Critical Time to “Know” What is Going on Under our Noses

Yesterday, TNN presented a story penned by NBC writers alleging the President has not and is not participating in the daily President Daily Briefing (PDB) presented to him in the Oval Office by Intelligence officials. That story, along with others already presented by various media sources along with new videos and stories being released daily, proves exactly what the Media is doing. They have weaponized their reporting and have launched an aggressive and coordinated attack on the President to lay a foundation for his impeachment. This impeachment will be to show he is inept as a leader during a crisis (Coronavirus) and is oblivious to the essential issues presented daily to every president by intelligence officials to keep the President informed of the critical intelligence information necessary to keep America safe.

What the Mainstream Media do not realize is that there are those in the U.S. that are on to their methods. They have perfected the process of creating false news and information inserted in stories that they present to America as not just factual, but give “sources” for the information they provide to us all. The problem is, there are NEVER any sources! But we’re told in each case there ARE sources.

Today we will unpack their process so that from today forward, YOU will be able to discern what’s real and what’s fake in every media report you hear, read, or see. Let’s get going.

The Plan

Here’s how the process has started. NBC “seeded” the first story. Then MSNBC followed up. CNN has not engaged yet, but you can be confident they will join the NBC networks, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other news outlets in short order. Here’s the first “shot” fired by NBC on Tuesday with the PDB fiasco:

“U.S. intelligence agencies issued warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Donald Trump in January and February, months during which he continued to play down the threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The repeated warnings were conveyed in issues of the President’s Daily Brief, a sensitive report that is produced before dawn each day and designed to call the president’s attention to the most significant global developments and security threats.”

The important nugget from those two sentences is this phrase: “according to current and former officials.” They named not a single source. If this was a credible news story that originated from real sources, they would be named. There was no source. Let’s continue.

“…But the alarms appear to have failed to register with the president, who routinely skips reading the PDB and has at times shown little patience even for the oral summary he now takes two or three times per week, according to the officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.

There is not a single person who works in the White House — especially someone who participates in intelligence briefings — that would risk not only a job, but a family and freedom to speak to a news outlet revealing classified information. We all know how the whistleblower program works. We’ve watched as it’s been used and abused in intelligence dissemination in the last year. If such a person was so concerned with the President’s action and felt the world should know about it, that person would never arbitrarily commit professional suicide by talking to NBC, they’d file a legal whistlblower complaint. Anytime a news story lists “anonymous sources,” be assured there is no source.

It’s odd that NBC then quickly left their antagonistic attacks on Mr. Trump and inserted a reply from “a White House Spokesman:” A White House spokesman disputed the characterization that Trump was slow to respond to the virus threat. “President Trump rose to fight this crisis head-on by taking early, aggressive historic action to protect the health, wealth and well-being of the American people,” said the spokesman, Hogan Gidley. “We will get through this difficult time and defeat this virus because of his decisive leadership.”

Quoting a legitimate member of the Administration even though it’s a denial of the purported claims made by that “anonymous” source is used purposely to frame the story as truthful and legitimate. It is anything but that.

Fast forward to Tuesday on Morning Joe on MSNBC. Joe and Mika pick up the “Denigrate Trump for claiming his dismissal of intelligence warnings about Coronavirus,” by first quoting stories from the past that include quotes from “three people.” While they make their claims on camera, on the screen behind are headlines from the New York Times and Washington Post with headlines that parrot the claims they are making. Their sources? Three people, none of who were named in the previous stories from which they quote, nor are they called in THIS report. Then Mika and Joe pass the mike to their White House correspondent. Her statement is SO vital in exposing these network tactics you must listen to it (1:44 in length):  

There it is again: “We’ve talked to people, members of his intelligence team…” NO names, NO titles, and made to sound as if members of the President’s National Security Office just run out on the street hunting down reporters to tattle on the President!

Here’s the Golden Rule of “real” reporting: If there is a real source for a story and within the story is a qualification of the truth in that story that mentions a source, that source is ALWAYS named. Yes, there are times when there are legitimate reasons sources are not named. But in those cases, the purpose(s) for their anonymity is ALWAYS included as an explanation for the unnamed source.

The Evil Web they Spin

The process of which you just saw Part A can and often does go much further. The creators of these specific fake stories know that Americans will almost always assume when a newsperson or writer quotes a source, “it must be true.” And news producers, writers, and editors have often weaponized that fact to use against political opponents: in this case, the President.

Is there a Part B and Part C and so on? Absolutely! This is only the tip of the iceberg. Now, they just begin the game of “Pass the Cake.”

The “Cake” is the fake story that was created at NBC. What NBC did in the Tuesday story was lay the groundwork to show Americans this president is so inept he cannot digest facts presented in his daily intelligence briefings. NBC passed the Cake to its little sister, MSNBC. MSNBC then added to the Cake they received from NBC (remember those two newspaper headlines behind Mika and Joe: the Washington Post and New York Times). Mika and Joe quoted additional “anonymous” sources while stating they had confirmed the facts in their story. Who established the facts in that story to Mika, Joe, and the White House reporter? NBC is the source for the original story and therefore added the “factualness” necessary for any other news outlet to quote the story stating, “sources confirmed…”

Summary

Watch and see how this story grows. It morphed into an even larger and more referenced account during the day Tuesday!

There are two things you need to understand before we finish this today. They are the keys to recognizing truth and untruths in ALL news reporting — especially when about President Trump:

  1.  Anytime a negative story is presented about someone, and a critical part of the story is to denigrate the subject, it will usually name a source. If that named source is not a person but instead an “unnamed” or “anonymous” or “confidential” reference in the story, there is no real source. Credible news outlets will not allow such stories to be published. If the story is factual and mentions sources, it will always name the source;
  2. In this chain of fake reporting, there is always an originator. Once that story is published, another news outlet will rewrite the story, post the story with a disclaimer that states: “Sources have confirmed….” Remember: the only story source is the news outlet that published the story. They then become the “source that has confirmed…” The third reprint of the story will then replace the old disclaimer with a new one that states: “Multiple sources have confirmed…”

This may seem infantile to you. In reality, it is the worst form of lying known to Mankind. It is weaponized to not only hurt the subject of the story but to use that false narrative created to destroy whatever that story subject has done well, which the news source — the REAL news source, the one that created the original story — designed to destroy the subject.

Using that logic, one can surmise that NBC and MSNBC created very deftly and professionally a story that includes all of the real journalistic methodology used in professional reporting. But they didn’t stop there. They had to keep going. Why? In this case, President Trump is guilty of none of what the NBC story alleged! You and I both know if there were one shred of fact in their allegations, proof of it would have long ago been plastered across every newspaper and be a lead story in every news broadcast around the world.

The anti-Trump, hate-Trump media have launched a well-planned and devised an attack on President Donald J. Trump. I am as confident as it is possible that this is an orchestrated plan put in place by Democrat Party operatives to be the groundstone of the next impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

To that end, this story will undoubtedly grow. But there are dozens of others that have been passed around like seed to various news outlets to systematically publish story after story with one and only one purpose: build a case to bring Trump up on charges of being incapable of fulfilling the role necessary for any President to fill.

Play

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.

Examples:

♦♦ 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.”

Narrative

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.

Summary

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.

Play

What You Didn’t Hear in the Impeachment Trial is Deafening

“Oh no, Dan is going, “conspiracy theorist!” Not. I promise at the end of this chat today. You’ll understand one “HUGE” thing going on today and has been for decades that has been and still is being hidden from Americans.

There are many apparent things: political parties are partisan; mainstream media anchors, reporters, directors, and producers are all leftists and shape their news using that perspective; Democrats not only hate Republicans in government, but they also hate American voters who support Republicans. Do we need to keep going? Probably not.

But this impeachment trial has shone a light on the U.S. political process that has been purposely kept secret for many years. Why? Many in government know that Americans would — if they knew — demand explanations and answers, research the sources of these things and all those involved and would issue a collective gasp along with millions of other Americans as the revelations unfolded.

Democrats slipped a bit during Impeachment, and Americans, to their horror, saw just some of the truth we’re talking about today.

What Have We Missed?

I.  We’ve stated multiple times that “THE” objective for 100% of operations in Washington D.C. is the quest for power. Obtaining unfettered power is the result of every political dream dreamed by almost all politicians — indeed Democrats. With power, politicians can control EVERY aspect of the U.S. government. The Democrat Party is watching in shock as its power being sucked away by a man they laughed at, ridiculed, threatened, investigated, blackmailed, and now impeached because of the all-consuming fear that drives them. Without their political power, they cannot control Washington nor their political fates. That cause was THE cause of the Mueller Investigation, Obstruction of Justice investigation, Ukraine-Gate, and even the alleged emoluments clause violations against the President.

Democrats awakened one day and realized: “Donald Trump is President, and he has promised to retake our power. We cannot let that happen!”

