Republicans Excoriated for Voting for Trump Impeachment: Why?

As if there are not really serious considerations, a massive majority of Americans want the Biden Administration members to quickly address, implement fixes for our problems, and get us out of the COVID-19 pandemic and our economy back to roaring as it did under President Trump. There is little doubt that GOP voters across the nation were largely miffed at those Republican senators who voted to convict President Trump in his impeachment trial. And most of those voters were pleased to see the various Republican Party entities censure those seven for their actions. Yet the Mainstream Media is still concentrating on the “pronounced split” in the Republican Party and are doing so for undeniable political purposes. Take this snippet published by TIME:”

A number of Republicans are expressing frustration toward their party for censuring GOP senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial.

Last week, seven Republican senators joined all Democrats to find the former president guilty of inciting an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol on January 6. They were Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Mitt Romney of Utah, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Each senator has since defended their decision by stating their vote was constitutional and based on significant evidence, but the blowback from breaking with the Republican party has been severe.

Five of those seven lawmakers — all but Collins and Romney — have since faced local censures, or formal rebukes, from GOP groups in the states they represent. Republican officials have condemned the GOP senators by stating that the decision to convict was not representative of the party. Other Republicans, however, have since criticized the party for participating in “cancel culture” and being intolerant of diverse opinions.

Republican Senator John Thune, who voted to acquit Trump, defended his colleagues who sided with Democrats and warned the party against shutting out dissenting voices. “There was a strong case made. People could come to different conclusions. If we’re going to criticize the media and the left for cancel culture, we can’t be doing that ourselves,” Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, told the Associated Press.

Similarly, Quin Hillyer, a former leader of the Louisiana Young Republicans who writes commentaries for the Washington Examiner, criticized the party for discouraging opposing views. “It is incredibly frustrating to me to see both sides of politics these days act as if no dissent is allowed; to act as if anybody that strays on any subject immediately is to be shouted down, or canceled or in this case censured,” Hillyer said. He added, “If we start making every single vote a litmus test, ‘A’ we’re not going to get anywhere practically, but ‘B’ we’re going down the line of extremists’ societies where you have purge, after purge, after purge and not only does nothing get done but it becomes very dangerous and becomes very unstable.” Ya’ think!

In Utah, Republican Senator Mike Lee, who voted to acquit Trump, released a statement saying Romney’s decision to convict was not cause for alarm. “The fact that Senator Romney and I sometimes disagree (either with each other or with most Senate Republicans, or both) is not itself cause for alarm,” Lee said. “To the contrary, it shows that neither one of us blindly defers to anyone. We each do our own homework and then, after conferring with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with each other, we reach our own conclusions.”

The Utah Republican Party echoed that statement by saying the senators’ choice to convict represented “diversity of thought.”

Illinois GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who was censured for voting to impeach Trump in the House of Representatives, took to Twitter to mock the party’s decision to punish dissenting voices by dubbing it a censure frenzy. “Good party, a good #censure-frenzy !!” he tweeted sarcastically.

This or any media outlet has an implicit right to publish what they will, as do those 100 senators have the right to vote as they will. But having the authority to do so is quite different from “should” they have done so. So who should be the person or persons to determine if these seven were right or were wrong? Should it be the GOP National Party, the respective state Republican parties, or the people who voted for these senators?

Political Party Slippery Slope

We not only are getting close to stepping on that proverbial “slippery slope” in this process, but we’re probably past the half-way point to pure chaos. And this dilemma that GOP leaders and voting citizens are facing is one that illustrates best what we and others have pointed to for years as the most dangerous element of American politics. What is that?

Political Parties and their power.

The current ruling two-party system is so global that we take it as a given. We teach the “two-party system” in government classes. Taxpayers pay for their primary elections, but did you know that legally, parties are private associations? We have allowed the two ruling parties to entrench themselves in our political and governing systems. They get preferential ballot access, and legislative committee assignments and campaign finance laws are rigged in their favor. Given their political system domination, one might think that the two-party system comes from our constitutional roots. But in fact, the opposite is the case. Virtually every one of the Founding Fathers hated the idea of political parties and worried what might happen to the country if political parties were to come to dominate the country.

