ. Trump denies it, and the case lately has been complicated further by questions over possible juror bias.

During an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Swalwell (D-CA), was asked whether Democrats would look to launch a new impeachment inquiry on the new controversy. “You know, we’re not going to take our options off the table,” Swalwell, a member of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, told CNN. “We don’t wake up in the morning wanting to impeach him.” (We left the hyperlink to the stories mentioned in the FOX report. Feel free to go take a look at them if you like)

“We don’t wake up in the morning wanting to impeach him.” If anyone reading this believes Swalwell’s statement, I’ve got a ten-ounce bar of 24 ct. gold I need you to look at. It’s real gold! I only need $100.00 for it.

Democrats don’t just wake up every day thinking about impeaching President Trump — they never STOP thinking of that. And no American should be surprised that they are probably going to use ANOTHER sham allegation to turn into an impeachment probe — their third if you include Mueller’s — of the President.


♦♦ Los Angeles area Congresswoman Karen Bass told TMZ’s Harvey Levin that not only would they try to impeach Trump again if he wins in 2020, but their seek-and-destroy mission will probably uncover even more information that could show “he’s owned and operated by the Russians.”

Bass told TMZ that the articles of impeachment would probably be different the second time around because of all the dirt they’ll dig up on Trump:

…[I]t might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we’d have a ton more information.  [H]e probably has other examples of criminal behavior.

♦♦ Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under Barack Obama, said, “double jeopardy protections do not apply” to impeachment.

♦♦ “Donald Trump, I still believe, is a one-man crime wave, and we can’t let him get away with all of his other offenses against the Constitution and the people,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

♦♦ One day after Trump’s acquittal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the House was awaiting the outcome of several lawsuits previously filed by Democrats, including those targeting Trump’s financial records at Deutsche Bank and former White House counsel Don McGahn. “We will continue to do our oversight, to protect and defend the Constitution,” she said during a press conference, vowing to continue to investigate allegations of administrative wrongdoing, wherever it arises.

♦♦ “Any prospects for impeachment will depend on a mixture of the gravity of the offense and then the imminent danger to democracy and the election,” Rep. Jamie Raskin said. “If the president insists upon violating the Constitution to try to fix this election, he is going to find he’s met his match in the House of Representatives. We’re not going to put up with that.”


How can any American not see and understand that the entire Democrat Party seems to be fixated on one thing and one thing only? That “thing” has nothing to do with lowering drug prices, stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the nation, fixing immigration’s broken laws, or helping DACA recipients whose parents brought them here illegally and now they’re stuck. That “thing” is not making this economy that’s booming far beyond experts predicted WOULD happen and far beyond the best expectations of what COULD happen. It does not include improving what already is the lowest unemployment rate for African Americans ever, the lowest unemployment rate for women in 60 years, or improving what is now the highest rate of the labor participation rate in 50 years. We could continue to list more of the amazing accomplishments of this president, but that would take much time. And most Americans already know what they are.

So what is that “Thing” on which Democrats are fixated? 

Before you assume what that “thing” might be, consider this: there is really not just ONE thing that gobbles up Democrats’ concentration. (details ahead)

Every American is paying the price for Democrats forcing the U.S. government to function in this the most partisan political atmosphere in U.S. history. The “one thing” is a combination of quite a few things that are each focused on one target: run Donald Trump out of the White House.

Don’t assume that this is the “blame game.” Don’t believe we at TruthNewsNetwork think Democrats are all evil and are all meeting every night in some secret location to craft ways to their ideas on the nation. I’m sure there are numerous conversations between Democrats about what Democrats are doing and what SHOULD be doing instead. But I don’t think there’s some grand conspiracy among their party although they certainly talk incessantly about Republicans and Mr. Trump.

Democrats’ chief problem is their lack of two things: unity and leadership. 

Their lack of leadership has diminished whatever effectiveness they may have had in the past. Consider those eight years under Obama. Barack Obama was an electric speaker, a great communicator to people from every background, and had the ability to draw people together. Don’t forget: he spent much of his professional life before politics as a community organizer. That involved reaching out to people, bringing them together under a common cause, and instigating unanimous actions by such a group to achieve specific results. That sounds like how political parties should act in Congress!

Democrats are desperate to find a “Barack Obama Part II.” I have news for them: there’s no other Obama in this Democrat Party.

That’s how Donald Trump won in 2016. Democrats tried hard to turn Hillary Clinton in as the replacement for Obama, who would take their party to the next level. But as they watched, it became apparent there was little substance in Hillary — at least not enough substance to even get a good start toward “Obama Part II.” Getting elected was the only way to get started. She was a product of a worn and tired political ideology that time had passed by.

Trump, on the other hand, was new and different. He certainly isn’t a Barack Obama, but he too, has a unique magnetism that draws many people to him. But it also (just as oppositely charged magnets do when putting together) drives some people away. Trump was the first Republican since Reagan that looked like a middle American even though Trump’s from Queens. He’s rough and caustic and brought the communication ability to conservative politics unseen since the Gipper. The biggest thing Americans like about him that gave him the election victory is his empathy for Americans of every class.

What have Democrats lost?

The 1960s

For those of us who were alive in the early 1960s, you can relate to what I am about to say. If you are too young to remember, follow along with these explanations.

I was just a boy when John F. Kennedy was elected President. JFK was a Massachusetts Democrat, a U.S. Senator, a war hero, and the eldest son in a multi-generational wealthy and politically connected U.S. family.

The nation had just completed the first decade after the end of World War II. The 1940s saw the United States take on — simultaneously — Hitler and Mussolini in Europe and Japanese Emperor Hirohito in the Pacific — and was victorious over all three. That World War II victory taught Americans much. And those lessons learned put JFK in the White House and the Democrat Party back to the forefront of American politics.

Though wealthy and from a deep-rooted Democrat elite family, JFK was a politician that looked average Americans in the eye and spoke TO them and not AT them. A large part of the nation fell in love with that and with him. He faced horrendous challenges in Russia, racial division and extremism domestically, anti-war activism, and an American economy that was lackluster at best.

What he knew that today’s Democrats either do not see or maybe just lost is his ability to speak a message that resonated with average Americans.

JFK was an Ivy League product and was nothing like Donald Trump. But the commonality of communication to all Americans gave Mr. Kennedy the same edge as has Donald Trump today. And Democrats gladly fell in line with their beloved “Jack Kennedy.”

The Democrat Party after Kennedy and Johnson faced similar problems as does this Democrat Party: relating to ALL Americans. Jimmy Carter fell flat on his face. Bill Clinton got it. He, too, was a “people” guy. Barack Obama took that American political relationship ability to new levels. Many thought Obama’s Vice President would be the secret to retaking that narrative, but Biden is no Barack Obama. Democrats certainly understand that.

Today’s Democrats seem to feel there’s only one way to regain the White House. For them, that’s not going to be a product of the 2020 election. That’s why the constant attacks on every person in the Trump Administration and every policy of Donald Trump. They are operating from the “Zero-Sum Game” philosophy. Let me explain.

Here’s how the “Zero-Sum Game” philosophy works. It came from economists. In economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants. If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

In politics, that philosophy dictates there is only a finite number of votes that will be cast in an election. Democrats think of that process this way:

The only way to get more votes is to take votes away from anyone running against their candidate. They’re committed to doing anything necessary to win elections, but not by proving to voters what they propose for political policies are much better than Trump’s policies. Their approach is to forget about doing more better for voters but to denigrate Trump and everything he has done while in office. They all day every day attack Mr. Trump without pause, all the while ignoring current status for Americans in the middle of Trump’s first term.

Think back a few years. Hillary campaigned on what was the “Obama policies continued.” She offered nothing new. That’s why she could not defeat Donald Trump: the newcomer.

Trump got it. He gave voters new ideas. Voters got it and liked it. Trump won. Democrats, to this day, still have not resolved any of that.


So what is the Democrat Party plan for 2020 to win the White House, hold their majority in the House, and win back the Senate? Impeach Donald Trump to remove him from office, making an election victory for a second term as President an impossibility.

Democrats offer NO new policies and NO fixes for any of America’s broken issues. Americans understand that after three full years of nothing but attack after attack against President Trump.

Meanwhile, the nation on every level continues to soar economically across the board for every American. Democrats are lost in that and have NO alternative other than this “Trump attack mode.”

Dems have NO leadership. The leaders they have are feckless, angry and partisan politicians and nothing more. Americans get it. This failure in substance by Democrats is why among the two dozen Democrat presidential candidates that began a push for the White House, one by one have thrown in the towel after lackluster campaigns that resulted only in rejection by Americans. Why? There’s nothing new! Their answer is to get madder and more desperate and up the ante for impeaching Donald Trump.

They are going to try to do just that a second time. It would do nothing but frustrate Americans who might consider a Democrat alternative to a Trump second term if there were any substantive policies on the Democrat menu from which voters could choose. The menu is blank.