Without that power, they are unable to control either House of Congress: Congress controls everything. They could not continue the Obama plan to stack federal courts with judges who would no longer interpret laws based on the Constitution. They need judges that MAKE laws from the bench.

To make matters worse, they knew that the strangle-hold they had on the Media would probably not sustain a Trump onslaught like they knew he would initiate. Democrats must have the unfettered ability to control their minions with information — information that must saturate the minds of all Democrats 24/7 to as best as possible guarantee their party loyalty and commitments. Donald Trump was so simple, so brutally honest, and so competent at messaging in a “blue-collar” format they knew he was the one politician they had NOT anticipated. Further, they saw the fear of losing everything was about to happen!

II.  RINOS are real. RINOS — “Republican in Name Only” — kept hidden for decades the fact that they are not actually conservatives. They are more like Democrats than are many Democrats. RINOS, as a rule, support bigger government, higher taxes, more government control, and undoubtedly massive government spending. Why the spending? What could be a better tool to control an electorate than having the ability to write blank checks for healthcare for the poor, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, and other types of government assistance? They didn’t want for you and me to know this: Ten States now have more people on welfare than they do that are employed. They are California, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Maine, South Carolina.

Is it believable that any members of Congress — especially Republican members of Congress — would support any legislation or policies which support such statistics? Why didn’t Bush 43 — who had terrific relationships with the leaders of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and other Central American countries made no serious attempts to tackle our failed immigration system? Why was he OK with illegals — ANY illegals — entering our nation from the South?

The only explanation that makes any sense is this: if all of this information was made public and grassroots Republicans knew this was happening and that any Republicans had supported legislation or policies to facilitate it, their stays in D.C. on OUR payroll would be term-limited by voters.

Their quest? Maintain the status quo.

Fear

III. House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) did NOT tear up the script of the President’s State of the Union Address out of anger. She did so in what was purely a fit of Fear.

Her entire adult career has been in politics. She’s from a Baltimore politically connected family that controlled Maryland politics for years. Her father was Mayor of Baltimore. From a very young age, she watched how politics structured for the benefit of politicians first and constituents second is structured to put and maintain parties of every kind in control. Nancy’s Baltimore party of concern: the Democrat Party. She knew that the unifying political factor that perpetuated control over a city, a state, or even a country is power. She carried that with her to the west coast and has worked it to perfection. She has guided the political ship of benefits to favor her family and her closest allies. She and husband Paul are worth close to $200 million. She even had a federal law named after her that exists because of her greed for power and money: “The Pelosi Rule.” She had used pending legislation for her husband and herself to parlay business decisions using insider information to make millions — and she got busted!

Pelosi is far from alone. Most members of Congress leave Congress as multi-millionaires who each have the dream of largess that is fulfilled during or shortly after completion of their civic service.

But now, all that wealth and power is in jeopardy at the hands of an NBC reality show mogul. And they’re afraid.

Donald Trump doesn’t care who they are, who they know, how much power they have, or how much wealth they have. Mr. Trump not only painted the picture of his 100% commitment to American citizens during his campaign, but he also has since his election SHOWN them his commitment. His message: “Americans come first. They come before those in Congress, they come before illegal immigrants, those who lobby from massive office centers on K Street, and they come before me. My commitment is to American workers.” That shouldn’t intimidate politicians. They’ve dealt with others who make those promises when campaigning. But Donald Trump is the first politician in my lifetime that actually fulfills his commitment in every area or is still trying to!

Washington establishment politicos are deathly afraid for all that they have accumulated in every aspect of their lives to be ripped away by a U.S. President that actually prefers average Americans over the politically elite!

And they’re afraid.

Van Jones — a CNN commentator how has verbally supported near-Communist causes in the past — explained to his fellow CNN political pundits after the State of the Union what was happening between Donald Trump and African Americans during the speech:

What he was saying to African-Americans can be effective. You may not like it, but he mentioned HBCUs [historically black colleges and universities] — our black colleges have been struggling for a long time, a bunch of them have gone under — he threw a lifeline to them, in real life, in his budget. He talked about that. He talked about criminal justice reform. He talked about opportunity zones. He talked about school choice.”

Jones then tweeted this to his Democratic colleagues:

 “WAKE UP, folks. The #IowaCaucus was a debacle, followed by a strong #SOTU speech laying out Trump’s strategy to win – which includes going for Black voters. This was a warning shot from the Trump campaign to liberals, and we need to take this VERY seriously to win.”

They’re Afraid!

Remember “Serpent-Head” from the Bill Clinton Administration? He is a loud and obnoxious Democrat who is known for merely saying what he thinks. After the State of the Union address, he said this: “It matters who the candidate is, it matters what a party chooses to talk about!” Carville shouted. “I’m 75 years old. Why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death, that’s why! Let’s get relevant here, people, for sure.”

He continued slapping Democrats in the face with a harsh reality: “Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to have the majority party?” He continued, “You and I know that 18 percent of the country elects 52 senators,” he continued, addressing McCaskill. “The urban core is not going to get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”

They’re Afraid!

IV. The Big Kahuna

There’s one undergirding issue that is effectively driving the vehicle of Washington designed to perpetuate political power for generations to come: votes.

They know that the electoral college will never be eliminated. It would take a Constitutional amendment, which is as easy to pass and enact as it is to get Adam Schiff to tell the truth. In other words: It’s not going to happen. Getting Adam Schiff to tell the truth isn’t either! What can they do?

Immigrants! Their voting constituents are discovering that the Democrat Party is the Wizard of Oz: they promise, “We have all the power to give you anything and everything you want. We’re wizards! All you must do to qualify is join us, do what we tell you to do, and never ask questions. ”

“We’ll tell you how to vote on issues and for whom to vote. In return, we’ll make sure you have income sufficient to support your family, free medical care, free school, and preference here in America for anything that you want. We’ll always put you at the front of the line.”

One of the biggest slip-ups of the Democrats has been revealed in the Trump presidency. That’s all the ploys to keep our southern border open to keep the flow of illegals coming into the country where, in return for lifetime income and benefits for their entire families, Democrats will own their votes.

That’s their plan to save their party: NOT with legislation “for the People;” NOT with working with fellow legislators to forge great international partnerships for the sole purpose of improving life for all Americans; NOT to create jobs for Americans; NOT for equal and fair pay with benefits for Americans — just to fuel the fires of power and protection — protection of their status.

Summary

All of the above explains why Nancy tore up the Trump speech. I’ll bet her insides are boiling! She knew impeachment would not work and certainly would not pass. But she had to succumb to the pressure of the Far Left in her party who threatened to have her removed as Speaker if she didn’t. RINOS desperately wanted President Trump gone so they could comfortably reboard the power train full of both Democrats and fellow RINOS with which they had become VERY comfortable.

To summarize very simply: none of the desired achievements wanted by Democrats, RINOS, and others of those in Washington in government are possible WITH DONALD TRUMP AT THE HELM! 

That’s why Nancy tore-up the Trump speech.

They’ve discovered that President Trump — the consummate deal-maker from Queens where deals are made verbally about millions every day — will never bargain away anything that belongs to American citizens! And he refuses to give-in even in the face of being removed from office.

Impeachment was NOT about Donald Trump. Impeachment was NOT about any wrongdoing on his part. Impeachment was NOT about the U.S. Constitution. Impeachment was NOT about the “rule of law.” Impeachment was NOT about the President’s “abuse of power” or “obstruction of Congress.” Impeachment was about one and only one thing: Washington politicrats of both parties must find a way to rid their world of Donald Trump because he knows who they are, how they work, and what their intentions are regarding governing. President Trump not only knows all this, but he is also committed to taking the keys to the government away from these Washington politicrats — “Deep State Monsters” — and return the keys to the rightful owners: United States Americans.

Play

President Joe Biden’s First White House Meeting Minutes

It’s Monday morning, January 25, 2021. President Joe Biden conducts a White House meeting with his top advisers to begin putting in place his senior administration officials. A group of handpicked media members is in the room to see and hear the first few moments of the meeting before being dismissed from the room.

President Biden began the meeting by saying, “I felt it necessary to get started with our agenda to quickly address legislative and executive actions we must take immediately. Reversal of several of Trump’s executive orders is critical while our proposals to repair our immigration system and repeal Trump’s onerous tax bill are being prepared right now to be submitted in the House.”

The President then directly addressed the media in the room: “You all know Valarie Jarrett and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). These two will be playing pivotal roles in the forming of my Administration. They have agreed to join my staff that has been working on this process since the election. We must finalize our cabinet and get it quickly in place. I have commitments from both House Speaker Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D- NY) to clear their calendars so they can assist the White House to jumpstart our legislative agenda. We have no time to waste.”