 There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”  -John Adams.

“If I could not go to heaven but with a political party, I would decline to go.” -Thomas Jefferson.

“A man under the tyranny of party spirit is the greatest slave upon the earth.” – Thomas Paine.

Let me now . . . warn you most solemnly against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption; A fire not to quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into flame.” – George Washington.

All of the Founding Fathers — except Washington — ultimately relented to “party spirit.” By the first contested presidential campaign in 1796, the country had divided itself into the Federalist and Democrat-Republican parties. Parties have dominated our politics ever since to a greater or lesser degree.

But the times they are a-changing. Polling shows Americans are dropping party affiliation in droves. Today, barely half the country identifies with either of the parties. In 1950 nearly 85% did. And the trend has recently accelerated.

There is no way to predict how the will of the majority of Americans who have lost faith in the two-party system will be resolved. Perhaps one or both of the parties will begin to moderate. Perhaps a third party will emerge. It has several times in our history. I think we will start electing more independents. As you know, adherence to political party expectations for its members to vote straight party lines prevents voters’ independence.

I hear the growing frustration of this country’s great middle who feel they are unrepresented in today’s hyper-partisan environment. These same long passed-over Americans felt a glimmer of hope with Trump’s four years in office. Unlike most presidents in this and the last generation, he actually fulfilled most of the promises he made to Americans while campaigning. And, surprise, surprise: he actually got them accomplished!

Summary

Many American Republicans’ consternation over those seven GOP senators’ votes to convict Donald Trump illustrates how angry and divided Americans are becoming in their politics. Elections, candidates, and service in office — especially regarding legislation and legal matters — should NEVER be based on a political party’s desires and leaders. That is the very thing that so troubled those Founding Fathers. Remember: they were familiar with political parties from their European countries from which they fled — fled in part because of what that felt was unnecessary consternation, arguing, and division which did back then and still does today rise from political partisanship based on political party affiliation.

Don’t those lawmakers have to follow their consciences when weighing such a heavy matter as removing a sitting President? Of course, that should always be a consideration. But that should NOT be the factor on which they make their final decision on such a critical issue. Their principle commitment in their oath of office requires them to protect the Constitution. There was NO constitutional precedence that evoked justification for those votes.

So why did the seven do so?

I cannot knowledgeably answer that. Only in the case of one of those votes can I surmise a reason with some basis: that of Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy had supported a motion by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky not to have the trial because there was no Constitutional basis for it!

“Well, obviously Cassidy’s conscience forced him, after hearing the House Manager’s evidence presented, to vote for conviction.” Doing so for that or any other reason has no basis in the Constitution. “Supporting and defending” the U.S. Constitution as they each swore to do means adherence to the laws specifically delineated in that document and to any previous court-allowed precedents involving cases based on the Constitution.

There was NO basis for Cassidy’s decision in law.

Why did he do it? Probably for the same reason(s) as did the other six. Those reasons had to be personal or political: there’s no other reason one could have done so.

That is why the People are so angry about those votes and have and still are demanding the censure of those at the state and national party level.

Here’s a novel thought: wouldn’t it have been prudent for these seven, and all other Senators for that matter, to consult with their voting constituents before purposely making an unconstitutional vote to convict Mr. Trump? Obviously, none did so, or they would have publicly explained their votes using that as their reason for doing so.

Americans don’t elect political party representatives. Americans elect their government representatives. Those elected representatives are duly obligated by their oaths to support the Constitution and represent their districts and states’ people. There is NO other factor that should have weighed on their decision.

The TIME story segment above represents where today’s political parties are operating, and Americans don’t like that. American voters are leaving parties in droves. Registered Independents are becoming more and more “the” voice of American voters. They are fed up and I believe their voice is going to be heard one way or another. In doing so, they will be living up to one of our Founding Fathers’ great aspirations, albeit one they were not able to realize.

