Senate Impeachment Trial:Day One

The fireworks were aplenty! But as all the world looked on, the United States Senate gaveled in and began just the third impeachment trial in United States history. As House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) said after the House voted to impeach President Trump a month ago: “Donald Trump will be impeached…FOREVER!”

But will the Senate convict him in this trial and remove him from office? If so, Mr. Trump would be the first such United States President to be evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

However, the fire of Impeachment was just lighted on Tuesday. We have a long way to go. As promised, we present for you a summary of the topics of import from Day One of the Senate impeachment trial in bullet point:

  • Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and each Senator had already been sworn last week. The Senate was gaveled into session at about noon. The first order of business was to consider the rules with which the Impeachment trial would be governed. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell presented a resolution with proposed details of trial operations that the Republican majority had determined. The fireworks then began.
  • The House Managers (“Prosecutors”) led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the President’s defense team each took exact amounts of time to debate each issue of the Trial Resolution. The most contentious element of the Impeachment Resolution was/is the calling of witnesses and the presentation of physical evidence.
  • Leading House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff made the argument (which he restated throughout the Tuesday trial) that the President has continued to make statements that Article II of the Constitution gives a President authority to “do anything he wants to do.”
  • The President’s attorneys argued that the House refused to take their issues regarding members of the Administration refusing to appear before Congress or to provide subpoenaed documents through the court system. The House Managers on the floor admitted that going to federal court would get in the way of impeaching the President before the election.
  • The President’s attorneys argued that the House subpoenas for witness testimony from Administration members and documents were each invalid because none of them were issued with the consent of the House — only from various committees, which is a violation.
  • Senate rejects Schumer amendment calling for a subpoena for White House witnesses and documents: On a party-line vote, 53-47, the Senate votes to put aside — or kill — Schumer’s amendment to subpoena witnesses and reports from the White House.
  • Senator Schumer proposed a new amendment to subpoena documents from the State Department related to calls between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for the subpoena for State Department documents by a vote of 53-47.
  • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) started the process by presenting Democrat proposed amendments to the resolution. The majority of Democrat amendments introduced on Tuesday dealt with the calling of specific witnesses from the Trump Administration. Some of those wishing to be called are:
  • Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney: Mulvaney is said to have approved a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that was conditioned on investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma, according to testimony from National Security Council member Fiona Hill. Democrats hope to question him about that meeting, and his role in the delay in releasing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for the appearance of Mr. Mulvaney by a vote of 53-47.
  • Former National Security Advisor John Bolton: Bolton had a meeting with Trump about removing the hold on aid to Ukraine, according to testimony from former National Security Council official Tim Morrison. Bolton has hinted he has information about Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine that is not yet known to Congress. He refused to testify before the House without a court order, but Democrats hope he can shed light on how much high-level officials knew about the pressure campaign — and when they knew what. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for Bolton’s appearance by a vote of 53-47.
  • Associate Director for National Security, Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffey: Duffey, a political appointee at the Office of Management and Budget, sent emails to the White House about the hold the president wanted on aid to Ukraine, according to witness testimony from OMB official Mark Sandy during the House inquiry. Duffey also refused to testify before the House but may be able to clarify the timeline around the release of the aid. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for the appearance of Asst. Director Duffey by a vote of 53-47.
  • Mulvaney senior adviser Robert Blair: As an aide to Mulvaney, Blair was involved in communications between the Office of Management and Budget and the White House, and could provide testimony about the timing of releasing aid to Ukraine, according to Sandy’s sworn statements during the House inquiry. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for Blair’s appearance by a vote of 53-47.
  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) initiated a debate on an amendment to “prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for the appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials,” again failed along party lines, 53-47.
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed an amendment to accelerate witness votes. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed to accelerate witness votes by a vote of 52-48.
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proposed an amendment for there to be an independent arbiter to determine which witnesses submitted by either side are a material witness to this trial and which should be allowed to provide testimony and which is not. Schiff’s proposal was for Chief Justice Roberts to be that independent arbiter. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed to rely on an arbiter to determine in any future witness testimony which witnesses would be material witnesses and therefore allowed to testify and which are not by a vote of 53-47. (Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) crossed party line to support this amendment.)
  • The Final Vote of the Day was to approve on Party lines the Trial Rules presented by Majority Leader McConnell


On the first day of the Senate Impeachment Trial, eight proposed amendments to the Resolution entered by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to set the orders of the operation of the trial. Each proposed amendment was “tabled” by votes down party lines: 53-47. “Tabled” is nothing more than a technical way for legislators to claim “innocent” when confronted with their vote on each of these issues. The “tabling” of an amendment is not a vote against an amendment, instead of saying, “We will not vote on this amendment at this time. It is highly unlikely such a vote on these amendments will ever happen, so the effect is the same.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has a tomorrow morning conflict that will require his present across the street from the U.S. Capitol at 10:00 AM tomorrow to hear oral arguments on a SCOTUS case. The impeachment trial will reconvene after noon.