The President nodded toward the end of the conference table opposite him and said, “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and former Attorney General Eric Holder are with us today.” He continued, “Secretary Clinton graciously volunteered to re-assume her role as Secretary of State. Rep. Schiff, who did such a masterful job in the Trump impeachment process, will be my nominee to serve as Attorney General. I have already appointed former A.G. Eric Holder as my Chief of Staff. He will launch a search immediately to find a replacement for former Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg after her untimely death in December.”

President Biden dismissed the press and started “part 2” of his first staff meeting with this: “Donald Trump tried to take our Democratic process down the tubes in his time here in the White House. He denigrated many of our representatives and those who have given their lives to serve in the federal government. Their efforts have been to develop and implement all necessary systems to not only preserve our government but to move it back to where — under President Obama and me — the government had trust and credibility.” Mr. Biden then looked to Secretary Clinton and said, “None of this would be necessary if the framers of the Constitution envisioned the changes that were inevitable as our country grew. If the electoral college did not thwart the will of a majority of Americans in 2016, I would be following President Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump.” He ended with this:We must fix that problem.

Could This Happen?

As crazy as it may seem, it’s not as far-fetched as many Republicans think. Don’t be lulled to sleep: Democrats will not stop short of removing ANY Republican president with NO regard for a voting majority of American voters who say otherwise.

“Suppose” this might happen in November 2020. What would the weeks and months after the hypothetical above-referenced White House meeting look like?

It is uncontroverted that it is a certainty in such a case, Democrats would dismantle everything that has been labeled by Americans as “good” implemented during the Donald Trump presidency. Dems would begin to systematically convert our heretofore Representative Republic into a real Socialist nation. Remember: Barack Obama famously stated he was about leading America to “fundamental change in America.” What could be more “fundamental” change than a hard slide to the hard left?

The Case for Impeachment

Wait a minute. Aren’t we through with impeachment? The Senate is set to on Wednesday vote for what seems inevitable will be the acquittal of President Trump. Isn’t impeachment at a dead stop and negated because of the Senate trial that failed?

President Trump WAS impeached. The Senate trial DID exonerate him. But as long as a single Democrat is remaining that breathes American air; impeachment will always be a part of that air that searches 24/7 for impeachment possibilities for any and every future Republican president’s term in office.

But in the case described above, Democrat Joe Biden will be President. How does impeachment play into that scenario?

Pay close attention to what you are about to see and hear. Impeachment ain’t over! But it may NOT be what you think.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) has warned that former Vice President Joe Biden could immediately face calls for impeachment if elected president.

The first-term Republican went on the offense in an interview on Sunday, saying Biden’s prior dealings with Ukraine puts a target on his back.

“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” she said. “Joe Biden should be cautious what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.’”

Ernst accused Biden of interfering in an investigation into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. She said then-President Barack Obama tasked Biden with weeding out corruption, but that Biden ignored “Burisma because his son was on the company’s board making over a million dollars a year.”

Sen. Ernst is not alone with those feelings about a possible Biden impeachment. Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert argued the same Biden impeachment possibility as did Sen. Ernst. Gohmert said that Republicans in the House are ready to impeach Biden if he becomes president.

“We’ve had people already mention the next president, Joe Biden. He may be the next president,” Gohmert said. “Well, we’ve already got the forms, all we have to do is eliminate Donald Trump’s name and put Joe Biden’s name in there because he’s on video.” Gohmert continued, “He and his son. He has admitted to the crime that’s being hoisted on the president improperly.”

WOW! How crazy would that be? How ridiculous would that be? How LIKELY would it be for something like this to happen?

Answer: conventional wisdom is that in the wake of the “faux-factual” impeachment case created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, it is a virtual certainty that on February 5, 2020, the Senate will vote to acquit President Trump of the impeachment charges made against him. Few Americans will be surprised if further dirt that includes allegations from “unnamed sources” or “anonymous” sources, or even foreign potentates suddenly appear in the public arena of media madness before the 2020 elections. God knows Democrats will undoubtedly try to pin something or many things on President Trump to sway the votes of Americans in the Fall.

There are two specific things that must happen before the 2020 Election Day for there to be a real discussion about these “What-ifs:” Joe Biden would have to win the Democrat Party nomination for President, and Americans would have to elect Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

But it doesn’t stop there: a third thing would have to be put in place to clear a way for a possible President Biden impeachment. The next House of Representatives would have to jump a hurdle sure to be set on the track by Democrats. Joe Biden’s impeachable offenses occurred before he became President. The most apparent impeachable crime — “Bribery” — (“alleged” bribery) happened when Biden was Vice President during the Obama Administration. (Actually, the act in question could be considered under U.S. criminal law as blackmail. But that’s a discussion for another day.)

The bribery, of course, was Biden’s demand for Ukraine’s former President to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and VP Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Biden gave President Petro Poroshenko six hours to fire that prosecutor or Ukraine would not receive the $1 billion in loan guarantees from the U.S. Poroshenko fired the prosecutor, and Ukraine got their $1 billion.

Lest we forget:

“If” Biden was to win the Democrat Party 2020 primaries, and, “if” Biden were to defeat President Trump in the November 2020 general election, and “if” Republicans retake the majority in the House of Representatives, the “Impeach Biden” mantra will undoubtedly reach a fever pitch — QUICKLY!

Impeach him for what? “Bribery.”

Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

We heard the whisper of bribery as a possible charge against President Trump in the House articles of impeachment. Democrats used the word bribery for a short while. Then, someone in the DNC got wise and looked up bribery’s definition: “the act of paying or receiving, or of agreeing to pay or receive, a reward other than legal compensation for the exercise of official or delegated power irrespective of the dictates of duty.”

Joe Biden used bribery as described in the “reward” section of the definition. Joe committed a REAL quid pro quo. And in his, there was a “quid,” AND there was a “pro!” Uncle Joe demanded the prosecutor which was investigating his son fired. If the firing occurred within six hours, the VP would see to it the U.S. government would send $ 1 billion in loan guarantees.

Summary

Let me be clear: I certainly am NOT hoping the above scenario plays itself out. I doubt those necessary elements for this to happen will materialize. Therefore, I doubt there would ever be a President Joe Biden impeachment.

So why did we present that possible impeachment scenario of a President Joe Biden?

It’s the sole purpose our forefathers demanded that Americans for all of America’s future use the impeachment of a president only as a last resort. Alexander Hamilton weighed-in:

“Impeachment will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other. In such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Don’t you get it? Even discussing this as a possible scenario going forward is precisely what Hamilton referred to in his warning. The impeachment of Donald Trump should have happened ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. Rep. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi rushed into impeachment as nothing more than a political ploy to interrupt and possibly end a Trump presidency.

The results of their impeachment efforts? America is dramatically more divided than ever before in my 66 years. There is so much partisanship in everyday actions in government that it is doubtful anything meaningful will be accomplished in Congress until all three U.S. Government political entities fly the banner of one party and one only. Unless it’s all-Democrat or all-Republican, the peoples’ business will never be finalized in any area. Government and, therefore, its people will be continually divided in a partisan America.

Do you know what’s ironic? Democrats used as one of their justifications for impeaching Trump is how divided he makes America. The truth is, in the constant Mainstream Media buildup to impeachment during the 2016 campaign and subsequent two years of a Trump presidency, the most significant political divide along party lines in U.S. history swelled to monstrous proportions. And the only government operations seem to be those necessary just to keep that monster alive!

Play

More Corruption — Where? UKRAINE!

I wonder how much D.C. capital has been spent by Democrats to find Ukrainian dirt on President Trump? That “capital” to which I refer is OUR tax dollars, not theirs.’ But when apparent examples of Ukrainian corruption on the part of Democrats is even whispered, the Democrat watchdogs the “Lamestream Media” go nuts: “There’s no evidence of Biden corruption; none has been found.”

Why hasn’t any been “found?” NO ONE HAS INVESTIGATED IT YET! Remember, VP Biden blackmailed the former Ukrainian President to fire the prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden — you know, holding Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine wouldn’t be paid unless the firing took place. Call me wrong, but that’s eerily similar to exactly what they impeached Donald Trump for doing, and he didn’t do it! And before Ukraine, it was Russia.

That’s been almost universal in every allegation made by Democrats against President Trump. Remember these?

  • 2.5 years of the Mueller Investigation into unproven claims of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russians in the 2016 election.
  • Ongoing allegations that President Trump is “enabling America’s #1 foreign enemy by meeting privately with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.”
  • MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch stated he had proof Trump’s businesses laundered millions for Vladimir Putin: “This is all about failed casinos,” the New York City advertising executive said on ‘Morning Joe.’ “Trump is owned by Putin because he’s been laundering money, Russian money, for the last 20, 30 years. He’s owned by them. You talk to any banker in New York, any business person in New York, any real estate person, we have a president that’s selling out our military, that’s costing lives because our geopolitical enemy owns him,” he continued. “Because he’s been laundering money for him as a criminal organization for the last 30 years.”
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said for two years he had “indisputable evidence that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia during the 2016 Campaign.” He never when confronted about those claims tried to defend them and certainly never revealed any Russian collusion. And the Media gave him pass after pass for lying about it.