To Download today’s (Monday, Feb. 22, 2021) “TNN Live” Radio Program click on this link:

What do impeachment and the Philadelphia Eagles Have in Common? They’re ‘Tanking’

This impeachment charade has become little more than a circus. And just when you think it could NOT get any wilder, it gets wilder and crazier. And most legal experts STILL maintain there is no Constitutional basis on which to justify it!

Who do we trust to explain it’s justification or lack thereof? Most of us are not attorneys. And just a handful of attorneys are actually legal “experts.” So here’s what we did:

There are two real experts on the Law that we have turned to for some non-emotional insight. Both are Democrats and neither voted for Donald Trump. Call me “Stupid,” but I think both Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley have proven through the years they’re each “middle-of-the-road on Constitutional law. We related Dershowitz’s perspective on this impeachment trial several days ago. Today, we turn to Jonathan Turley to try and shine a light of reason on the circus in the Senate Chamber.

The “Turley Perspective”

The second trial of former President Donald Trump is shaping up to be a curious exercise designed more to enrage than convict. While legal eagles will be analyzing every move, what citizens really need is a Philadelphia Eagles fan to understand what is unfolding. In the NFL, it is called “tanking.” This year, there was a raging debate whether Eagles coach Doug Pederson was actually trying to win or just losing convincingly to secure a better draft pick. The House trial strategy has every indication of a tanked trial, but few are noting the glaring lack of a credible offense.

When it comes to football, tanking allegations arise when the inexplicable speeds along with the inevitable. That point was reached this season when Pederson decided not to tie the game against Washington in the third quarter with a field goal and instead put Nate Sudfeld in the game over Jalen Hurts. The House may have reached that point when the managers seemed to be trying harder to make a better case for losing than winning. That was driven home by the selection of such managers as Rep. Eric Swalwell in the wake of his scandal with a Chinese spy. Sending in Swalwell, who has also been accused of reckless political rhetoric, made the Sudfeld substitution look like sheer genius.

The snap impeachment

The first indication was the use of what I have called a “snap impeachment.” The House wanted to impeach the president before he left office, which was perfectly constitutional. I have long maintained (as I did as a witness in the first Trump impeachment hearing) that the House can legitimately impeach a president on his very last day in office if it has evidence of a high crime and misdemeanor. However, after Jan. 6 the House had time to hold hearings (even if only for a day or two) to create a record supporting impeachment. The House leadership refused despite the urging of some of us that no impeachment had ever been submitted with no record of a hearing, investigation, or formal opportunity for a president to respond.

The House made it easy on those seeking acquittal. It could have crafted an article that would appeal to broader bipartisan support. Instead, it sought the most extreme language alleging incitement to an actual insurrection — virtually guaranteeing a partisan vote and likely acquittal.

Impeachment trial: The Senate is unlikely to convict Trump. Can we count on the courts?

The House also included language that only strengthened the expected challenge facing the House in seeking a trial for a former president. The article declared Trump “has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.” Yet, the House was virtually certain that he would already be out of office when he came to trial. The language magnified concerns over the constitutionality of retroactive trials. Not only does the Constitution refer to the trial as deciding whether to remove “the President” but the article itself refers to the purpose of such removal to protect the nation. While the article mentions disqualification from future office, the article is crafted around an urgency that would become a nullity in a matter of days.

Then nothing happened

What occurred next was familiar to NFL fans suspicious of tanking. Nothing happened. The House made it to the endzone of a Senate trial and then stopped on a dime. The House demanded witnesses in the Senate but then let weeks pass without calling any witnesses that would be relevant to proving Trump’s intent or state of mind. It could have created a public record and locked in testimony in case the Senate, as expected, declined to call witnesses or severely limited witnesses.

Impeachment: Donald Trump’s impeachment filing fails to make a case for acquittal

The House brief in the Senate further highlighted the lack of direct evidence on Trump’s state of mind. It laid out an emotionally charged but legally incomplete case for the Senate. To convict, the House needs to show Trump was more than reckless. It crafted the article as inciting an actual rebellion or insurrection, not mere negligence. Instead, the House plans to show clips of damage and interviews with rioters to show how Trump’s words were interpreted rather than intended. The thrust of its case is a parade of horribles from that day, a narrative that will harden the minds of many but change the minds of few. Without such evidence, the Trump team will be able to hammer away at similarly reckless rhetoric used by Democrats, including members of the “jury.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

To Listen to “TNN Live’s” Show from Friday, February 12, 2021, click on this link:

 

How Can the Senate Remove a “Former” POTUS From Office?