Some say Democrats are stupid for their continued craziness. Others hold hope that they will realize their error and make a move in a different direction. But then there are others that believe Democrats do not have the capacity to right the ship.

What will happen? Investigate, investigate, and probably more impeachment attempts. And for Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Eric Swalwell, impeachment is the only way for them to gain notoriety for anything Americans could consider “substantive” that might result from their service in Congress.

It’s a shame any members of the Democrat Party feel that philosophy is good for America.


Senate Impeachment Trial: Day 3

Thursday in “Impeachment Ville:” What a day!

There are a plethora of things to mention about the activities that occurred in the Senate Chamber on Day 3 of the Senate Impeachment Trial. Sadly, though, none of those things we will say have anything to do with any evidence of President Trump’s wrongdoing (or alleged wrongdoing) that supposedly are responsible for bringing us to this place.

House Management Leader Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) took center-stage most of the day as he has for the first two days of the trial. He consumed almost all of the time allotted for House Democrats to present their case to the Senators who will vote later on the removal of President Trump from office. But they also “danced the dance of politics” before the television cameras that beamed their impeachment charade to all Americans who think enough about the impeachment trial to take time from their busy lives to look-in.

Thursday’s Democrat presentation bordered on a story wrapped in desperation. No one knows better than the House Managers that their lack of evidence places them in a spot of almost inevitable failure in their impeachment attempts. To their credit, however, they attempted to stay on point: except for Mr. Schiff. He wandered all around the world, speculating that “we must take care of Ukraine so they will continue to help us defeat the Russians over there so that we will never need to defeat the Russians over here.” Huh?

Several times that desperation became really obvious — so evident because they actually journeyed back to the Mueller Report to cherrypick a few salient points that although they were part of Mr. Mueller’s exoneration of President Trump for allegedly colluding with the Russians in 2016, Mr. Schiff felt there was still enough damning information in the report to fuel an impeachment.

Points from the Mueller Report rang on mostly deaf ears in the Senate.

Let’s look at the Day 3 bullet points, and then I’ll share a significant letter with you.

Bullet Points: Day 3

  • House Managers recalled the testimony in the House Judiciary Committee hearing of Harvard law professor Noah Feldman. You may remember that in that hearing, Feldman (as did others) gave a passionate list of justifications for the impeachment of President Trump, none of which were based on any factual information or data. Each was exhaustive, too. More importantly, each was strictly his opinion. Schiff, as usual, drew on those Feldman justifications even though they were entirely unfactual and opinion.
  • Many wondered if there would be any pushback from House Manager’s aggressive and often angry Senate presentations. The first sign of a backlash among that critical group came Thursday when Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) a moderate member of the conference, said she was offended by House manager Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s assertion that GOP members voting against allowing new testimony and evidence were engaged in a “cover-up.” “I took it as offensive,” she told reporters. “As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.”
  • Content if the trial on Thursday became so benign that House Manager Hakeem Jeffries at one point told a story of one American who approached him upset about something that Jeffries thought he wanted Democrats to investigate regarding the Trump trial. Instead, the man said, “Someone voted against Derek Jeter on his Hall of Fame ballot.” Former New York Yankees great Derek Jeter was one of three baseball players inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame recently. Jeter’s election was one vote short of being unanimous. (That had a lot to do with impeachment, right?)
  • Wednesday before leaving Davos, Switzerland, for his return to Washington, President Trump was asked by a reporter if he had considered attending the impeachment trial as a visitor. The President replied that he might do that, but he was certain his defense team would frown on his doing so. Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reached out to the President and asked the President to be the Senator’s guest in the visitor gallery.
  • Rep. Val Demings takes the stand to discuss the U.S. obligation to provide Ukraine with aid to “counter Russian aggression and shorten the war in the East.” Fifteen thousand people have been killed and 1.4 million displaced as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, according to Demings. She says the U.S. has provided $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014 and another $1.5 billion in other assistance. What she did NOT mention was that the Obama Administration routinely held foreign aid (as does EVERY president) in negotiations for those countries’ actions. Obama withheld aid:Pakistan — $800 million; Colombia — $450 million; Phillipines — $433 million; Egypt — $260 million; Honduras — $30 million; Mexico — $26 million. Of course, Obama’s VP “threatened” to withhold $1 billion of aid to Ukraine. House managers failed to mention any of these.
  • House managers have used just 16 of their agreed-to 24 hours to present their impeachment case. Therefore, the floor is theirs again Friday. The President’s legal team is currently scheduled to begin their defense on Saturday. However, there is some conversation about waiting through the weekend and starting on Monday.


In closing, I am going to read a letter written regarding impeachment. It’s incredible in content, its spirit, and its call to action. It’s a letter you “Need” to hear.

I’ll tell you who wrote the letter after I complete its reading.

“Mr. President, this is a day of solemnity and awe. I rise humbled that we are participating in a process that was mapped out more than 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers and that the words we say today will be looked upon by historians and future Congresses for guidance. That is quite a responsibility.

Growing up, our country and its government seemed like a mighty oak — strong, rooted, permanent, and grand.

It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate the President and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.

Most troubling to me are the conditions that allowed this to happen, and the small group who precipitated them.

It is the small group of lawyers and zealots who decided that they would invest time and money to exploit a weakness that people knew the President had, find a case to air it publicly, and use it to bring him down.

What is so profoundly disturbing is not that this small group of haters hatched this plan. It’s that this group — or any group equally dogmatic and cunning — came so close to succeeding.

If you had asked me one year ago if people like this with such obvious political motives could use our courts, play the media and tantalize the legislative branch to achieve their ends of bringing down the President, I would have said “not a chance — that doesn’t happen in America.”But it almost happened. And in the future it could be a left wing zealous organization or right wing group or some other group with strong narrow beliefs.

We’ve got to understand how we’ve reached the point where any small group could have so much power.

The President is an extraordinary but flawed individual. But so are many other revered leaders, including other presidents. And when we knew about their flaws or suspected as much, we didn’t make that a cause celebre — not because we condoned whatever flaw they might possess, but because we realize that none of us are superhuman.

We are all flawed. “Let him without sin cast the first stone” is no more a cliche today than it was almost 2,000 years ago.

This democracy would not exist if only the perfect among us were allowed to contribute.

There are many of us in politics and many in the media who carry on and opine as if we and they are perfect.

We’re not.

Maybe we’re seeking an impossible duality. We demand, as we should, that our elected leaders be held to the highest standard. And then we shine the brightest light imaginable to expose those who don’t measure up.

But, of course, no one can meet that standard, particularly under the blinding bright glare of  21st century light.

There is a fundamental question our society must address — how do we keep our standards high but at the same time accept, as the Founding Fathers did, that our leaders are only human.

Related to this is a second underlying cause that has allowed this small group of zealots to almost undo the President.

It seems we have lost the ability to forcefully advocate for our position without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our adversaries — often over matters having nothing to do with the public trust. And it is hurting the country; it is marginalizing and polarizing the Congress.

In today’s environment, it would be easy, but wrong, to lay the blame for this predicament simply on a narrow band of zealots out to destroy this President.

It would be easy, but wrong, to say that the only reason the President survived this scandal is a strong economy.

What began with Watergate as a solemn and necessary process to force a President to adhere to the rule of law, has grown beyond our control so that now we are routinely using criminal accusations and scandal to win the political battles and ideological differences we cannot settle at the ballot box.

Both parties are to blame.

In conclusion, we have all been shaken by these last six months, but there are two glowing beacons of optimism — two strong oaks that still stand mightily.

The first is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Every year I live, and every year I serve I am ever increasingly amazed at their wisdom and genius.

They didn’t know there would be political parties, but a simple mathematical fraction — two-thirds — a two-thirds majority in the “cooling saucer of the Senate” meant that removal of a President from office would have to involve more than the whims of a narrow band of politicians.

We walked up to the abyss and it was simply the elegant mathematics of the Founding Fathers that kept us from going over.

They have pulled America back from the brink of future chaos that might occur if we remove this President. God bless the Founding Fathers.

The second oak is the American people. They are not necessarily as informed as we are on the intricate particularities of this case. They didn’t follow every twist and turn.

But they know that any President’s wrongdoing reflects human frailty rather than malevolence or any abuse of power or duty. They know from their common sense wisdom that this does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal either as defined by the Constitution or as defined by their common sense of justice, fairness, and right and wrong. They know that if they were in the President’s shoes, they aren’t sure how they would react.

Many of my colleagues excoriate any mention of the polls. But my colleagues on this side of the aisle have cited the polls not as politicians putting their fingers in the wind, but as a measure of what the American people feel.

In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, that is a legitimate consideration in deciding whether a President should be removed. And for six months, the American people in every segment of the country have been unwavering in their view that the President should not be removed.