There are many more allegations of collusion with Russians, supporting Russian operations worldwide, even working directly with Russian leaders at the highest levels of their government. Every such allegation has been leveled at President Trump, his family members, cabinet members, and even his business associates.

What’s the irony in all these Russian allegations against Republicans by Democrats?

Democrats are the ones who colluded with Russia!

Remember the Steele Dossier and Fusion GPS? The dossier was the document prepared by Christopher Steele — a former FBI intelligence informant who collected “information” from his Russian operative contacts — which included all the dirt from the dossier that FBI Director Comey told President Trump was “salacious and unconfirmed.” That dossier that was sworn to be accurate by the FBI was included in ALL of the FISA warrant applications and renewals the anti-Trump FBI and DOJ officials used to illegally obtain electronic surveillance permission to spy on the Trump Campaign.

All that’s bad enough. But who authorized and paid for all that? Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. Their doing so was justified as “opposition research” that was paid through a D.C. law firm. Their doing that was laundering money. How so? All that information came from those informants who are Russians!

Then There’s Ukraine

♦  The U.S.’s only interest in Ukraine is to keep Russia out of Ukraine.

♦  The U.S.’s allies are interested in Ukraine because the gas pipeline goes through it and Russia can turn off the gas to Europe and increase prices.

♦  The Joe Biden/Biden family’s ties to Ukraine have been documented here with mounds of evidence and uncontroverted truths. As part of that evidence, implicated in Ukrainian for at least “unethical” involvement are the son of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Paul, and even Mitt Romney.

♦  Don’t forget the story we gave to you that the husband of Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly took $700,000 from firms connected to a Ukrainian oligarch who has allegedly been “accused of ordering contract killings.”

♦  Don’t forget the OTHER story we reported to you over a month ago regarding the close personal and political relationship between Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Ukrainian gun trader Igor Pasternak. Schiff was the beneficiary of the proceeds from several fundraisers in California and Washington sponsored by Igor Pasternak who lobbies members of Congress on behalf of Ukraine, though he is NOT affiliated with the Ukrainian government. One news report stated this about Pasternak’s U.S./Ukrainian relationship: “His current lobbying objective is for Congress to ship more lethal weapons to Kyiv’s Neo-Nazi regime that kills ethnic Russians.”

♦  What about that Republican shining star Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)? You ask, “Mitt Romney has Ukrainian ties?”

According to web archives, top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes by “Cofer Black,” joined Burisma’s board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on the board.

According to The New Yorker, Hunter joined Burisma’s board in April of 2014 and remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to Burisma’s website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and indeed, web archives from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board.

Ukraine’s corruption related to politics and politicians in the U.S. federal government did NOT stop there.

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

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

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

Ukraine’s “Magic Magnet”

What could possibly draw so much political attention to the nation of Ukraine? It is not an especially crucial European country other than its proximity to Russia. It is not by any means a wealthy country. But Ukraine for decades has built and maintained a top-down “semi-presidential” state. What type of country is that? Ukraine elects a president then builds a governing body that runs everything government-related from the top down. That political structure is the perfect governing process for corruption. A small group of top politicians control almost exclusively the government industries and through corrupt political power, most of the large private entities.

Ukraine’s most significant energy demand is gas. The gas industry in that country has been fraught with underhanded dealings for decades. Here’s how the scam that is almost universal has worked:

  • Ukraine buys natural gas from many companies but relies heavily on Russia for its gas supplies;
  • Ukraine’s government awards exclusive contracts with Ukrainian companies for the natural gas for the nation;
  • Those energy tycoons negotiate gas contracts with Russia and with other European nations. Those countries purchase that gas and then resell it in Ukraine.
  • That sounds pretty simple. The problem is, these companies in cahoots with each other and the government grossly markup the prices of that gas sold to Ukraine’s utility companies and private companies to resell in Ukraine. In some cases, the prices are doubled.
  • Vast amounts of those illicit profits find their way into all types of graft and corruption. And much of that money — billions of dollars — find its way into the political system for Ukraine to use for its “foreign” government operations.

Past Ukraine administrations were not just willing to pay bribes for favors from other countries but aggressively marketed that money in bribes: “Quid Pro Quo.”

Summary

This story is far from finished. What has been uncovered regarding the specific corruption in Ukraine with direct involvement with those in the U.S. is just the surface.

There are many ironies in the way Democrats have played this Ukraine alleged quid pro quo with President Trump. In doing that, they’ve confirmed what we here have stated again and again during and since the 2016 presidential campaign:

When Democrats scream, holler, and make continuous allegations against any and all Republicans about the wrongdoing of some sort, they are showing the world the truth. The truth is that every time Democrats make any such claims, they’re already doing it themselves!

♦  When the cries rose to a fever pitch about the Trump Campaign and Russian collusion, collusion was already happening: Hillary financed Russian “opposition research” from Russia.

♦  When Adam Schiff’s whistleblower claim came forward about President Trump “squeezing” Ukraine’s President Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, Joe Biden had already blackmailed Ukraine on behalf of his son.

As we close, remember that document we received that details ad nauseum the Biden wrongdoing in Ukraine? See the link below. We’re giving it to you verbatim for you to consume.

It came from a very reputable independent news agency — “FRN” –not affiliated with any government or any news organization, but is autonomous in its operations. They use individual contributors from many countries who primarily cover government corruption in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

This article/interview may be a bit tough to read. It’s translated. But follow it through its entirety. It answers many questions about VP Biden’s corrupt and illegal financial dealings with not just Ukraine but other countries. And the number is NOT a few hundred thousand or a few hundred million dollars. It involves one billion U.S. dollars in just one transaction, most of which mysteriously disappeared immediately after being paid — by the U.S.!

Happy Hunting…there certainly will be more to come.

FRN Proof of Biden Corruption

Play

What If…?

No, the impeachment trial is NOT over. It’s far too soon to begin celebrations of a victory. A big sigh of relief is certainly in order. But the fact that the “new” impeachment schedule has the Senate silent until Wednesday means something could happen, something could mysteriously “pop up.” After all, Adam Schiff is “Shifty” Schiff, Nancy Pelosi is Nancy, and the Lamestream Media are who they are.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday he feels they can “conclude the trial in the coming days.” The Senate approved a framework for conclusion of the trail. They’ll be back in session on Monday. And a final vote for impeachment should happen on Wednesday.

But the impeachment trial drama did not stop there. Later Friday, the Senate voted down four Democrat motions to call Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and two more administration officials to testify. In somewhat of a surprise, Supreme Court Chief Justice informed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer he would NOT break ties in the Senate by exercising a vote. In doing so, Justice Roberts said, “I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”

The trial drama apparently is NOT over. On Monday, both the House Managers and Defense Team will present their closing arguments. And Senators will be able to make speeches both Monday and Tuesday.

Does anyone think there will NOT be another gotcha that the New York Times finds?

We have just gone through the most outlandish and egregious demonstration of how our government is NOT supposed to operate. House Democrats with their Senate enablers just showed America exactly how an impeachment process is NOT supposed to be structured. So instead of our usual “Saturday Bullet Points,” let’s do a Saturday “What If?” based on this specific impeachment process. After all, we all need the right way to ratchet down the tension and anger from what Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi dropped in our laps!

What If…?