This impeachment fiasco gets more bizarre daily. And I’m still stuck on how the House of Representatives decided to impeach President Trump for the second time in a year, especially when he was set to leave office on January 20th. Even more bizarre than the impeachment itself is that House Democrats did not call one witness nor enter one piece of evidence during President Trump’s trial!

Put those two mysteries in a basket of Adam S—! Never before in history has any American president been treated so cavalierly, so cretin, and so unjustly by ANY Congress. History books (unless Democrats or their media henchman rewrite the history of Trump) will certainly NOT be kind to Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Swalwell, Chuck Schumer, and even Mitch McConnell.

Before we wade into the pending fake trial in the Senate, get a load of what the Senate did on Tuesday — even before a trial took place.

On Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul entered a motion to cancel holding the trial based on the fact that there are not enough Senators who support a conviction sufficient to meet the two-thirds necessary. Paul’s premise was that it would be unconstitutional to impeach a former president. All but five GOP senators sided with an effort proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), sending a signal that there are not enough votes to convict Trump. Convicting a president during a Senate impeachment trial requires a two-thirds majority.

Republican Sens. Mitt Romney (UT), Ben Sasse (NB), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Pat Toomey (PA) voted with Democrats to reject Paul’s order, suggesting the five senators will vote to convict Trump. Romney was the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump during his first impeachment trial in early 2020.

The Senate ultimately voted 55–45 to table Paul’s point of order, meaning that the impeachment trial will go forward.

This is simply CRAZY! And this brings to the table an issue that MUST be resolved and resolved immediately. Does the U.S. Constitution allow the U.S. Senate to “convict and remove” a “former” President even though Article 2 states the Senate’s power is to remove a “sitting” President?

Hmmm…

A former federal judge insists that the U.S. Senate has no constitutional authority to try to impeach President Trump after he leaves office and becomes a private citizen, in what appears to be a common-sense reading of the U.S. Constitution.

In the aftermath of the U.S. Capitol riot, the Democrat-controlled U.S. House passed one impeachment article against President Trump before Trump’s term in office expired. An impeachment trial in the upper chamber was not scheduled nor occurred before Mr. Trump’s leaving office. Can there be such a trial now?

Given the current timetable, according to ex-U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig who also worked in the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations, the effort might amount to perhaps just political theater.

“Once Trump’s term ended on Jan. 20, Congress lost its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even though the House had already approved an article of impeachment,” Luttig wrote. “Therefore, even though the House of Representatives impeached the president before he left office, the Senate cannot thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.”

“The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump is no longer an incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of a delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to ‘impeachment conviction’ by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president,” Luttig asserted, citing Article 1, Section 3, and Article II, Section 4, of the founding document.

If he were to be convicted in the Senate, Trump would be disqualified from running in 2024, which may be the end-game for the Democrats and the Never-Trump Republicans.

If the dispute over the Senate’s impeachment jurisdiction winds up in court, “It is improbable the Supreme Court will yield to Congress’s view that it has the power to impeach a president who is no longer in office when the Constitution itself is so clear that it does not,” Luttig concluded.

Luttig was a judge on the Richmond, VA -based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006 and later became general counsel for Boeing.

But There’s More…

Harvard Law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz also contends that the Senate lacks the legal authority to move ahead. He spoke to Maria Bartiromo of FOX News about the Trump impeachment matter before the House actually impeached the President, knowing there was little time for the Senate to act before noon on January 20 — when Trump’s term expired.

“But the case cannot come for trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until – according to the majority leader – until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20, an hour after President Trump leaves office,” he told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo.

“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama, or anyone else. The jurisdiction is limited to a sitting president, and so there won’t be a trial.”