They remain unshakable in their belief that the Congress, the Courts, and the press had gone too far. They are the only, truly rational actor in the whole drama. God bless them.

The people and the founders are the twin oaks that stand tall amidst this sad episode of American history. But if the cycle of political recrimination and scandalizing continues, the American people will become more alienated and cynical and shaken by the political process and they, too, will lose faith in the great instrument the Founding Fathers have given us.

If it gets to the point where the American people become too cynical we could lose it all.

After this is over let’s end the recriminations. Let’s not blame each other. Let’s instead think about what brought us to this point.

Let us shake hands and say we are now going to forego bringing down people for political gain. Let us understand that our leaders have foibles, and though we must be held to a higher standard, let us not make it a sport to expose those weaknesses.

The American people have saved us from ourselves. Let’s not ask them to do it too many more times.”

The letter was written in 1999 by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer regarding the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton!

Amazing similarities to that trial and this one, right? Very different attitudes though!


Senate Impeachment Trial: Day Two

After a wild and lengthy day, Day One of the Trump Senate Impeachment trial is in the books for historians to expand and interpret for future generations of Americans to see, hear, and read. That what we are experiencing has only happened two previous times in 270 years is incredible. That alone should give all Americans pause when considering the seriousness of any presidential impeachment process.

Yes, Day One was partisan. Yes, it was full of allegations, many of which were outrageous in light of their lack of evidentiary foundation. But the fact that THIS group of House Managers is led by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explains to us all how and why such outlandish accusations were made.

Day One was a day to “simply” set the process with which the Senate will use for this impeachment trial. The word “simply” is in quotation marks simply because there was nothing simple in the day’s trial activities. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at the beginning of the day introduced a resolution for the impeachment process. Thirteen hours later, after all of the accusations, vitriolic tantrums, and cries of  “Lies, Lies, Lies!” by Rep. Nadler, the Resolution was brought to a vote by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It passed down partisan lines, 53-47.

Before we look at Day Two’s trial bullet points, I want to make sure all TNN partners understand what the most contentious topic in Day One involved: refusal to appear before Schiff’s House committee by members of the Trump Administration. Several of those Administration members were issued subpoenas by the House Judiciary Committee for their testimonies but declined to appear. This so roiled Democrats that one of their two Articles of Impeachment, “Obstruction of Congress,” was because of the refusal of those people to appear before Congress.

What does the law say about such refusals to honor a Congressional subpoena? Are there court decisions based on such instances, and, if so, what were their outcomes?

Let’s look quickly at this before we get to Bullet Points:

The Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, saying in order to write laws, it also needs to be able to investigate. If lawmakers want to punish someone who ignores a congressional subpoena, they typically first hold the offender “in contempt of Congress.” The contempt process can start in either the House or the Senate. Unlike with legislation, it only takes one of the chambers to make and enforce a contempt citation.

How is a contempt finding enforced?

The Supreme Court said in 1821 that Congress has “inherent authority” to arrest and detain witnesses who defy hearing subpoenas. In 1927, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal. It has been almost a century since Congress exercised this arrest-and-detain authority, and the practice is unlikely to make a comeback.

Alternatively, Congress can ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor, to bring criminal charges against a witness who refuses to appear. There is a criminal law that prohibits explicitly flouting a congressional subpoena. But this option is also unlikely to be pursued, at least when it comes to subpoenas against executive branch officials, given that federal prosecutors are part of the branch’s Justice Department.

The most recent example of this appeal to the D.C. Court occurred when Obama Attorney General Eric Holder defied Congressional subpoenas for records from the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme the Obama Department of Justice instigated at the southern border. Holder defied the Congressional “Contempt of Congress” finding. Congress asked the D.C. Federal Prosecutor — an Obama appointee — to make a case in federal court against Holder. The prosecutor declined to prosecute.

Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required. Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a “contempt of court” finding, enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment.

That explanation of non-compliance with a Congressional subpoena is vital for you to understand. Why? Because Democrat House Managers on Day One used most of their time in the 13-hour hearing to harp on their need for the Senate to enforce House subpoenas that were denied by Trump Administration folks. These demands are ludicrous. Why? Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have previously refused to involve their courts in such cases because the litigants did not exhaust all legal remedies provided under the Law FIRST.

House Democrats never took any legal actions detailed above to enforce their subpoenas. Instead, they rushed their impeachment case to the Senate, hoping the Senate would do the job of the House. And the Senate so far has denied their requests.

Now to Bullet Points.

Day Two Impeachment Bullet Points

  • Opening arguments began in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., telling senators they need to remove Trump from office because he’s shown he’s ready and willing to cheat in the 2020 election.
  • Schiff picked up where left off on Tuesday with constant baseless jabs at the President with remarks like these: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box because we cannot be assured the vote will be fairly won,” Schiff told the Senate. He called Trump’s efforts to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into his political rival “a gross abuse of power” that requires the Senate to act.
  • It is probable that President Trump’s legal team won’t begin his defense until Saturday. Both the House Managers and Trump’s legal team have 24 hours (over three days) to present their cases.
  • Schiff gave an overview of the House Managers’ impeachment case against the President, saying once again that the House case “paints an overwhelming and damning picture of the President’s efforts to use the powers of his office to corruptly solicit foreign help in his re-election campaign and withhold official acts and military aid to compel that support.”
  • Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), followed Schiff, and they took their case one step deeper. They alleged Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is responsible for a  smear campaign against then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. According to Nadler and Garcia, Yovanovitch was thought to be a roadblock to Giuliani’s plan to try to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
  • There was an odd twist in the Democrats’ discussion about their case for impeachment when  Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) presented a tweet from President Trump who tweeted from Air Force One Wednesday while returning to Washington from Davos, Switzerland. Here’s the President’s tweet: “I thought our team did an excellent job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Here’s Demings’ interpretation of that tweet: “Trump’s tweet proves the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.” She described the charge as “covering up witnesses and documents from the American people.” Demings added, “This morning, the President not only confessed to it, but he also bragged about it.”
  • “Witness trading” was suggested as a way to allow witnesses to testify in the Senate trial. “Witness trading” is a process where Democrats would choose a witness they want to testify, and Republicans would then get one witness of their choosing to testify. That hit a roadblock. Schiff shot down speculation that would be allowed even if Republicans agreed. “This isn’t like some fantasy football trade,” Schiff said. “Trials aren’t trades for witnesses.”
  • Nothing new in the way of evidence was presented by House Manager. Rep. Schiff once again doubled-down on their constant claim: “Over the coming days, you will hear remarkably consistent evidence of President Trump’s corrupt scheme and coverup,” Mr. Schiff (D., Calif.) said, standing at a lectern on the Senate floor. “There is no serious dispute about the facts underlying the president’s conduct.”


Just imagine how difficult it was for Republicans to sit on their hands during nine hours of the SOS. (Same Old Stuff) Senate rules prevented any replies, responses, or outbursts from the President’s legal team members. In several post-trial session interviews, several GOP leaders confirmed once again that the House Managers in presenting their case for impeachment on Day Two did nothing more than repeat all of their rhetorical allegations from Day One, adding nothing more than the assumption of the “true” meaning of President Trump’s Davos-to-D.C. Air Force One tweet.

To put a period on Day Two, one can say the most apparent two things revealed by House Managers is that 1) they have NO evidence to support either of the two articles of impeachment, and 2) they are desperate for evidence though they have declared numerous times in testimony that “we have iron-clad evidence of the President’s impeachable wrongdoing.” Their desperation explains their rabid and constant pleas for Senators to allow witnesses to be called to testify in the Senate Chamber. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

My conclusion? I’ll sum it up with this trip down Memory Lane with you. The day after President Trump’s inauguration I predicted three things were certain to happen during his presidency: Democrats WOULD impeach the President before the end of his first term in office, 2) the Senate would summarily reject the House Managers’ case against the President and not remove him from office, and 3) President Trump will not only win the 2020 election, but the GOP will hold the Senate, retake control of the House while increasing their majority status in the Senate.

I’m one-for-three so far. I hope for all Americans before mid-November this year I’m three-for-three!

NOTE: Please let us know your thoughts on our upcoming live daily broadcast of TNN, Monday through Friday, 9-11 AM Central. Please give us a quick toll-free call at 1-866-378-7884. That’s 1-866-37-TRUTH. No need for your name or other info. Just leave us a quick voicemail: “I like the idea,” “I probably won’t participate,” or even “Heck no, don’t do it!” Our target to begin will be in mid-February if we go to that live two-hour daily show. It’ll be a normal talk-show broadcast live with audience phone calls from our toll-free number. Thanks!

Soleimani: An American Hero!

Wait: Qasem Soleimani was an American hero? Do I believe that? I don’t. But it’s apparent that many do. He’s been labeled many things since he was taken off the Earth by that U.S. drone-fired missile. And one of those is “Hero.” How egregious is that!