My Thoughts

We all knew this was not going to be a fast process, even though the House rushed their impeachment inquiry saying it was necessary for their investigation be completed quickly. But their actions Tuesday were surprising to me. Multiple times Rep. Adam Schiff stated, “the impeachment case and evidence provided by the House is ironclad proof that the President committed impeachable offenses. If that indeed is true, why did they spend thirteen hours in the Senate demanding that they are provided an unfettered ability to collect more evidence and interrogate more witnesses? Any reasonable person would have to conclude that their evidence is not “ironclad,” as Mr. Schiff continually maintained.

Also, over and over again in the Tuesday trial reminded the Senators in the Chamber how easy and quick it would be for all those witnesses they requested to be subpoenaed for their testimony to appear and testify NOW. Why did they NOT issue subpoenas and pursue any of those not responded to those subpoenas before they moved to an impeachment trial?

The answer to that question is that they “didn’t want to take up all the time they have before the 2020 election,” so they did not pursue their legal remedies to obtain that testimony but relied on the Senate during the impeachment trial to do so.

The Senate adjourned 1:48 AM and will reconvene at 1:00 PM Eastern on Wednesday. Chief Justice Roberts has commitments to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court Wednesday morning beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern.

In conclusion, the one thing that made the biggest impression on me — and that impression is very alarming — is that Rep. Adam Schiff is NOT an honest person. He’s not a reasonable person — at least in this setting. Mr. Schiff is NOT understanding, conducive to work hard for consensus or to negotiate. Worst of all for me is that as unreasonable as I have felt he is, especially in his anger for President Trump, I feel is a really evil person. I am not passing judgement on he or any other member of Congress. But Rep. Schiff demeaned again and again not just President Trump, but every Republican that voted for Mr. Trump. He made clear over and over that he “knows” that the President actually colluded with Russians in 2016 and that he is working with them for this upcoming election.

I cannot make this stuff up. It is the actual fabric of the cloth Americans have weaved and put in charge of our government. The blanket — our “cloth” — belongs to Mr. Trump and a small group of elites that he has hand-chosen.

Wednesday is Day Two of the Impeachment of President Trump. And we have it all for you here! Make sure you are here on Wednesday and every day this week. You’ll not be surprised and certainly not disappointed.

One final thought before you leave today: please click on the link below and listen to this 90-second notice:

Impeachment Because of…?

Before we begin today, pause just a moment and click on the following link and listen to this 90-second message:

This doesn’t often happen at TruthNewsNetwork: we don’t reprint the articles of other writers, and we certainly don’t do that for editorials from CNN! This CNN “contributor,” Scott Jennings, worked formerly for George W. Bush and Senator Mitch McConnell. He owns a public relations firm in Louisville. CNN uses him as their “token” conservative on their website.

This column was published shortly after the House Judiciary Committee hearing at which those three brilliant law professors weighed-in with their facts about the basis for the impeachment of President Trump.

Read this while knowing that the people on the left are not all without reason and understanding. How and why they use what they have is beyond me, but at least they know their quest to rid the White House of its current inhabitant does not resonate well with most Americans.

Read and enjoy this. We’ll reconvene right after.

Scott Jennings

When the global elite are aligned against him and laughing like the immature cool kids you hated in middle school, President Donald Trump is winning.