“What I worry about deeply is the impact of impeachment on the First Amendment,” Dershowitz continued, citing the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio and noting that Trump’s speech is constitutionally protected.

The words spoken by the president as he addressed the thousands of supporters gathered to support him “comes within core political speech, and to impeach a president for having exercised his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution,” the law professor told Bartiromo, noting he personally disapproved of the president’s remarks.

“It would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party,” he said, “and that’s not what impeachment or the 25th Amendment were intended to be.”

Guilt by association has never been part of the American tradition, at least prior to the onset of Trump derangement syndrome.

“Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration.  Many of the same members have used the same rhetoric to ‘take back the country’ and ‘fight for the country.’ The concern is that this impeachment will not only create a precedent for an expedited pathway of ‘snap impeachments’ but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters,” George Washington University law professor and self-described liberal Jonathan Turley warned.

Why not turn to someone who teaches Constitutional law at Harvard University who really knows how the Constitution addresses such issues: Alan Dershowitz. (click on the link to hear the audio from that interview)  Alan Dershowitz on Impeachment Trial

 

Summary

Let’s face facts: After hearing from several Constitutional experts, it is evident that the Democrats rush to impeach Donald Trump and then, to break Constitutional specifics and historical precedent, push to hold a trial of Donald Trump AFTER he left office can be for one purpose only: Democrats are deathly afraid that without THEIR reaching some type of conviction which they can use to attempt to disqualify him from future federal service. They are petrified of Donald Trump!

Why could that be? It’s simple: Democrats entered the November 3rd election feeling Americans shared their hatred for Donald Trump and would send him packing. That’s not what happened. Even if one believes that Joe Biden DID legally win the election, Democrats know that margin was slippery-slim.

But what they saw that horrifies them daily is that Americans trusted Trump, even in the face of the Democrats’ incessant blathering allegation after allegation of Trump’s wrongdoing to diminish his standing in the eyes of Americans!

They failed.

Impeachment with expulsion was their “hail mary” attempt to salvage their crumbling party.

What will they try next? Remember: TruthNewsNetwork predicted before Trump’s first impeachment that they WOULD impeach Trump. When the Senate failed to convict and remove Trump in that trial, we told you Democrats would attempt a second impeachment, even if Trump won reelection. Sadly, we were correct both times.

What will happen now? “If” the Senate actually holds a “monkey trial” in a futile attempt to send Trump “permanent-packing,” it will fail. And even if somehow they find more Republicans who will join Republicans Senators Pat Toomey, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and Ben Sasse to vote their way, it will be a dismal failure for Democrats and those Republicans.

Meanwhile, former President Trump lives in MarLago, plays golf, meets with fellow conservatives, assists his children in running the Trump Empire, and plots his future in politics — in Washington D.C.!

It Happened!

Fact: The United States House of Representatives impeached President Trump for the second time. Their doing so was historical in more than just one way: of the two previous presidents who were impeached, neither was subjected to a witchhunt and a rushed impeachment process that occurred without “regular order.” The House can suspend its own rules, of course, and skip past the House Judiciary Committee, which under regular order would call witnesses, examine presented evidence, debate among themselves, and then take a vote to send it to the floor of the House. If passed out of committee, regular order would then have the full House vote on whether it would even be heard. Pelosi’s House skipped committee hearings altogether and actually voted Tuesday with little discussion to bring their impeachment “Proclamation” to the full floor. 

The Nancy Pelosi House of Representatives skipped the normal process, which has never happened before. There was no testimony, no cross-examination of witnesses in the hearings, and no evidence presented.

What the House members saw and heard was a plethora of vicious and egregious attacks against not just President Trump, but also EVERY Republican in the U.S. who supported him. Multiple Republicans took to the microphone to make certain all Americans looking in saw and heard exactly how partisan, unfair, and untruthful were the non-stop railings against the Rule of Law in an effort to do just one thing: throw Donald Trump out of the White House.

While so desperate to achieve their objective, they accomplished something that they failed to recognize when plotting their coup: in their actions, they completed the alienation of at least 100+ million Americans.