The Hero

Soleimani was an Iranian Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and, from 1998 until his death, commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.

Soleimani began his military career at the start of the Iran–Iraq War during the 1980s, eventually commanding the 41st Division. He was later involved in extraterritorial operations in providing military assistance to Hezbollah in Lebanon. In 2012, Soleimani helped bolster the government of Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally, during Iran’s operations in the Syrian Civil War and helped to plan the Russian military intervention in Syria. Soleimani oversaw the Kurdish and Shia militia forces in Iraq and assisted the Iraqi forces that advanced against ISIL in 2014–2015. Soleimani was one of the first to support Kurdish forces, providing them with arms. He maintained a low profile during most of his career.

Soleimani was widely popular among Iranians, where his supporters viewed him as a “selfless hero fighting Iran’s enemies.” Solemaini was personally sanctioned by the United Nations and the European Union and was designated as a terrorist by the United States. (President Barack Obama)

This “great man” is known to have personally (or by others under his command) killed more than 600 Americans. Additionally, he led forces that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners and personally directed terrorist activities of Hezbollah and Hamas. Additionally, he is believed to have been directly or indirectly responsible for the development and implementation of the IED.

This armored vehicle was hit by an IED in Iraq

An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. It may be composed of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery shell, attached to a detonating mechanism. IEDs are commonly used as roadside bombs.


Today, there are hundreds of U.S. military families who are missing a loved one who was killed by a Soleimani IED. Thousands more survived IED attacks but today are handicapped for life, some in horrendous ways, primarily with the loss of limbs and even eyes.

Yep. To many, even in the U.S., Soleimani is a hero in spite of this horrendous record.

Soleimani’s American “Posse”

You can imagine who they are: the Leftist media. And they make no apologies for their support of this former human butcher:

Washington Post: “Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani.”

CNN: “Imagine the French Foreign Legion, at the height of the French empire. This guy is regarded in Iran as a completely heroic figure.”

“I was trying to think of somebody, and I was thinking of [Charles] de Gaulle.”

“He is regarded as personally incredibly brave. The troops love him.”

CBS: “Military genius … inspirational.”

New Yorker: “a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows.”

New York Times: “Many saw him as a larger-than-life hero, particularly within security circles. Anecdotes about his asceticism and quiet charisma joined to create an image of a warrior-philosopher who became the backbone of a nation’s defense against a host of enemies.”

CNN’s John Berman: “Trump’s killing of Qasem Soleimani was a murder.”

Uh-Oh: Another Trump Mistake

The Hollywood Left and the Washington Left have made it clear: Donald Trump stepped over the line by instigating the killing of Iran’s highest-ranked general. Of course, the consensus of all of those anti-Trumpsters is that the President is too stupid, too narcissistic, to self-centered to have thought through potential consequences before pulling the trigger.

What do the American Leftists say?


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a letter sent to House Democrats on Jan. 5 said, “The Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials. This action endangered our service members, diplomats, and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) admitted Soleimani was plotting against American interests. Still, he said, “The question is, did the plotting here rise to the level that required his elimination from the battlefield?” 

Among Democratic presidential candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement after Soleimani’s death, “No American will mourn Qassem Soleimani’s passing. He deserved to face justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region.” “This is a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region,” Biden said, adding that President Trump “just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.” 

Another White House runner Bernie Sanders said, “Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of more dollars.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the Trump administration’s decision to kill Soleimani was a “reckless move” that “escalates the situation with Iran.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he worried that “the actions the president took will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East. He promised we wouldn’t have that.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) tweeted Friday: “We are outraged the president would assassinate a foreign official, possibly setting off another war without Congressional authorization and has zero plan to deal with the consequences.”

Other “Famous” Leftists

“There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism,” lamented the professionally and permanently offended Nike spokesman Colin Kaepernick on social media following the U.S. military’s killing of Iran’s top military leader Qasem Soleimani. Kaepernick later added, “America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad.”

CNN complained that the “air strike feels like [an] attempt to create a distraction from impeachment and build support for Trump.” Furthermore, CNN has embraced Iran in spinning the flawed narrative that Trump’s decision has now endangered Americans.

It has even been so controversial, USA TODAY initiated their crackerjack polling entity Ipsos to poll to find out what ALL American citizens feel about the attack on Soleimani. Here’s what their poll said:

  • Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead.
  • A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called President Donald Trump’s behavior with Iran “reckless.”
  • Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport last week that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn’t know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.
  • There was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war (62%).

I don’t want to be considered a hater, but polls are just that and no more: just someone’s opinion. Of course, Ipsos did not provide any information about the poll’s structure, who and what determined with whom they spoke, in-person or via cell or landline, demographics, time of day, etc. You can bet that in such a short time, this polling data is unscientific. And even if it IS scientific, the typical political poll includes no more than 1000 people. Don’t be lulled into believing that a capsule of 1000 American’s opinions can offer a fair determination of 330 million people! But even if it did, what’s done is done. And Americans will sustain any repercussions.


I don’t want to be viewed as a partisan: I am NOT Republican or Democrat. I’m a conservative American. My opinion is just that: my thoughts on any subjects I consider. Yours should be the same.

That said, my opinion of what is being illustrated by this Qasem Soleimani madness is the total disdain by the Left for Donald Trump. Example: The House of Representatives last evening passed a ceremonial “rebuke” of Donald Trump for taking action to terminate Soleimani without discussing it with Congress. They maintained — and rightly so — constitutionally, Congress holds the sole power to declare war. Their rebuke demanded that, in the future, Donald Trump and every subsequent president must come to Congress to get permission to take any military action. That House motion is unenforceable. Know why? Because there’s legal authorization for presidents to take such action without Congressional approval.

Congress has periodically given the President the power to engage in what amounts to war by passing such “statutory authorizations.” The one currently in effect is the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) passed by Congress in response to the 9/11 attack. The argument for the AUMF is that Congress is slow and deliberative, and it is frequently the case that military intervention needs to be immediate. To say that “Congress is slow and deliberative” is a gross understatement!

Let’s just be realistic: this U.S. Congress that has done less legislatively, taken more time off, had less debate on issues, and has fought in purely partisan fashion than any previous Congress. And they wasted precious time in governing — OUR precious time they are paid handsomely for — to debate, discuss and then pass a meaningless and ridiculous reprimand of this President for doing exactly what Barack Obama did again and again. Obama gave the orders to launch hundreds of drone attacks that killed handpicked targets in the Middle East — none of which was approved by Congress.

The AUMF gives the president a great deal of latitude in responding potential threats to the US, (particularly about governments and organizations which might be related to terrorism), and was mainly what legally allowed the President to invade Iraq and what would enable the president to fire on Iran in response to the Iranian attack if he were to choose to do so in response to some Iranian attack on Americans.

Using military intelligence provided by the President’s National Security team, killing Soleimani was part of a list those experts gave to Mr. Trump as options for retaliation for Iran’s killing of an American contractor. President Trump authorized that strike based on his authority in the AUMF.

His critics immediately cried “foul!” for his doing so without Congressional authorization. But, more importantly, they scream that he didn’t even notify Congress of the strike. They feel, of course, that, at least as a courtesy, he should have done so. I, for one, can think of several hundred reasons why NOT to notify Congress before such a strike: thousands of people would know because of Congressional leaks! And some of those notifications by members of Congress would have certainly made their way to Iran.

By the way, no matter what you are told, Barack Obama did NOT notify Congress before the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He had informed them earlier that the U.S. was diligently working to find bin Laden. But none were notified in advance of the Pakistan raid.

Here’s what this all illustrates: there is a Deep State. That Deep State is comprised of a (now) large group of bureaucrats who have amassed over the years enough power to control the inner-workings of the U.S. government. That group has been untouchable for decades. They, in total, are petrified to have Donald Trump in the White House.

Their goal is similar to that of Hitler and other groups of historical totalitarians and dictators that took control of nations throughout history: “gain control of the people by making them feel comfortable that we provide everything they need and know what’s best for them.”

That may sound conspiracy-centered. If it does, so-be-it.

You may attack me, label me, laugh at me, and tell everyone I’m nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. That’s OK, though. Why? Because, at the end of the day, I can peacefully and quietly spend that night going to sleep with no worries about any tyrannical government despots coming after my family and me. Yes, I believe there certainly are those who fully intend to (and are prepared to do that), but the great awakening to the truth of all this and more have begun to unite a monstrous glob of Americans that are so blended they look like just one monster.

This ploy of the Deep State almost succeeded. We were a sleeping nation that was content with the “good life.” We are awake now. And we know about the plans and wishes of the Deep State. Thankfully we are too many to fail.

Be diligent, and stay awake!

It’s Bad in U.S. Government — Really Bad

Now Congressional Democrats have two “hot potatoes” on their plate: impeachment and Middle East security. They all agree on one thing: Donald Trump is not qualified to handle anything at all!