When the liberal law professors are neglecting their Thanksgiving turkeys to read congressional transcripts and snarking about Trump’s 13-year old son, Trump is winning.
When the politicians are mad — so mad that they have shut down all policymaking to impeach the President of the United States on what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called “wafer thin” evidence —Trump is winning.
You have to remember: Donald Trump wasn’t elected to fit in with these people — the political, intellectual class — to make them happy, or to become one of them. He was elected to break them. And that’s apparently what he’s done.
After Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring three liberal law professors and Thursday’s announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that her conference is moving forward with impeachment, the die is cast — Donald Trump will be the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives.
And honestly, that’s just fine with Trump’s supporters. What better evidence is there that you’ve shaken Washington to its core when the minders of a system you’ve come to despise are leveling the gravest punishment the system permits against the very President who is doing the shaking up?
We can lawyer this to death, but for many Americans this comes down to a simple observation — Trump said he was going to rattle their cages, and by golly they seem rattled.
Trump’s supporters have known since election night that this day would eventually come. After all, his sworn enemies have been openly promising it since before he was sworn into office! They’ve used words like “resistance,” “coup,” “insurance policy,” and “impeachment” so often that, now that they are actually doing it, the American people — and Republicans especially — are offering a collective yawn.
Rueful analysts stare into television cameras, lamenting and wondering why Republicans aren’t fleeing from the President over the impeachment hearings (he stands at 90% approval among his party in the latest Gallup poll). But there won’t be massive convulsions in public opinion because everyone has known for three years what was going to happen.
Sure, some Democrats gamely argue that Pelosi didn’t really want to go through with it, but she had to out of a sense of duty to the Constitution. But it’s a half-hearted argument at best. It’s true that Pelosi had no choice, although it’s not because of the Constitution. Rather, her party’s left flank and their inflamed grassroots activists overwhelmed her.
This is a one-sided, partisan impeachment. It’s the exact kind of thing Congressman Jerry Nadler, now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, warned Republicans about in 1998, during Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
But political party leaders almost always do what the bulk of their party’s supporters want them to. Republicans — no matter how moderate — got in line to cut taxes and confirm an avalanche of conservative judges because that’s what their activists expected.
And what have Democrats wanted more than anything since Trump’s election? Since the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Since Trump made Twitter his private channel to the electorate? Since the Mueller probe? Since the Trump Hotel story? Since questions over Jared Kushner’s security clearance? Since…you name it?
The answer is obvious: to undo the 2016 election by any means necessary. It’s a political itch that had to be scratched, and Pelosi could hold off her tormented partisans no longer.
So here we are, headed for a rushed, hyper-partisan (and futile) exercise put on by the very elites Trump railed against to get himself elected in the first place. But for all the relief they might feel in finally striking this blow against Donald Trump, I wonder: have these Trump opponents even considered what this impeachment signals to the American people?
That partisanship is more important than policymaking? That House Democrats have no confidence in their party’s ability to beat Donald Trump in an election?
And, perhaps most alarmingly, that impeachment — once reserved for the gravest of situations — is now just another tool to inflict damage on their political opponents.


Democrats sure do enjoy raining on the parade that is the Trump economy. Joe Biden, who somehow remains the Democratic frontrunner, recently accused President Trump of “squandering” the Obama economy in recent years. Squandering what, exactly?

Under the Obama administration, America’s unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent — the highest figure since the early 1980s. Employers struggled to create jobs, while employees and job-seekers saw fewer opportunities in the private sector. President Trump, to his credit, has described today’s U.S. economy as one of the strongest ever. In his words: “Wages are rising, incomes are soaring, and 2.5 million Americans have been lifted out of poverty in less than three years.”

So who’s right? Well, the numbers are in, and they tell the same story: The Trump economy is indeed soaring.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report, here are the facts:

  • the U.S. economy added 128,000 jobs in October of 2019— exceeding initial estimates of 75,000.
  • America’s unemployment rate (3.6 percent) remains one of the lowest in the last 50 years.
  • The total employment level reached a new high of 158.5 million people.
  • The unemployment rate for African-Americans dropped to a record low of 5.4 percent.
  • At the same time, Latino business owners are ramping up investment and taking their businesses to unprecedented heights, supporting employees, and job-seekers in the process. Between 2017 and 2018, the revenues of Latino-owned companies jumped nearly 25 percent, while the average income of such businesses has improved by more than 46 percent this year alone.

Job creators can thank the president and his pro-growth economic agenda. For years now, the Trump administration has focused on rolling back the size of government to help entrepreneurs do what they do best: Create, invest, and grow. During the Obama years, taxes steadily rose, while rules and regulations seemingly crept into every aspect of American life.

Not so with Trump. He believes in the American Dream, not a government-run economy. He believes that American ingenuity, when left alone, is more than enough to drive economic growth for decades to come. That ingenuity — the power of the American Dream — is enough to take our economy to new heights.