Late Wednesday, pollsters questioned a larger than normal sample of people who were asked for their thoughts on what happened in the House. A large majority stated what the House did on Wednesday was unwarranted, unnecessary, and should not have happened. No matter to Leftist leaders. To Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and every other Democrat in Congress, the opinions of those Americans polled  meant absolutely nothing. Democrat Trump-haters were driven to get rid of President, no matter what.

Most conservatives were aghast although most felt it would be pushed forward by Pelosi in the waning days of Trump’s administration. Today they ask: “Donald Trump leaves office on January 20th at 12 noon when his term expires, so why a second impeachment?”

I don’t think history will be kind to Speaker Pelosi. There’s no doubt her many years in office were scarred by her dramatic lust for power. It consumed her as she forced her way to the top of her party. There are many Democrat skeletons along her path to power.  But her ultimate quest will most certainly  be her downfall in history.

I doubt the Speaker realized that there will be an asterisk included when her all-time “record” is published in History. That asterisk is to note that Nancy Pelosi is the only House Speaker to impeach a President twice — one time using no evidence that was even close to meeting the Constitutional threshold for impeachment. She relied solely on her power amassed from political debts owed to her by House members from her party and a few Republican dissidents.

Pelosi became the only Speaker to impeach a President with NO committee process, no witnesses, no evidence, no regular order, while debating for a scant few hours while allowing only campaign-style rhetorical unsubstantiated attacks against President Trump.

Summary

Fact: there are several good things that happened with this impeachment. Donald Trump certainly must feel relieved. He endured the vilest of attacks during his presidency, more than has any other president — with the possible exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II. The result surely brings some respite to the Trump family.

Donald Trump can look proudly over his shoulder at the accomplishments of his administration, much of which were made with little support of many Republicans in Congress. In my 67 years, there has been NO other president who can lay claim to even half of Trump’s achievements for the American people in his presidential record. Try as they might, Nancy and Chuck will never be able to impeach those accomplishments: too many Americans lived and personally experienced those blessings!

In facing his challenges, President Trump recognized that they were accompanied by vicious shots against conservative Americans. Contrary to what Leftist leaders believe, Americans are far too smart and attentive to political matters than to simply “look the other way.” Why is that? Donald Trump spoke “to” Americans not “at” Americans. He spoke in a manner to which more people related than they have to any other president in the last 75 years. He promised a bunch, communicated constantly with his base, and achieved every one of his promises that were possible. Americans saw this with their own eyes.

No matter how hard the media schills lied to divert our attention from the massive good accomplished for our nation by Mr. Trump, most Americans saw a President fulfill promises for the very first time.

Did President Trump miss the mark sometimes? Did he make mistakes? Did he work hard? Did he accomplish a lot? Did he communicate well with Americans, not using “politi-speak” but a language that all understood? The answer to all of these questions is “Yes.” And for that, he was impeached twice!

Pelosi and Company feel they’ll now be able to force their craziness on the disappointed and disenfranchised Trump base and other conservatives. After all, they impeached Trump and proved he was unworthy! No, they did not. Americans know that what Pelosi, Chuck, Adam, Eric, and other Democrats said consistently about the President were absolute lies.

The only “yea” votes on the House Floor on Thursday came from far-left sycophants. That includes the ten Republicans who voted for impeachment. Who are they?

  • Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming’s At-Large Congressional District.
  • Rep. Jaime Herrera-Beutler of Washington’s 3rd District.
  • Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio’s 16th District.
  • Rep. John Katko of New York’s 24th District.
  • Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois’s 16th District.
  • Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan’s 3rd District.
  • Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington’s 4th District.
  • Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina’s 7th District.
  • Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan’s 6th District.
  • Rep. David Valadao of California’s 21st District.

I wonder what “obligations” these ten had to Pelosi? I wonder what she held over their heads to use to force their votes? (Notice: of those ten, only two from Red States voted to impeach)

Remember this: When you feel swamped by gloom and fear, there is hope in the air. Someone smarter than me once said, “All things work together for good for those who love God and are called to do his work.”

GOD’S GOT THIS!

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!