In Wednesday’s House Democrats press conference following their caucus meeting, several tried to make reporters in the room comfortable that Democrats have all the answers for both impeachment and Iran issues. Those reporters, as often happens, lobbed softballs at whoever stood at the podium. The questions asked centered on two things: if and when will the Speaker transmit the two articles of impeachment to the Senate and under what conditions; and what are the next steps in place for Congress to take to guarantee Americans the Middle East is not going to erupt into a world war. The Democrat Representatives in the room were consistent about only one thing: they hate Donald Trump and they alone — Democrats — have the know-how to operate our government effectively. That requires the removal of Donald Trump. If Trump is gone, there’d be no Middle East problem and there’d be nothing else wrong in America. Everything wrong is because he made everything wrong!

What’s wrong in D.C. can be put in entirety at the feet of a feckless U.S. Congress!

For more than 200 years, Congress operated exactly the country’s founders envisioned — finding acceptable compromises on the biggest issues of the day while holding its authority to declare war, spend taxpayer money and keep the presidency in check. Today, that model is dead.

It has been replaced by a weakened legislative branch in which debate is strictly eliminated or barely allowed, party leaders dictate the agenda of Congress, most elected representatives rarely get a say and government shutdowns are a regular threat due to constant failures to agree on budgets.

These changes have happened pretty quickly in comparison with other government transformations in U.S. history. The changes picked up quickly with the politics that came in the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Add to that the tea party movement that happened shortly after that election. With these two D.C. blockbusters, extreme partisanship in Congress has become a virus. The political center is gone: no moderate Democrats (or at least a sufficient number to impact governing), no moderate Republicans. Party leaders stick a licked-finger in the air daily to know how to respond to the demands of their bases, while historical methods in legislation that worked so well at finding consensus on pretty much everything for a couple of centuries are gone!

Very little of this has been covered in the news. But that doesn’t change the fact that this has happened and that Americans are living through the consequences of it all — many without any understanding of why it has happened. Subsequently, Congress has become a toothless entity that is not trusted for the most part by members of the Judicial and Executive branches of government. And the American people do nothing but shake their heads at the daily ineptness of the most powerful legislative body on Earth — or it was formerly. One poll today shows that only 17% of Americans polled approve of this U.S. Congress.


Congress rarely debates anything anymore!

When asked before the 2018 elections what were the most important issues to Americans they were Immigration, Healthcare, and the Economy. Forty years ago, Congress spent much time debating issues of the day. Americans would love to know that this Congress at least attempted in a serious way to at least address the three issues most important to Americans: Immigration, Healthcare, and the Economy. What has been accomplished on any of these issues since the 2016 election? What has been attempted by Congress since the 2016 election?

Immigration — a major flashpoint in recent elections — has been formally debated only a few days in Congress over the past five years with no resolution. President Trump put an offer on the table that gave DACA recipients a direct path to citizenship — which was a continual demand by Democrats for any immigration deal — and Democrats rejected it. There have been no legislative attempts for immigration reform since.

Healthcare has been ignored by Congress except for the occasional press conferences and speeches by members of Congress griping about the executive order changes implemented by the President. Once again, there have been no meaningful attempts to debate or even discuss realistic changes in Healthcare.

The economy and economic issues have been virtually ignored except for the horrific spending put in place with the recently passed budget bill. That happened at the last moment to simply avoid another government shutdown: no serious discussion, little if any debate, and no members of Congress during their significant number of trips to their respective districts holding town hall meetings to roll out to the public the budget items.

A number of members of Congress — both the House and the Senate — have pulled up stakes and headed back to life before Congress. There are various reasons for their doing so. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) left because he felt Congress was not going to change. “That’s why I left. You couldn’t do anything anymore,” said Tom Coburn, the former Oklahoma Republican senator who resigned in 2014. And a host of others are headed for the door.

The Process of Congressional Dysfunction

The election of Obama set off partisan moves and then countermoves, that drove Congress and its legislative processes into ideological corners — followed by the election of Trump and a reverse set of moves. None of these moves “just happened” — they were carefully planned and conducted. Whoever one wants to blame for the dysfunction, it certainly is alive. And its cost to Americans is monumental. The problem is NOT just a Democrat problem and it is NOT just a Republican problem. It’s an American problem.

In an attempt to discover how and why this process has sprung to life, a recent study gave some answers:

  • Junior senators have fewer opportunities to wade into the issues of the day, largely because Senate leaders limit the number of votes on amendments to proposed legislation. The number of such votes has shrunk to an all-time low under McConnell, less than 20 percent of all roll calls, down from 67 percent 12 years ago.

  • Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), set a record in his two years of leadership for the number of “closed rules.” That is the process in which leaders simply prevent any members from offering up amendments for pending legislation. Obviously that discourages the newer members of Congress from their involvement for they have little or no standing in the power chain.

  • Committees meet to consider legislation less than ever. As recently as 2005 and 2006, House committees met 449 times to consider actual legislation, and Senate committees met 252 times; by 2015 and 2016, those numbers plummeted to 254 and 69 times, respectively.

  • Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee have certainly always drawn significant attention as they should. The recent circus in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to consider the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS illustrates just how caustic and partisan today U.S. Senate has become. Why is that? Sen. Ben Sasse (R-KS) gave his opinion of the reason for the always-heated and partisan process: “Who sits on that Court has always been critical, but is more so today than ever before. Why? Because of the inaction of Congress. Because of Congressional lack of legislative efforts to make certain passed legislation is adequate, complete, and legal in its contents, Presidents more often than ever are forced to action. Presidents fill the void when Congress cannot act, leading to lawsuits and leaving the courts to resolve disputes.” Sasse continued: “More and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. The legislature is weak.”


So what is “the” problem for this devolving of the U.S. Congress? What needs to be done to fix it? What can be done?

Roll Call senior editor David Hawkings just before the 2018 midterm elections addressed the above problems in Congress with what he calls the “Five M’s.” Take four minutes and watch or listen to Mr. Hawkings’ ideas. I think that if we want to get things straight in Congress we can only spend so long on griping about what needs to be straightened. It makes better sense to find out what’s wrong and FIX IT!

Let’s spread this around. Let’s get something done!


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.



Impeachment “Schiff-Shizzle”

I receive multiple phone calls each day (and love receiving them) from friends and associates to get my opinion of the day’s Impeachment “Schiff-Shizzle,” otherwise known as the “Impeachment Inquiry.” Yesterday (Thursday) was no different. I’m sure you probably shook your head trying to ferret out the truth from the news stories you heard about yesterday’s hearing and applicable testimony. Depending on which network or networks to which you listened or watched, you could possibly be convinced the President is done or convinced that Congress will propose a bill to extend his presidency for ten more years!

In other words, this “inquiry” as it has been termed has resulted each day in one absolute and final conclusion by all: “Inconclusive!”

Of course, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS news reports confirm that he’s done. FOX — who stands alone as the conservative network regarding political reports — is not so certain the President will be impeached.

We’ll keep this conversation brief today. Why? Because there was nothing new yesterday! I doubt anyone’s mind was changed who looked into the hearings. One thing is certain: this nation is more polarized than it has been along political lines during my lifetime.

I will remind all here, any President can be impeached for jaywalking in downtown D.C. Impeachment is NOT regulated by the Rule of Law. Criminal and civil law procedures are NOT necessary elements in impeachment. And the “Schiff-Shizzle” certainly has no restrictions for any production of evidence, factual testimony, and certainly no fairness in the process of testimony. But one thing IS certain and IS required, not by court rules but by the U.S. Constitution: a president can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To that end, one would think these hearings would ALL center around the investigation and discovery of these types of wrongdoing by President Trump. Have they?

I’ll answer that question myself. Through approximately 100 hours of House Oversight Committee face-to-face hearings, testimony and cross-examination, and through 3.5 years of unlimited investigation by Robert Mueller and several dozen attorneys who had unrestricted access to whatever evidence through documents and/or testimony, I’ve not heard of any evidence of President Trump being factually guilty of any of those Constitutional required elements of impeachment.

In closing to illustrate how ludicrous the “Schiff-Shizzle” has been in this regard, take a peek at this short segment of testimony and questions with answers:

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) followed the Constitution in her questioning and Ambassador Volker and Mr. Kennedy of the State Department answered the only questions applicable to an Impeachment Inquiry: no Treason, no Bribery, no High Crimes or Misdemeanors, no Quid Pro Quo.

Why do they even continue?

A Myth Called “Bi-Partisanship”

Let’s face facts: the words “Bi-Partisanship” is an oxymoron when it references politics in Washington. Bi-Partisanship requires two or more people to work on any one project or issue together to reach a consensus or agreed-to result. Nothing in that resembles today’s Washington D.C. Congress.