  • Republicans had impeached President Obama for “Obstruction of Congress” for his Attorney General’s ignoring Congressional subpoenas in the “Fast and Furious” investigation? Republicans requested the D.C. Federal Court to prosecute Holder for his obstruction, but the Court (with an Obama-appointed judge) declined to consider the matter. Should have the Republicans then impeached the President or AG Holder or both?
  • The GOP impeached President Obama for the executive branch theft of billions of taxpayer dollars — “Abuse of Power” — that were unethically squandered away by his administration awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loan guarantees to his cronies in his “shovel-ready” jobs debacle? More than 50% of those funds disappeared forever at the expense of taxpayers with NO accountability for those involved OR finding the money.
  • While Paul Ryan as Speaker, House committees began an impeachment inquiry against Mr. Obama and in the structure of two committee hearings, did not allow Obama’s attorneys to be present, present evidence, subpoena witnesses or other evidence, or cross-examine any of the witnesses?
  • During House testimonies, House members called President Obama a “dictator, sick man, liar, cheat, wannabe king, or despot?”
  • Republican Members — ANY GOP members — during a hearing called Hillary Clinton a liar, a law-breaker, a government official who acts like she is above the law, or a tyrant who throws tantrums when not getting her way?
  • Any Republican Senator in a hearing supervised by the SCOTUS Chief Justice demeaned the Chief Justice (as did Sen. Elizabeth Warren) attacking him and his office as Chief Justice if he did not take actions in that hearing which Democrats wanted? (Wait: Obama did just that from the podium in a State of the Union message)
  • Republicans in any way in the press demeaned Chelsea Clinton, derided her for her appearance, her private or business life, or made fun of her religion?
  • Republicans demeaned in the press or in public the personal aspects of the Obama girls, or talked about their character traits, academics, or religious beliefs or social affiliations?
  • President Clinton or Obama signed a bill into law that members of the opposite political Party stated publicly they were going to ignore?
  • President Trump instructed his Justice Department to just ignore and not enforce one or two or three federal laws?
  • President Trump when his DOJ levied fines and penalties against companies found to be breaking rules or laws, when those fines and penalties were paid diverted that money (or a portion) to hand-picked 501c(3) organizations of his choosing, bypassing the U.S. Treasury and Congressional oversight?
  • President Trump instructed his Attorney General to drop the prosecution of two White Supremacists who had illegally threatened African American voters at the polls? (As happened in 2012 in Philadelphia’s Black Panther intimidation of White voters at a polling location)
  • When members of the current State Department came under attack at one of our overseas embassies, President Trump instead of sending U.S. military personnel to their rescue gave military leaders a “stand-down” order that directly resulted in the deaths of four of them?
  • President Trump “winked” at President Obama’s non-profit which for the expressed purpose of “relief” went to a nation which sustained a national disaster. Instead of using the millions of dollars in contributions as direct aid used most of that money for other purposes that had nothing to do with the impacted nation or its citizens?
  • The former National Security Adviser for President Obama — Susan Rice — was asked by Mr. Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign to put pressure to conduct a political dirt investigation of his opponent in the race, Mitt Romney? And then, Rice said nothing to anyone about the President’s request for almost a year at which time she allegedly claimed it in a book she is about to release?

It is easy for a reasoning American who can and will objectively examine how this impeachment debacle was started, perpetuated, and who the players were in the process. Make no mistake: impeachment did NOT begin a month or so ago. It began on Election Day in November, 2016.

Many have suspicions of the purposes for not just this impeachment trial but for the systematic attempts to dismantle everything President Trump has accomplished. Democrats have ratchet up their hatred for their opponents to demean not only the President on both political and personal levels, but while doing so, excoriate every American — 63 million — who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.

We have maintained for several years that the big difference between Democrats and Republicans has been boiled down to just two things: Republicans who disagree with Democrat policies under a Democrat President and/or Congress make it clear they simply disagree with those things. Democrats when they disagree with Republicans about the same or similar issues when Republicans occupy the White House and a majority in either House of Congress, don’t stop at disagreement. They feel anger that often morphs into hatred for all those who support those things with which Democrats disagree. One is policy disagreements, the other is opposition personal hatred. The difference is stark today and perfectly visible for all to see.

Democrats in this impeachment process have made it crystal clear: they have NO intentions of working with any Republicans in government to facilitate anything at all that everyday Americans support UNLESS it aligns with what Democrats want. And if you disagree with Democrats: they explode. Want an example or two?

Democrats made it clear with Friday’s Senate vote to reject Democrats’ motion to call witnesses that they simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his “sham” trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

Signaling how they will message this in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.

“The president’s acquittal will be meaningless,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), declared Friday, “because it will be the result of a sham trial. With no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said Republicans may get what they want — a speedy end to the trial — but it won’t have any value.

Summary

Friday’s Senate actions revealed the heart of the Democrat Party and Democrats to the Nation. But Friday’s vote to not allow trial witnesses was nothing more than one decision in a process to disassemble the 2016 presidential election and also the 2020 election. How so? Democrats if successful at the removal of Donald Trump would legislatively go back and overturn every accomplishment in Congressional action with which Democrats disagreed.

But their attack on this Administration would NOT be over. Vice President Mike Pence has been in their sights as long as has Mr. Trump. They will take any measures necessary to remove him as well. Think about that: Nancy Pelosi would then move into the White House.

Enjoy this weekend. I don’t want to scare anyone. But while justifiably enjoying the Friday battle victory, prepare for the balance of the War. When Democrats are part of disagreements at this level, any war is never over until they say it is. Their war will never stop as long as they do not control every phase of our government.

We will pickup on Monday with our Senate Impeachment trial coverage and also our Obama era corruption. Enjoy the SuperBowl on Sunday. Relax, folks: God’s got this!

And GO NINERS!

D.C. Corruption in the Senate Chamber

What are we talking about? This is supposed to be a summary of the Impeachment Trial from the previous day?

Folks, after watching the Q & A for two days, the Thursday answers to dozens of questions were fueled directly by corruption — corruption on the part of House Manager and House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). In fact, for several of the questions from Senators that were directed simply to “House Managers” that Schiff chose to answer, his answers made no reference at all to answering the asked questions, rather he launched into wild allegations and conclusions based on no facts and no evidence at all.

One of the issues I have with the Q & A process is that without cross examination of witness responses, and, in this case, cross examination of answers by BOTH Democrats and Republicans, finding truth in answers is unrealistic. There’s NO way this method has or will ever result in reliable answers. Example: “It is uncontroverted that the President corruptly and illegally withheld critical aid to Ukraine while demanding the Ukrainian government investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden.”

Here’s the rub: that allegation is NOT uncontroverted. In fact, the exact opposite is true. From the beginning, Defense Team members have consistently refuted that and other outlandish and unsubstantiated claims against the President.

But in the example above, (which actually happened when Rep. Jerrold Nadler made that statement numerous times) there was no method in this process to confront Mr. Nadler about that statement. Some will say, “Senators knew that so it really didn’t matter.” Don’t assume that: there are Senators who sit in the Chamber on both sides with pre-conceived ideas based totally on partisanship that may, when confronted with truth that would come from a cross-examination, change their minds.

The Thursday horrors in the Senate Chamber drove me to the edge of political suicide! Schiff once again dominated the process of House Managers answering questions of the Senators. In doing so, he as he is known for in every response, talked down to Senators, argued, very nastily snarled at members of the Defense Team, and, in each and every response, included vitriolic allegations against Mr. Trump that Schiff continually asserted were “uncontroverted facts.”

I learned in high school debate that when a debate opponent, in making a point or attempting to refute a point made by an opponent, argues points that had previously been made and debated did so because they had no relevant response  with supporting evidence which they can use.

Adam Schiff and all the other House Managers could have presented their entire case during the second day of this trial from start to finish and have been done with it. They called and questioned eighteen witnesses before their committee. The written testimonies of seventeen of those witnesses were released and are included in the official House impeachment record provided to the Senate. Why wasn’t the eighteenth testimony provided to the world? We don’t know for certain, but it has been leaked that the testimony of the Inspector General that was not included contained information that Adam Schiff had direct contact with the whistleblower which Schiff has under oath denied.

House Managers stated on Day One their case included “complete and undisputed evidence that absolutely proved President Trump’s guilt for Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power.” They maintained that was all they needed.

But wait: they’ve spent a week demanding they need for the Senate to call more witnesses!

It’s simple to deduce why they do so: their case does NOT contain “complete and undisputed evidence that absolutely proves President Trump’s guilt.” In fact, ALL allegations of Trump impeachment actions have NOT been proven all.

Today is the day in which the Senate will hear the case for Senators to subpoena new witnesses and other evidence from the Trump Administration. It will take a simple majority of the Senate — 51 — in a vote expected to occur sometime in the afternoon for that process to be initiated.

If it does, this trial will certainly last at least through February and into March, maybe even April. 

But that’s not the travesty of this: by longstanding rules of the Senate, the Senate MUST remain in session with one and only one agenda item — Impeachment — until all of the impeachment issues are resolved. And they can conduct NO other business about any other issue during that time other than impeachment.

The Corruption Common Denominator: Ukraine

What is the 900 pound gorilla in the Senate Chamber? It’s the nation of Ukraine. In fact, all the claims made against President Trump when he as President in a phone call with the new Ukraine President mentioned, “Do US a favor.” The favor the President referenced was regarding an closed Ukrainian corruption investigation of a Ukrainian company Burisma which had the son of Joe Biden on its board of directors. Reasonable people — especially Americans — would not  assume that an American who had no energy business experience, no business management experience, and no experience of any kind in the nation of Ukraine would be asked to serve on the board of a large natural gas company in Ukraine. And certainly, those Americans would ask questions about that American earning $83,000 a month for doing nothing but serving on a board. Records show that he participated in only two official company events during his board tenure for which he was paid $1 million per year. What could be the reason for Burisma offering that position to Hunter Biden? When he was asked in an interview if he was added to the Burisma board and paid that amount of money because his father was the Vice President of the U.S. he replied, “Probably so.”

That investigation was initiated and conducted by the federal prosecutor of the country of Ukraine. He began a corruption investigation into all things Burisma. SubsequentLy, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden’s father, visited Ukraine in his official U.S. capacity. During his visit with the now “former” Ukraine president, VP Biden told the Ukraine president that if he did NOT fire the federal prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden, (and do so within six hours) the U.S. on Biden’s order would refuse to pay to Ukraine almost $ Billion in loan guarantees by the U.S. Ukraine took actions and fired that prosecutor.