Tax reform is a prime example. While Democrats only look for new ways to increase taxes and fund trillion-dollar programs like the “Green New Deal” and other massive spending programs, President Trump figured out that the best deal is for individual Americans to keep and use that money themselves. Since President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law, more than 800 U.S. employers — large and small — have announced new hires, pay raises, benefit increases, bonus distributions, facility expansions, and utility rate reductions because of the lower tax burden. From Apple and Walmart to local bookstores and mom-and-pop diners, America’s job creators now have more resources to invest in business expansion and job creation — and they are investing in those resources.

By 2027, projections are that the TCJA will create more than 1.2 million full-time-equivalent jobs. In 2019 alone, tax reform led to the creation of nearly 250,000 career opportunities for Americans across the country.

The verdict is in: When it comes to the U.S. economy, nothing is being “squandered.” We are experiencing one of the most substantial economic resurgences in American history. Our economy is roaring because of the millions of Americans who now feel empowered to create, invest, and grow under the Trump administration.


Today is a really full day: the first day of the Senate trial and the announcement of a new chapter in the life of Truth News Network. I hope you listened to the audio snippet at the top of today’s story — it’s essential. If you didn’t do so already, please do. We need to hear from you with your opinion. Because we’re all part of the same family, your thoughts and ideas are significant to us here.

Don’t forget that during the night tonight, we will publish in bullet point format the highlights of Tuesday’s Day 1 Senate impeachment trial happenings. That headline synopsis will accompany our daily story and podcasts as long as the impeachment trial lasts.

If you want to assure you never miss any of these headlines, stories, or podcasts, enter your name and email address on the right side of the site’s homepage. When you do, you will (overnight when new stories are published) receive a simple notification email that contains a link to the latest stories and podcasts. You can click on the link and go right to the story. And it will provide every day a synopsis of the previous day’s impeachment trial happenings.

“Happy Impeachment Tuesday!”

It’s Begun: House Lunacy Part II in the Senate

It’s impossible to comprehend the exact purposes for Democrats’ impeachment of Donald Trump. There is certainly no reasonable purpose for doing so. Yet they continue to pile on with allegation after allegation, witness after witness. They claim that each piece of “evidence” and each witness bring factual proof that President Trump committed impeachable offenses.

House prosecutors over the weekend released the 111-page summary of “evidence” with which they expect the Senate to use to remove Donald Trump from office. In doing so, the ridiculousness of this is illustrated best in this first paragraph of the summary of their impeachment plan:

“President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a United States election for his political gain, and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress’s investigation into his misconduct. The Constitution provides a remedy when the President commits such serious abuses of his office: impeachment and removal. The Senate must use that remedy now to safeguard the 2020 U.S. election, protect our constitutional form of government, and eliminate the threat that the President poses to America’s national security.”

Honestly, I am past tired of having to address over and over their ridiculous claims and assertions. Mr. Trump did NOT use his powers to pressure a foreign government to do anything. He didn’t pressure Ukraine in any way. And Democrats’ witnesses before the House Judiciary committee each stated clearly when asked that Donald Trump did NOT commit any impeachable offense. None gave ANY evidence of ANY impeachable wrongdoing by the President.

Steny Hoyer — Nancy Pelosi’s #2 in the House — said this about the impeachment inquiry last month by remarking that Trump was afforded “every opportunity to prove his innocence. Instead, he ignored Congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate. This itself is unprecedented,” Hoyer claimed.

First, ignoring Congressional subpoenas by a President is anything but unprecedented. It has happened hundreds of times in the past. EVERY president has exerted executive privilege as a reason for not providing subpoenaed documents and testimony.

Secondly, when I heard Hoyer say that the President was provided “every opportunity” to prove his innocence, I did a double-take. Yes, I have felt personally for a long time that Democrats don’t want only to handpick specific laws that are OK for which law enforcement to ignore enforcement, but Democrats want the entire U.S. Justice System blown up. They indict members of law enforcement who DO enforce laws that Democrats don’t like. 