Honestly, we could spend all day every day chronicling the disparities in the legislative methodology used today compared to just a few years ago in Congress. It may have existed for some time, but the first I remember an eternal rift between parties was when former President Obama made this statement: “Elections have consequences.” He was referencing many who complained about the unwillingness of members of both parties to work together. But Obama in saying that was highlighting the fact that Democrats won a second term in the White House and control — albeit temporary power — of Congress. To Obama, that meant his political opponents needed to follow his lead on all matters of government as long as Democrats were in control.

Where had Bi-Partisanship gone?

I cannot answer that. Indeed, the unwillingness for Congress to reach across aisles for the common good of the nation is not a single party issue. But it has reached outlandish heights in unified efforts on the part of those on the Left to resist anything and everything put forward by President Trump. I will not bore you with a list of examples. We all see them as they happen. And they happen so often we have grown numb to them. It’s as if we yawn when they occur and think, “It’s just another day in D.C.!” That’s sad.

The Sheriff in Town

Almost without question, you know who the “Sheriff in Town” references: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He’s the boss! Formerly that role belonged to the Speaker of the House. And everyone in Congress stayed inline or drew the ire of the Speaker. Nancy Pelosi was and still should be the Sheriff in Congress. But her position was compromised immediately following the 2018 midterm elections. With the House additions of members of “The Squad,” Pelosi found herself in a difficult situation. Her power was threatened. Those freshman House members challenged her authority and threatened a mutiny to keep her from assuming the role of Speaker in the new Congress. So the Sheriff became “The Squad” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). They took control of the House of Representatives putting Pelosi on defense. And it has been that way since.

How powerful are the members of “The Squad?” We’re currently in the midst of the demonstration their power: Impeachment. The four immediately after assuming office began a unified cry for the House of Representatives to impeach the President. None could venture a guess as to an impeachable offense with evidence, but their insistence began to infect other members of Congress. The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates each joined the impeachment cause. Before long, House Speaker Pelosi found herself the target of threats by “The Squad” to dump her as Speaker if she did not bow to their demands.

Pelosi and other House leaders created the myth of this “Impeachment Inquiry.” It has no teeth at and is nothing but a sham investigative operation to find dirt on Mr. Trump that Dems hope will lead to articles of impeachment. In other words, this Inquiry is the Mueller Investigation Part II. And so far, it’s effect on finding any Trump wrongdoing is only is as useful as was the Mueller Investigation.

Pelosi quickly discovered that her appointed Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — Jerold Nadler (D-NY) — had about as much hope at putting together a successful path to impeachment process as do I. She dumped him! She then passed the mantle to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Without getting wordy, Schiff is the evilest member of Congress in my memory. And my memory is relatively lengthy because it’s 66 years long.

Schiff rewrote the Congressional impeachment process. He made it his own; he made it unconstitutional; made it partisan; and he made himself chief prosecutor, judge, and jury in its proceedings. And in “his” process, he has ignored the Rule of Law.

His objective is simple: find a way to put President Trump on trial in before the Nation and drive him from office. It makes no difference to Schiff there is no evidence through three years of nonstop investigation into the Trump organization that justifies impeachment. Schiff created a new way to handle this entire thing: impeach the President for emotional and psychological wrongdoing.

I know it sounds crazy — and it is. But this process we see unfolding day by day, chapter by chapter, has no historical reference. Nothing like it existed in the three previous presidential impeachment processes. Schiff immediately ditched the idea of “precedent” in pursuing impeachment. He created a new path for unseating a duly elected President: “Do as I say and forget about everything else.” And his objective remains front and center every day. And he has made the process all his, all about him, and all to unseat Donald Trump.

The Charlatan

What is a “charlatan?” I struggle even to spell the word. But Mr. Schiff rolled it out over the weekend in a speech he made to the California Democrat Party. Let’s set the stage.

Schiff had just completed two days of public hearings by his committee in the Impeachment Inquiry. The three witnesses that appeared brought NO facts to the table about any wrongdoing on the part of the President. All three made comments that were negative about Mr. Trump, but each comment was purely an opinion that had no evidentiary basis.

Schiff — who has now made himself a rock star — then jumped on a plane for California to give a speech that was nothing more than a version of a “Schiff victory lap.“ Schiff feels as if his committee was victorious and was successful in showing the public just how evil is Mr. Trump. And Schiff told Californians exactly what his objective in this Impeachment Inquiry is.

Adam Schiff branded Donald Trump a ‘charlatan’ in that fiery speech delivered to California Democrats.  The House Intelligence Committee Chairman, who has been tasked with overseeing the impeachment inquiry into the President, received a rousing round of applause as he unleashed the insults at the 2019 Fall Endorsing Convention in Long Beach on Saturday.

“Schiff, who was introduced at the event as ‘Our Protector’, stated: ‘Two years ago I stood before you and I urged you to resist and you did, but we are more than a resistance now – we are a majority!’ He added: ‘We are a majority in one house, and we will become a majority in the other, and we will send that charlatan [Trump] in the White House back to the golden throne he came from!'”

Put that in perspective: Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee. His role is to manage the operations of that committee. In that role, he has now rewritten the guidelines so that he determines each process of the committee. He controls witnesses, whether or not they can testify publicly, what they can and cannot say in their testimonies, who can or cannot question the witnesses, whether or not anyone on the committee can present evidence, ask specific questions of the witnesses, and what topics in each hearing are allowed and are not allowed. In other words, Schiff is lording over a Soviet-style process designed to allow the “ruler” (or Chairman) to control every part of the hearing. And there are no judges, prosecutors, or controlling entities to which anyone can appeal to challenge Schiff on any part of the process. Adam Schiff has become “Vladimir Schiff” with the same power as the Russian President. That’s ironic, isn’t it?

Schiff is The Wizard of Oz!


We’ll end with this example of the “Schiff-Schizzle” Lunacy.

One of the prize Schiff witnesses who we were told had blockbuster evidence that proved Donald Trump was guilty of extortion of Ukraine and obstruction of justice was former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. She was an Obama Administration holdover. Shortly after Ukraine’s election in 2018 of a new President, Trump fired Ambassador Yovanovitch. Schiff feels certain that Trump’s doing so was an effort to interfere in Ukraine to impact the 2020 presidential election in his favor — but there is NO evidence of that. We all know about the Biden corruption investigation by the former Ukraine prosecutor that was stopped by then V.P. Biden who threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if that prosecutor was not fired.

Schiff planned to use the firing of Yovanovitch as proof that Trump obstructed. Her testimony would undoubtedly prove that. And her firing (according to Schiff) was unprecedented.

But a problem with that popped up. Former President Barack Obama fired all ambassadors appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, the Washington Post previously reported.

Yovanovitch testified that the Trump administration, including the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “kneecapped” her. She said that she was not supported by State Department leaders after being recalled in May.

“Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees,” WaPo’s 2008 article about Obama’s decision to fire all political ambassadors reads.

Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. Newly-elected presidents typically re-vamp the positions with their own choices once taking office. Yovanovitch was allowed to stay on for three years after Trump took office, but has testified that senior officials “declined to acknowledge” the “smear campaign” against her leading up to her firing, Politico reported.

A 2017 Snopes fact check also noted that Trump firing appointed ambassadors was not an unprecedented move and certainly not an obstruction of justice. Doing so is part of being head of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.

The resignation and replacement of ambassadors at the end of an administration is routine,” the fact check reads, adding that some presidents have fired everyone at once while others decide on a case-by-case basis.

Democrats said during Friday’s public testimony that they were angry at Yovanovitch’s sudden dismissal, despite Obama doing the same thing when he became president in 2008.

Have you had enough? Take another deep breath: Schiff has only just begun!

Remember last week when we predicted that Pelosi would pull the plug on this impeachment inquiry boondoggle during the weekend? I stated that if she did not, I’d be here today to eat crow and to say that I was wrong. Here’s what I WILL do: I’ll say that I was wrong on the timing. As of this writing, Pelosi has taken no such action. However, her terminating the ”Schiff Schizzle” is inevitable! Why? There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing by President Trump that rises to the level of impeachment.

If Pelosi allows this to continue, “The Squad” will be her least significant issue in the Democrat House of Representatives. There will be a certain wholesale firestorm during the 2020 election as Americans send Democrat members of the House and even the Senate packing in the wake of this impeachment charade.

Stay tuned: we are certain Pelosi’s intervention of this inquiry is imminent!


The House is REALLY Busy

Busy how? They’re certainly not working on Climate Change. Nor are they helping out those Dreamers who are stuck in no-man’s-land regarding their immigration status. Remember: President Trump offered them a path to citizenship a year ago and Democrats turned his offer down. Not working on our serious military funding bill nor on the New Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal. They’re busy with other stuff, the least of which are normal legislative items many of which are critical.