When Ukraine’s new president took office, Mr. Trump had the above mentioned phone call — the call that initiated this entire impeachment debacle. Adam Schiff and other Democrats claim President Trump attempted to blackmail Ukraine to hold foreign aid if they did not reopen that investigation terminated by the former Ukrainian president.

Here’s the rub: there are two reasons why President Trump would have been in error if he did NOT pursue that matter in Ukraine. One is the Congressional bill that authorized the Ukrainian aid mandated that the President make certain that those funds would NOT be used for corrupt purposes by Ukraine before it was released to Ukraine. Secondly, President Bill Clinton signed a U.S.-Ukraine mutual corruption “treaty” that it was ratified by Congress. The treaty states that both countries will work together to find, reveal, and eliminate any corruption found in either country related to the other country. If President Trump had simply released that money without comfort the funds would be used for the expressed purpose of the release Adam Schiff would be the first member of Congress who wanted President Trump impeached for allowing Ukraine corruption to continue using American dollars. It wouldn’t surprise me in that case if Schiff did not claim President Trump had cut a deal to get some of that money personally!

This is how ridiculous this is.

How many of you knew anything about Ukraine before this all started? Most don’t even know where Ukraine is on a map. But now Americans hear the word “Ukraine” dozens of time a day because of these nonstop allegations of Trump corruption with Ukraine. Have you ever wondered what the attraction to Ukraine for American politicians seems to be? In fact, most of the “current” conversations about D.C. corruption contain the name “Ukraine.” Why do you think that is?

Corruption’s World Headquarters: Ukraine

In the U.S., very little has been known about Ukraine until this most recent news activity about the country that has accompanied an uncountable number of stories covering President Trump, Joe and Hunter Biden, Rudy Giuliana, Paul Manaforte, and the President’s impeachment trial.

Ukraine is and has been one of the World’s most corrupt countries for quite a while. In the highly reliable Corruption Perception Index created and released annually by Transparency International, Ukraine ranked 148th. That’s only slightly above Russia, Belarus, The Congo, Nigeria, and Haiti. That’s not too good a position to hold.

Remember Paul Manaforte? He was paid a reported $65 million by Ukraine oligarchs over a decade to assist “dirty” politicians in the cleanup of their reputations sufficient to be elected to office or some to be re-elected, including the former President. In keeping with his clients’ reputation and underhanded methods of taking care of their money, Manaforte then laundered that money through a series of companies in various countries. He pled guilty for doing so during the Mueller Investigation.

Manaforte’s actions were just a drop in the bucket of Ukrainian corruption. And that may explain the concentration by so many of today’s Washington power brokers, including members of some of the most famous and well known American families.

Here’s a report from One America News about Paul Pelosi Jr.’s deep relationships within the nation of Ukraine:

Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden; Ukraine and Nancy and Paul Pelosi; Ukraine and former Secretary of State John Kerry and stepson Christoper Heinz: does any of this ring a bell for you?

In the South, there’s an old saying: “If it quacks and waddles it’s always a duck.” By that saying, Ukraine’s quacking along with Pelosi, Biden, and Heinz. Who else is wrapped up in Ukraine? Chances are with the flood of easy money flowing from Ukraine amid the lust for political connections at the highest levels in the U.S., there are more corrupt D.C. heavyweights in the midst of Ukraine corruption.

Summary

As today’s part of our Obama era corruption we promised a report from a Eurasia news source provided to us. We have it, we want you to have it, and we’ll give it to you. However, the Thursday chaos on Capitol Hill on impeachment along with the continued crescendo surrounding Impeachment and Ukraine, we wanted to bring you this Paul Pelosi story today.

What happens today in the Impeachment Trial? As of late Thursday evening, it is apparent that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has decided to vote against extending the impeachment trial by calling for additional witnesses. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) indicated he would like to hear testimony from former National Security Adviser John Bolton. It’s assumed he will vote for additional witnesses. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) indicated she will vote for additional witnesses. Those three along with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)  are the moderate Republicans who would be the easiest for Democrats to sway.

There are 53 GOP Senators and 47 Democrats. A vote to call additional witnesses requires a simple majority, or 51. With Collins and Romney indicating a vote FOR witnesses and Alexander to NOT call witnesses, the count stands at 51-49. If Murkowski votes with Democrats, it would be a 50-50 tie. It is likely that Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts would NOT vote to break such a tie, so the count would end in a tie. That would mean the motion to call new witnesses would NOT pass.

It is very possible several other right-leaning Democrats will vote against calling witnesses. That would only strengthen the vote count for Republicans. In either case, today’s Senate trial matters will be highly controversial, extremely animated, and historically important.

We have our eyes and ears on Washington. Stay close: Saturday we will have all the Friday impeachment news for you, plus we’ll look ahead.

And don’t forget, we’ll have that lengthy Ukrainian interview we were secretly sent that exposes the Bidens.

Impeachment: “Noise, Noise, Noise!”

Wednesday was a unique day in the Senate Impeachment Trial. It was Day One of the two days allotted for Senators to ask questions (via written message read by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts). That ‘s precisely what happened: the first question came for the President’s Defense Team and then alternated for the remainder of the day’s session.

Let me be clear: there was NO new information given — certainly no further evidence. However, the day was clarifying for many in that “some” questions that, when answered, cleared up some of the craziness that was thrown out mainly by the House Managers during their portions of the trial. That is NOT a partisan allegation on my part, just the objective observation of one who has endured almost all of this trial to filter out facts. (We’ll wait until our trial final summary to detail some of the “craziness” referenced above)

Admittedly, there were several critical Q & A’s that clarified some severe allegations which though made over and over against President Trump and answered by his Defense Team, House Managers continued to beat the same drums. Their continuation to do this seemed a bit dismissive to the 100 Senators in the room, as if they are not capable of hearing and concluding for themselves.

In place of usual bullet points, let’s take a look at a few of the most important happenings outside of questions and answers, then a look at a few questions and answers that have drawn attention.

Plans For Calling Witnesses. First, Sen. Chris Van Hollen announced plans to introduce a motion to require the chief justice to subpoena documents and witnesses if he determines they are relevant to the impeachment articles, and to exercise his authority to rule on evidence issues like an executive privilege.

“My motion ensures the chief justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country — to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement.

The Whistleblower’s Job. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Jerry Moran asked House managers if the White House whistleblower ever worked with former Vice President Joe Biden.

Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff fielded the question, using his five minutes to defend himself and his staff’s handling of the whistleblower’s complaint. Schiff said he had never met the whistleblower and does not know the whistleblower’s identity. He did not directly address the question regarding Biden and the whistleblower.

The hold on Ukraine aid revealed when and its purpose.  Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) asked a question that many Democrats also want answered: “On what specific date did President Trump first order the hold on security assistance to Ukraine, and did he explain the reason at that time?”

White House lawyer Pat Philbin replied: “I don’t think that there is evidence in the record of a specific date, the specific date.” He said testimony indicates that Office of Management and Budget officials were aware of a hold as of July 3, 2019. Records indicate multiple conversations as far back as 2018 between the President and others about concerns of corruption in the Ukrainian government. (Long before Biden alleged corruption was discussed)

Q & A’s of Note: January 29, 2020

The most outstanding Q & A of the day came in answer to two different questions, one from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and one from Sen. Bob Melendez (D-NJ) both addressed to Trump’s Defense Team.

Cruz asked whether it mattered, in legal terms, if there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. In response, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the lead manager, painted a hypothetical scenario in which President Obama asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to investigate his political rival in 2012, Mitt Romney.

“See how you feel about this scenario: President Obama says on an open mic to Medvedev…’ I know you don’t want to use this because they’re killing your people. I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney, and I want you to announce that you found dirt on Mitt Romney. If you’re willing to do that, quid pro quo, I won’t give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front line.’ Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct?”

The irony that set this exchange as the best of the day came with a response to Schiff’s theoretical topic by Defense Team in a later answer to a question by Jay Sekulow. I’ll paraphrase Sekulow’s answer:

“Senators, we don’t need a ‘hypothetical’ scenario for this story. We have an actual example of it. President Obama’s FBI accepted ‘unverified and salacious’ information in the form of the Steele Dossier from a former FBI informant later identified as an associate of numerous Russian politicians. The FBI took that dossier that FBI Director James Comey had personally stated to President Trump shortly after he was elected was ‘unverified and salacious’ to the FISA Court to use as the basis for multiple FISA warrants to allow the FBI to surveil Trump Campaign associates.’

A bit later, it was revealed that Christopher Steele had been fired from the FBI for press leaks and that the dossier which relied on information from Russian operatives had been paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National Committee.”

But it got better later. When Sen. Menendez sent his question forward, it too was answered by Jay Sekulow. The question was how long would the Impeachment Trial be drawn out if the Senate approves the calling of additional witnesses and documents in the trial. Sekulow responded that “the trial if witnesses are called will last weeks and even months more.”

Adam Schiff then piped up from his chair and said, “Give us witnesses, and you can have whatever you want.” Sekulow quickly responded and said, “You’ll give us whatever we want?” Schiff: “Witnesses.” Sekulow jumped on that and replied, “We want Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, because of his interactions with the whistleblower and we want the whistleblower and anyone on your staff that interacted with the whistleblower.” 

Schiff quickly said “We’re not calling the Bidens or the whistleblower.” Sekulow quipped, “Then we won’t have witnesses,” and walked back to his chair.

Those interactions are priceless! And, I promise, they’ll be memorialized and indexed in history under “The Greatest Senate Impeachment Trial Confrontations” for our great-grandchildren to see — especially under the subtopic titled “Noise, Noise, Noise!”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Chief Justice John Roberts got into a bit of a tiff Wednesday. Sen. Paul asked a question (in written form sent to the Chief Justice who reads each question out loud) in which he requested the name of the whistleblower. The Chief Justice declined to allow the name of the whistleblower to be given publicly. Paul intends to “push the issue” during Thursday’s Q & A session in the Senate chamber.

Summary

Before we present today’s “Obama Corruption Story” of the day, please know this: Thursday’s impeachment trial agenda is the second day of questioning. It is slated to last up to eight hours though I doubt it will take that long.

It remains to be seen what will happen after Thursday’s Q & A. The subject of calling additional witnesses will most likely consume the Friday agenda.

I earlier on Wednesday made a bold prediction, a prediction based on little more than my listening and watching far too many hours of this sham than I wanted, but felt compelled to do so and drawing educated conclusions. My prediction is two-fold: There will be NO witnesses called before the Senate, and President Trump will be acquitted. Oh, one more thing: I think Nancy Pelosi will resign as House Speaker!

Corruption

Today’s Obama era corruption story is the first part of what will be several looking into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. We include the story link below for you to download.

Many know the investigative journalist John Solomon. He is one of the most respected political journalists in the U.S. today. Here is his timeline on the interactions that are applicable in this discussion of Joe Biden and Ukraine. You will certainly be shocked when you see the exhaustive and documented evidence presented in the story titled “The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don’t want America to see.”

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukraine-scandal-timeline-democrats-and-their-media-allies-dont-want-america-to-see/

NOTE: On Friday, our corruption story will be another Biden story. It comes from a non-partisan, non-government, and independent news source that concentrates on investigatory information regarding Eurasian government corruption. This was sent to TruthNewsNetwork, and I don’t believe any other U.S. source, but I may be wrong. It is an interview with a person named in the interview that participated directly in the Biden-Ukraine activities. Don’t miss it!

Impeachment Trial Debate: Final Day For Defense

Tuesday, January 28, was scheduled to be the final day for the President’s Defense Team to give the nation their defense of their client, who is facing two charges: Obstruction of Congress, and Abuse of Power.

Most will say the President’s team has blown away the hollow claims made by House managers with responsive facts presented that, in many cases, used video which the House managers used themselves. It seems that in numerous of such instances, House managers presented just snippets of those videos that, if allowed to play in full contained further testimony that refuted Democrats’ claims.

How did the day go? What were the outcomes of the Defense Team’s findings? What’s next?

Tuesday: the Trial

The final day of the Defense Team presentation of the case for the President included recaps of the salient points of evidence presented in the first two days. But when the case summary was detailed, the Team during their bullet-point presentation drove home several facts: neither of the two Articles of Impeachment is based on Constitutional requirements. All of the evidence presented by the House managers was incomplete, inconsistent with provisions for impeachment, and grossly misrepresented the facts. Once again, the Defense Team masterfully laced segments of the actual videos the House managers used to prove just how Dems manipulated presentation of their case twisting things said to “sell” their case. The problem is: when the evidence presented was put in context, not a single segment supported the Prosecution’s case.

But one thing has happened in the last several days that has thrown a wrench into the impeachment trial: John Bolton. The fired National Security Adviser submitted an advance copy of this book to the White House to determine if any and which parts of the book cannot be released due to their containing classified information. As usual, a “source” leaked to the New York Times that Bolton states in the book that President Trump told Bolton he DID tie the release of Ukrainian aid to the public announcement by President Zelensky of the resumption of the Ukraine investigation into the Bidens.

Honestly, the Bolton move was not surprising to me. John Bolton has throughout his professional career been a lightning rod for controversy. He has never been well thought of by many leaders of several foreign companies. And many Democrats dislike his foreign policy tendencies to move very quickly in any controversy with a foreign government from diplomacy to military actions.

No doubt, John Bolton felt jilted by President Trump — he was fired. He has shown a pretty vicious temper at times in his past. And as a jilted security adviser to the President, he certainly was embarrassed by being sent packing. That opened the door for payback.

But the Bolton book story and its sudden “leak” to the New York Times is now becoming not such a big mystery. The Buffalo Chronicle released this story about Bolton’s “payback” threats when fired:

In the hours after National Security Advisor John Bolton was fired by President Donald Trump on September 10th, he immediately began calling longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, sources tell The Chronicle.  Many of those calls were made to Democrats and many of them in the national security establishment.

One of those contacts was the intelligence agency whistleblower who filed the now-famous complaint pertaining to the President’s call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, that is now the subject of intense congressional scrutiny.  That complaint was filed only weeks before, on August 12th. The source alleges that the whistleblower was given the information that comprises the contents of his complaint from Bolton himself, which if true would constitute an extraordinary breach of national security and an indictable offense punishable by imprisonment.

“It’s go time,” he began those conversations, multiple sources tell The Chronicle, as if to suggest that Bolton’s patience with the President had worn thin.

The source of the Chronicle’s story made it clear that Bolton was definitely angry at President Trump. But there’s more than just this. Their story continues:

While on the phone with one former government official who currently works on K Street, Bolton admitted that he was furious with the President, whom he lambasted with obscenities for more than five minutes.  The President would learn his lesson, he told the lobbyist, who chalked it up to a disgruntled employee venting over his unexpected termination.

But now, he fears that Bolton is organizing a coup d’etat to oust President Trump from office.  He cites Bolton’s contacts with journalists at major media outlets. Bolton has aggressively pushed for a military strike against Iran, putting him at odds with the President, who opposes unnecessary large-scale military interventions.  In the days prior to his termination, he was engaged in a heated battled inside the White House over the administration’s response to Iran’s attack on Saudi oil infrastructure earlier this month.

Oh, there’s another twist in this story: Lt. Alexander Vindman — the only witness who testified before the House Judiciary Committee — works for the National Security Council  in the White House. His twin brother works in the same place. But THAT Vindman brother is tasked to examine ALL the materials submitted to the NSC prior to being published.It is unknown now if Vindman “the twin” is the source of which the Times confirmed gave them the segment of the Bolton book.

Summary

This brought the impeachment process to a screeching whoa. Sen. Mitch McConnell was said to have made the comment Tuesday that after the Bolton story, Republicans now do not have the votes to stop a push for witnesses before the Senate. That means that apparently at least those four moderate Republicans who were waffling were pushed over the line by the Bolton story.

If this happens, God only knows how this will turn. Today, the trial agenda is for questions from Senators submitted to Chief Justice Roberts. He then will determine the process of handling the Q & A. It is assumed that later in the week, an intense debate will be initiated to determine a witness process acceptable to at least fifty-one Senators. If it is decided first to call witnesses and secondly the process for and who will be called to testify, the timeline will be determined also.

Do you know what the nightmare in all this will be? This process could continue for months! How so? The Democrats have made it clear they want testimony from Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton at least. Republicans certainly want to hear from Hunter Biden, also Joe, the Whistleblower, and maybe even Rep. Adam Schiff because in his handling of the Whistleblower, he became a “fact witness.”

It is likely that President Trump will exert executive privilege to block the testimony of at least John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney for the reason of National Security confidentiality. If that happens, the Senate will be forced to file an appeal with the D.C. District Court to rule on the executive privilege claim. If that court rules against the President, he will appeal it. It is certain it will make its way to the Supreme Court for an emergency review. Who knows what will happen from there.

One of the ironies of this entire mess was shown to be unconstitutional. Alan Dershowitz showed in a deliberate explanation with explicit examples that even “if” Bolton’s book says what The Times reported, “if” what Bolton did say it, and “if” Bolton’s word is taken as truth, President Trump doing that is not Constitutionally an impeachable offense. 

Maybe today some of this cloud will be cleared away. But I doubt it. If we go to the witness process, it is almost certain we will be in this impeachment trial until March at least.

Stay close: we’re looking behind bushes for the facts and will share them as we find them.

Corruption

Even in the impeachment trial craziness, we will not forego our stories of government corruption during the Obama Administration.