And, according to Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, they’ve been very productive during this legislative session:
Two hundred+ pieces of legislation passed by House Democrats in this Congress this year. Wow! They certainly have been busy. But now, they’ve hit a brick wall: this wicked man in the White House has forced Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts in the House to stop everything and pursue measures to kick him out of office. Any additional legislation by this House of Representatives will have to wait. After all, there is no place for criminals in Washington D.C. — especially not a sitting U.S. President. Mr. Trump has got to go!

It certainly comes as no surprise that House Democrat leaders like Nadler have gone nuts, placing the blame for the legislative logjam in 2019 firmly at the feet of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who controls each and every piece of legislation that is to be taken up by the Senate for discussion on the floor and possible votes for their passage. And now in the last sixty days of the year and with the pending impeachment proceedings against President Trump in the House that are certain to dominate all things in Congress through the end of the year, it is almost certain nothing else will be accomplished on Capitol Hill.

Don’t let any of this cloud your minds regarding the truth of what’s going on. The House Democrats hold a dominant majority and have quickly pushed through dozens and dozens of almost totally partisan bills just to wage a public relations war against Mr. Trump and Congressional Republicans. If one listens to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat members of House and Senate leadership, Republicans have spent the last year on the golf course, junkets in the Caribbean, and taxpayer-funded trips across the U.S. No, that is what Democrats have been doing rather than meeting with and negotiating meaningful legislation desperately needed by and wanted by Americans. Democrats instead are playing political parlor games refusing to consider any legislation that would make President Trump look better than he already does.

The critical trilateral trade deal between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada is such an example — the “USMCA.” It’s a win, win, win for the three already close trading partners.

American business leaders directly involved in the USMCA sent this to Congressional leadership: “We write to you to urge passage of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement as soon as possible this autumn. . . . North America is the most significant trade market for the United States globally, with Canada and Mexico purchasing one-fifth of the total value of U.S. manufacturing output. Canada and Mexico alone, despite representing less than 4 percent of the global economy, buy more U.S.-manufactured goods than our next 11 trading partners combined.“

If passed, USMCA will create 176,000 jobs and will add $68.2 billion to the U.S. economy, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Where does Speaker Pelosi weigh-in on House completion of the USMCA?

You follow all that, don’t you? “We’ve gotta have enforcement,” she parroted again and again. But isn’t enforcement a key element that Congress includes in ALL trade deals? That’s THE fundamental foundation for any agreement! What  Nancy is saying without spelling it out is “I’m not going to bring to the floor any bill that would possibly make Donald Trump look good. He’s devastated my caucus with great economic legislation and executive action that continue to embarrass us. We’re done with letting that happen. And we don’t care what the USMCA would do for American farmers and manufacturers!”

Besides Impeachment, What’s up for the House in 2020?

We purposely left impeachment alone this weekend. We’ve pretty much already had plenty of that nonsense with plenty more to come. But there IS something really big looming on the horizon for the House that I guarantee you’ve not heard about. This will certainly floor you.

Speaker Pelosi is backing a bill from Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib to make members of Congress exempt from taxation at all levels of government – federal, state, and city. The bill is set to be introduced for a reading this week and early indications are that it will have the unanimous backing of all Democrat members of their majority House of Representatives.

Tlaib took a moment Friday to attempt to justify this outrageous bill:

“The rich of this country don’t pay taxes. They use loophole after loophole and exemption after exemption to escape paying their share and they do nothing for the betterment of the nation.

We in congress work tirelessly for the people and can’t get ahead. If there’s any class of people that should avoid taxation, it is the government public servant. We are working to put more money in your pockets at the same time as our pockets are being emptied.

We are working for you. Don’t we deserve a break for that? Of course we do. We’re a special class. We want recognition for such.”

After you pick your false teeth up off the floor, let’s puzzle through this:

  • We already know that many in Congress — not party-specific — feel that they are underpaid and overworked and deserve special considerations that they already receive and others they feel they deserve.
  • Think about the obvious conundrum with Congresswoman Tlaib’s position: who passes taxes in America? Who can remove taxes in America? Who in government determines what all in government make in payroll and benefits? There’s only one answer to all three questions: the U.S. Congress. Theirs is probably the only employer-employee relationship in the U.S. in which the employee tells the employer what they WILL be paid and what their employee benefits ARE!
  • Why is TruthNewsNetwork is the only news entity to report this to the American public? Please let this prove to you that for the past few years as we have alerted you again and again that the Media are not only in the pockets of Congress, they are in direct partnership with the Democrat Party. The MSM report exactly WHAT they are told to report to Americans and they hide exactly what they are told to HIDE from Americans. This piece of the proposed legislation would fall into the latter of the two categories.


Let’s be honest with each other: this power grab by the Left is not new, was not unexpected, and has been carefully planned and orchestrated. They have for several decades laid the foundation for doing so. Obama actually initiated the process. Remember his telling us his plan was to “fundamentally change the United States.” He never tried to hide that. In fact, he proudly pursued the entire process very publicly. But his was to be simply Chapter One. Hillary was to transition us into Chapter Two. But something happened that not only intercepted their timing, it short-circuited the entire thing. And it is struggling to survive. That “something” that happened? Donald Trump.

Americans drifted into a mild coma regarding America’s political process during Obama’s two terms. That happened by design. Obama knew that if an attempt was made to overtly overthrow America’s entire political process, the furor from citizens would violently shut it down and possibly permanently. The plan was for Hillary to segue into a more militant and visible Socialist transition that would usher true Democratic Socialism into the previously strongest and freest independent country in World history. She was prepared. The Democrat Party was prepared. The Democrat National Committee was prepared. Democrat activists seeded by Obama into key roles in the federal government were all prepared. What none were prepared for was a two-fold tornado: a New York billionaire who was politically moderate but leaned to the right and who understood what average Americans were missing in their lives and how to give it to them. Part two of that surprise weather freak was a group of 63 million voters who were sick and tired of the same old shtick in Washington D.C. and were hungry for a champion to lead the country away from that demonstrative move toward European-style Socialism. Those Americans too were tired of government corruption and tyranny and were certainly wary of paying the tab. Donald Trump was seen to be their ticket out. And he’s made the Democrat Party by the end of every workday turn into a trembling puddle of confusion from failure to comprehend who Donald Trump is and how he has been able to accomplish all that he has.

This impeachment “inquiry” is nothing more than the next chapter of pushback against Democrats’ biggest foe. Normally that pushback would be to raise a billion campaign dollars, get a very together Democrat candidate to put on the campaign trail against Trump, ( an “Obama II”) and resume their journey toward a socialist America that would be their Nirvana. So what do they do?

I’ll end by quoting Texas Democrat Rep. Al Green who said this about Donald Trump: “We cannot beat him at the polls. So we’ve got to impeach him.”

You just received that House plan as lagniappe today. It’s laughable that they would quietly propose a 50% pay raise with the impeachment process ongoing.

And I thought Rep. Adam Schiff wanted total transparency! That’s nothing more than a talking point to the current Democrat Party.

How should you handle it? Don’t believe what they show you, don’t listen to what they tell you, or believe what they say is real. Expect just the opposite regarding it all.

This impeachment process will play itself out. But, honestly, it will play itself out in a manner that Democrats Will regret they let happen. And it will not only give the White House to the Trumps again, it will give the GOP control of the House once more.

Maybe this time a new House Speaker after having four years of a Trump presidency will see and accept that Americans no longer want top-down government OR top-down representation in the Republican Party.

And if that bill that exempts members of Congress from all federal, state, and local income taxes passes the House and even slips by in the Senate, the President better make a loud declaration of its idiocy when it vetoes it.

The Ruling Class

I’ve always loved riding motorcycles: road motorcycles. When we married and began having children, my wife put her foot down, and I left the motorcycle world. Twenty years ago, when our kids left home, she told me I could get a Harley. I did, and I hit the road.

I’ve ridden for more than 100,000 miles seeing North America. And North America is breathtaking from the ground. I had for years, primarily for business, flown all over the Continent but never gave thought to what was 30,000 feet below the plane. The World is vastly different 30,000 feet below that commercial jet — at least different from the perceptions of a jet traveler. At ground level, the “real” America unfolds.

In the United States today, we everyday citizens have evolved from a “salt-of-the-earth” group of gritty settlers who did everything into a country full of “flyover business owners and  vacationers.” Instead of the multi-generational hands-on ways of our forefathers, we live a life based on news headlines and soundbites and find shortcuts for everything. We trust a group of several thousand elected and appointed bureaucrats to run our company for us. We live our hectic lives chasing the dollar while raising a family: you know: a house, three cars, vacation homes, hobbies, being soccer moms, and weekend golfers. We’re just “chasing the dream.” Meanwhile, our government is quietly and steadily taking our company down the tube.

Americans must awaken to the reality of an impending disaster. Our company is in jeopardy — not from a foreign takeover but a hostile management takeover. And somehow, members of our very own management team have stealthily slipped into the ownership of OUR company. Most of those no longer even consider us in their decision-making to run the company, The United States of America.