Yesterday we provided the first link that contained full information about the massive corruption in the mortgage banking industry under the Obama Administration. The dollars and cents of that corruption will probably never be known in full. It will probably be several trillion dollars before the dust settles. But what IS known is that tens of thousands of Americans were taken advantage of by Wall Street mortgage bankers and those in the Obama Administration who are complicit in creating this monstrous fraud, implementing it with and for those big banks, all the while ignoring the American people who were caught in this travesty.

We did not summarize in that story or even give you any up-front information before the link. That was purposeful because we want to make certain you research this corruption to some degree on your own. It will be much more meaningful that way. Today and going forward we’re going to present the Obama corruption examples with a short explanation.  But we still suggest you do some of your own research yourself.

Who is the subject of today’s Obama Administration recipient of corrupt benefits? Sen. Bernie Sanders. Here is the FOX News story which is actually a summary of an excerpt from Peter Schweizer’s new book. Feel free to go to the story by clicking the link or even check out the book itself: “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite.”

Sanders and his wife and daughter began years ago “gaming the system” for personal benefit. In the process, they garnered for themselves millions of dollars. In the offing, their greed and corrupt actions actually forced a university to close its doors in part because of the mismanagement of Bernie’s wife.

Take a look for yourself. Here’s the link to the FOX News summary story:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-public-service-rich-peter-schweizer

Senate Impeachment Trial Defense Riddles House Case

President Trump’s Defense Team’s Mike Purpura struck the perfect chord in the song “Let’s Tell the Truth” in the impeachment case on Monday. He very concisely destroyed each of the points of Article I of the House case against President Trump.

Purpura introduced NEW not previously introduced evidence that took the House Manager’s “evidence” — which had been snippets of witnesses testimonies –and gave Senators in the Chamber a first-hand look at what those witnesses said in whole.

  • POTUS Required a Biden Investigation for release of Ukraine Aid. In the cases of Ambassadors Sondland, Voker, and Yovanovitch, all three in House testimony stated that President Trump had NEVER tied any aid to Ukraine to actions of any kind required by Ukraine — certainly not an investigation into Joe or Hunter Biden.
  • POTUS Required Biden Investigation for meeting with President Trump for Ukraine legitimacy in Europe. All testimony by any of the House 18 witnesses clearly stated that while Ukraine President Zelensky wanted a White House meeting or a meeting with President Trump in Warsaw. Hurricane Dorian required Mr. Trump to remain in the U.S. However, the President met in  a highly publicized meeting at the U.N. in New York. There were no pre-conditions for that meeting.
  • President Trump’s White House Meeting Invitations. House Managers did not reveal that President Trump had invited Zelensky two times before the July call that started these latest of the impeachment cries. None of those invitations had any pre-conditions especially not a Biden investigation.
  • POTUS Withholding Ukraine Aid Threatened Ukrainian Safety. Ambassadors Volker, Sondland, and Yovanovitch all three confirmed that the fact that President Trump had much earlier provided Ukraine javelin missiles — which President Obama had refused to give to Ukraine — gave Ukraine a level of defense against any pending military action they had never had before. Javelin missiles are designed and used specifically for effective defense against Russian tank attacks. By the way, three of the members of the House managers voted against the bill to provide aid to Ukraine.
  • Rudy Giuliani Trump was “hatchet man.” Democrat House managers alleged that Rudy Giuliani’s mention in the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was President Trump’s notification to Zelensky that he was sending Giuliani as an official gov’t representative to meet with Zelensky gov’t members. House managers painted Giuliani as a Trump “hit-man” sent to threaten Ukraine to cave to Trump’s demands for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The President’s Defense team on Monday revealed several emails, the contents of several phone calls, and portions of witness testimonies (that House Managers failed to reveal). it was made clear by several of those who testified that Giuliani was acting on his own and had started his Ukraine investigation months before the July 25 call was held. Ambassador Volker testified that he was contacted by Ukrainian officials more than a month after the July call with President Trump asking Volker how to reach Giuliani.
  • The hurry for the impeachment inquiry. With House managers, a host of Democrats from the House, and now at least two of the moderate Senators are recommending the call of additional witnesses in the impeachment trial. That brings to the table for consideration one question: what was the rush to get the inquiry completed? The President’s legal team on Monday took that issue to task. Think about these: the House wants the Senate to force Mick Mulvaney to testify. They want John Bolton to testify, Mike Pompeo as well. But the House constitutionally “has the sole power to impeach” a President. If the House must collect sufficient evidence to create an overwhelming case to present to the Senate, why did they not complete the process by forcing these witnesses to testify. “IF” their doing so in necessary to their impeachment case? It may be true they used that as a ploy to force the Senate to do their dirty work regarding witnesses while hoping some damning evidence would surface to help their cause. Some feel the snippets leaked from John Bolton’s upcoming book could be one tidbit of evidence. But they certainly demanded the inquiry start and end when it did. Why? In numerous news reports and interviews with Democrats, when asked what was the timing for getting articles to the Senate, several dozens of those replied, “It is critical we complete this inquiry to get to the Senate immediately.” Nancy Pelosi especially pushed for it, but then waited 28 days to forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The answer? Only one I can think of is that they had emergency Christmas plans!
  • Alan Dershowitz: “Impeachment Charges are Not Impeachable.” Dershowitz is a Democrat and did not vote for Donald Trump. He’s a Constitutional lawyer who is considered one of the foremost experts on the Constitution. Attorney Dershowitz spent an hour meticulously explaining why neither of the Articles of Impeachment reach the level of constitutional justification for impeachment. In his presentation he very carefully and clearly explained the meanings of applicable segments of impeachment law, on which fundamentals each of the two Articles are based, and the specifics of what is required to impeach a President. If you have interest, I highly suggest you on YouTube watch his presentation. If you do, you will never need to wonder what is and what is not an impeachable offense under the U.S. Constitution. Oh: both articles of impeachment fall far short of the qualifications necessary to impeach a president.

Summary

The bottom line on Day 6 of the Senate Impeachment trial is this: the President’s Defense team put one or two (maybe three) more nails in the coffin of the House managers’ impeachment case. Once more, they were concise, factual, singular, and amazingly understandable not only to the gaggle of attorneys who comprise the Senate, but to millions of Americans who were looking in. This Cajun redneck was one of those.

The icing on the cake in their presentation had to be how Alan Dershowitz dumbed-down the Constitutional requirements for presidential impeachment. He made it abundantly clear that the president may have done something wrong, something suspicious, or something surreptitious in his handling of Ukraine regarding the military aid in question. But none of those rise to the level of an impeachable offense according to the Constitution. In fact, even if President Trump made such a request of President Zelensky, it still would NOT be an impeachable offense for two reasons: there was no “pro” that came from the “quid pro.” In other words, Ukraine received their aid within the legal timeframe set in U.S. law, there was no Ukrainian announcement (as the House managers claim Trump demanded) of a restart of the corruption investigation of the Bidens.

Dershowitz put the dot on the i regarding this entire impeachment folly with this: “Not liking a president, not liking his policies, not agreeing with his methods, or disagreeing with his actions may be distasteful. His words and actions may be uncomfortable and even egregious in nature as perceived by some. But even if all of those are present, they are not impeachable offenses even if they ARE offenses.” He continued, “There is a constitutional method to remove a President when he is not liked or he is disagreed with or even if a majority feel any or all of the above. It’s called an election. The American people have the sole right to kick any President from office.”

I’ll end with this: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) illustrated best the problem with the House of Representatives’ position and process taken and used in this impeachment process when she stated this: “He doesn’t have to break the law to be impeached. There IS no impeachment law. Congress decides the law.”

Read through this twice: Rep. Waters really believes that. If that was what was intended by our forefathers when they penned the Constitution, there would be no need for the executive branch or the judicial branch of government. There would be no “co-equal” branches of government. There would be no “rule of law.” Congress would be the sole arbiter of everything that happens in the U.S. and could float with the wind each day as the party in the majority decided all laws and who must abide by them!

That would be a state of anarchy like has never existed in any nation in World history. I doubt the founders had Maxine’s idea in mind in the eighteenth century.

Corruption

As promised, we today are bringing to you details with evidence of one of the corrupt acts committed by the previous administration which cost billions of U.S. tax dollars and robbed millions of Americans under on the Obama watch.

The mortgage crash almost destroyed the economy of the U.S. and cost numerous Americans their homes. Big Wall Street banks were at the top of this horror that existed only because of their corrupt banking practices to make much money.

This story details exactly what happened, who were involved, the dollars involved and who made those dollars and lost those dollars. More importantly, you will see the ties to the Barack Obama Administration. (It’s better than a Jack Ryan spy novel)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/

This will be the first of these exposures of Government corruption. Get ready to read and do follow-up research. We’ll give you truth. It’s up to you to confirm!

 

See you tomorrow.