They have become the “U.S. Ruling Class.”

It’s real, it’s here, and it’s deadly.

Who Are They?

Just look around. Who did you vote for in 2018 to represent you in Congress? No, not every member of the U.S. House of Representatives is part of this “ruling class.” But your representative might be. If they are, they are members of what has heretofore been the most powerful political group in U.S. history.

It’s a closed group of single-minded politicians who have, through decades, developed a method of operating government that requires they walk a thin line. They must simultaneously conduct “normal” government business that company stockholders — American citizens — can watch, along with the sinister operations in which they subvert their positions and the assets of our corporation to achieve their personal long term goals that rarely coincide with ours.

Goals: What Goals?

That’s a great question. I could speculate about the goals of politicians and their objectives. But I won’t do that. But it IS realistic and makes sense for us to look at their actions — at least those we can see — and make logical determinations of what their goals “might” be. Let’s start with something that is seldom mentioned, and when it comes up, conversations about it stop quickly.

Did you know American taxpayers have for decades paid those who are lawmakers’ victims of sexual assault settlements to make those incidents go away, thereby avoiding public embarrassment and litigation? News of this law that structures a process for this has been around for a while. It was only made public in 2017. Let’s look at how all this works:

In 1995, Congress passed the CAA, an effort to apply 12 federal laws to the legislative branch, “Congress has notoriously exempted itself from accountability measures,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization focused on promoting transparency in government, in an email. “It’s no wonder the public has such a low approval of Congress given that they exempt themselves from workplace laws that they apply to the rest of society. It is long overdue for Congress to live by the standards of conduct they appropriately demand from others,” Brian said.

The 1995 law also established “an account of the Office in the Treasury on the United States for the payment of awards and settlements” — a fund paid for by taxes from taxpayers to pay settlements.

The payouts have varied widely, from just under $40,000 in 1997 to more than $4 million in 2007 to just under $1 million in 2017. The fund is virtually unlimited. Much is necessary to pay awards and settlements, and a spokesperson for the Congressional Office of Compliance said that money is only added to the fund when needed for a payment.

The exact source of the money is still a question. The source of the money in the fund is excluded from the standard appropriations budget made public by Congress each year. There’s no process by which voters — or even potential government employees — can find out who are the harassers in the office, or for what they’ve been accused, or if they’ve settled with victims before.

The fund used to settle violations is perhaps just one of several pockets of money throughout the government used to handle judgments made against government employees. As harassment accusations topple prominent men in media, comedy, and Hollywood, it’s come under more scrutiny.

The Settlement and Awards Fund comes from an effort to hold Congress accountable for the federal laws that all other employers have to follow. But as prominent men in other fields have faced snowballing accusations of sexual harassment, it’s instead shielded members of Congress from publicity.

What’s the goal there? It’s to maximize personal opportunities while serving in Congress and pushing responsibility for their “questionable” deeds downstream to American taxpayers.


Average members of Congress struggle with travel to and from their districts. Airplane tickets in and out of Washington are not cheap. But if you’re the Speaker of the House — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as an example — your travel is not only first-class, it’s in private jets paid for by taxpayers. And the Speaker has taken it to new levels.

We looked at documents from the United States Air Force detailing Speaker Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft between March 2009 and June 2010. And they pretty much tell the same, outrageous story as previous documents we’ve uncovered and released here.

Here are the highlights from the newest batch of documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:

  • Pelosi used an Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009, through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests, and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights.
  • Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights. On June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law, and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Airport. That flight included $143 in on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a trip from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.
  • One trip in particular — to Milan, Rome, Naples, and Kiev — has received considerable scrutiny. The 2015 tour, from July 30 to Aug. 6, cost the Air Force $184,587.81, documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show. Pelosi, along with several other Democratic members of Congress, made the trip with members of their families. The exact purpose of the trip remains unclear. A Politico news story at the time alleged Pelosi’s congressional delegation “intended to underscore the U.S. commitment to security in that region.”
  • In 2011, Judicial Watch exposed Pelosi’s rampant use of luxury Air Force jets to travel between Washington, D.C., and her congressional district in California, a 5-hour, 3,000-mile journey each direction. In just two years, Pelosi accumulated $2,100,744.59 worth of travel expenses, which included $101,429.14 for in-flight conveniences, such as food and alcohol.

And Then The Junkets

Travel junkets became a point of discomfort for many voters in 2006-2007 following the discovery of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s frequent use of excursions to influence several elected officials. These fact-finding missions included hard-hitting research such as rounds of golf at Scotland’s famed golf course, St. Andrews, and trips to the Fiesta Bowl and Super Bowl. In actuality, those are just some quick highlights. The list of absurd Abramoff coordinated trips is relatively lengthy. Of course, following the public revelation and the eventual indictment and conviction of Abramoff, all of these trips were deemed either demonstrably illegal or, at the very least, gross misappropriations of an official’s time. Congress passed a bill reigning in gifts, meals, and travel packages from lobbyists, and the number of congressional junkets fell off a cliff—dropping from an all-time high of nearly 5,000 trips in 2005 (at the cost of almost $10 Million) to 1,846 visits the following year. The bill limited trip length on foreign travel to seven days and domestic travel to four days but also allowed for—wait for it—some exceptions. These exceptions included the allowance of educational and charitable groups to finance trips for elected officials.

In entirely unsurprising fashion, it didn’t take long for lobbyists and lawmakers to figure out the best way to utilize the exceptions to their full extent. As an article in the Columbia Journalism Review explained recently:

“The arrangement works like this: a congressional caucus—an official group of lawmakers (there are many) with common characteristics or interests, such as the Congressional Black Caucus or Blue Dog Democrats or the Congressional Marcellus Shale Caucus—sets up a charitable organization. That organization, in turn, seeks donations, which do not have to be disclosed. In addition to its good works, the charitable entity then organizes events, such as conferences or retreats, in which the caucus members rub shoulders with contributors. The nonprofit can invite special interests—corporations, unions, and others—to fork over large donations to sponsor and participate in these events.”

So, not only have lawmakers figured out a way around travel junket reform, but they’ve also figured out a way to turn their vacations into a fundraising tool.

Perhaps the most ostentatious abuse of this new “charitable” junket system came in the summer of 2011, when Eric Cantor arranged for eighty House members and their families to visit Israel through a charity affiliated with the pro-Israeli lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This massive “fact-finding mission” was capped off quite embarrassingly, with a (quite possibly drunk) Kansas Representative Kevin Yoder taking a late-night skinny dip in the Sea of Galilee.


None of these things we mentioned today have much to do with the legislative nightmares we are currently watching play out on the international stage. But they illustrate in part just how many (if not most) members of Congress go to D.C. planning on milking the system — our system of government — to line their pockets most often as a direct expense to taxpayers for all kinds of perks that Americans on the most part don’t know about and certainly do not know how or why they exist and work. These examples are just a fraction of the ways those on the Left are shading American taxpayers. How do they let it happen? Let’s face it: there’s nothing about this for which any member of Congress will take responsibility. If and when someone wants to try, they usually explain this way: “Everybody on Capitol Hill does this. Why shouldn’t I?”

Do you know what’s worse? They get away with all of this! Let’s face facts: having foxes guard a henhouse is a pretty stupid decision on someone’s part.

They’re doing this is NOT just about money. It’s NOT about bringing some low-level employee back to Earth — REAL Earth. It’s about teaching us all a lesson they are confident they’ll win every day.

Last but not least: does any of this illustrate why some, if not all, that we see today in the “Schiff-Pelosi ‘faux’ impeachment inquiry are permeating our 24/7 news cycle? What is right, necessary, and justified for members of Congress to do as part of their jobs for us is diminished by THEIR personal need to perpetuate a gravy-train of benefits that include perks, dollars, investment opportunities, and, most of all, power that comes with “fitting-in” with the D.C. power brokers. The American taxpayers are not on the radar screen of accountability to these Congressional members. Their fantasy world does not extend to the borders of their Congressional Districts. Its boundaries are a two-mile circle around Capitol Hill in D.C. Nothing, and pretty much no one outside that circle is significant to them.

For these and other reasons we have no time to mention, we need to understand that you and I are just a social security number on an IRS tax bill or a zipcode on a contribution check to most of the Congressional members caught-up in the D.C. Circus. There are certainly a bunch who wear white hats. But for the most part, the bad guys are controlling our government.

If you didn’t understand why so many in Washington — even Republicans — expend so much effort, time, and taxpayer money to rid their world of Donald Trump, now you do. He may be rough and he may mix it up like no other politician. But he’s in the corner of everyday Americans. And he always wears a white hat. And he continually fights political corruption. He’s looking under rocks, around corners, and even in the swamp. Someone certainly needs to.