There are many ironies in what Hoyer stated when he said that reveal what’s far more profound in the Democrat Party platform of today. Do you find yourself ever questioning what the Democrat Platform is for 2020? I don’t know for sure. But in light of much of what Dems are doing and attempting to do in D.C. and what they are pushing nationally, I have some ideas. Let’s take a quick look:

  • They refuse to find ways to pass immigration laws that stop illegal entries into the U.S.
  • They take action in court again and again against executive orders issued by Mr. Trump regarding enforcement of border laws he does try to curtail the lawlessness Dems promote.
  • They refused twice to accept proposed legislation by the Trump Administration to give DACA recipients temporary legal status and then a path to citizenship. Why? Because the provision included funding of a wall to close the southern border.
  • They refuse to join in any action to shore up America’s election system by mandating voter ID for voters. Further, in every state that has passed any voter ID laws, they take those states to court to block.
  • Year after year, Democrat leadership have turned their backs on the enforcement of laws protecting America’s young men and women from sex and drug traffickers. Until the Trump Administration and this Department of Justice, the implementation of such laws was non-existent. In Trump’s three years, more than 100,000 have been brought to justice, and 500,000 young Americans were saved from sex traffickers.
  • Drug laws. There are federal laws against the sale of illegal drugs and those who sell them. Obama’s DOJ was instructed by the White House not to enforce those laws. They didn’t. This White House says: “You don’t like existing drug laws that you passed, change the laws!”

These are just a few of the hundreds of examples of the trampling of the Rule of Law that came with our forefathers from Europe and which is the bedrock of the most exceptional justice system on Earth.

Their justice methodology? “We’ll tell you which laws to enforce, which to ignore, and who can and cannot be held to the enforcement of each of those laws.”

Back to Impeachment

So with the grandeur of a British royal reception, Senate Democrats welcomed Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Adam Schiff, and others at the end of the long trek from the House to the Senate carrying their two articles of impeachment for the Senate trial to use this week.

What can we expect?

At the end of this article, we have posted a .pdf of the 111-page summary by the House prosecutors of their case against Mr. Trump. Feel free to download it and read it at your leisure. If you’re honest and trust the Constitution, you’ll do nothing but shake your head in disgust. Not surprisingly, there is NOTHING it contains that has anything to do with collusion, violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice, Quid pro Quo, bribery, or any other “High Crime or Misdemeanor.” Each of these has been the charges levied against POTUS by Democrats they said he committed, and they would use to impeach. NONE WERE FOUND, AND NONE ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLES.

But there’s plenty of hatred, anger, disgust, lies, misquotes, and LACK OF EVIDENCE.

You’ll note, they’ve stopped talking about Mr. Trump’s collusion that changed the outcome of the 2016 election. They now want the Senate to remove the President from office for what “he might do to impact the 2020 election.” How ironic is that!

The irony? The FBI warned former President Obama several years before the 2016 election that the Russians and other bad actors were working diligently to hack into our election system. Yet, no one in the Obama DOJ reached out to any of the 50 states to warn them of “credible threats” against our election system.

After the 2016 election, acting AG Rod Rosenstein stated there was no election hacking that was successful or changed even one vote in the 2016 election.

Now Democrats want to spit in the faces of 63 million Americans who, in a democratic election, chose for Donald Trump to be President. And they’re attempting that with not a single shred of evidence of a Trump impeachable offense.

Watch/Listen to this summary of what House Democrat Prosectors gave as justification for doing so:


Oddly, Nancy Pelosi ordered gold pens to use in her ceremonial signing of the articles of impeachment before turning them over to the Senate — real gold pens for which American taxpayers paid. Speaker Pelosi has demeaned President Trump since the inception of his campaign and daily since. She’s called him every name in the book.

Many Americans and I doubt that she, as she claims, prays for the President every day. I cannot weigh in on that. I don’t know her heart. But her actions and words speak highly about her disdain for Donald Trump.

I’ll finish by pointing out this one irony: do you know how many pens Speaker Pelosi ordered and used in that ceremony and then gave away? Thirty: thirty gold pens. That sounds eerily like “thirty pieces of silver” Judas received for selling-out Jesus.

Irony? Pelosi used and gave away gold pens. Judas only got silver. Pelosi had to one-up even Judas.

(Here’s the House Impeachment Memorandum download)



“Let’s Get Ready to Rumble…!”

Impeachment is about to ramp up in the trial in the Senate. We have been informed that all the preliminaries were completed on Saturday and that the actual trial is set to begin Tuesday morning. We said we’d be with you today with the details and timeline for the impeachment trial today. But we were informed late last night those details will not be made public until Monday.

Here’s what we can tell you:

  • Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn to preside over the trial;
  • All of the members of the U.S. Senate have been sworn;
  • The Prosecutors from the House were sworn as well;
  • The detailed articles of impeachment were brought over from the House of Representatives and formally presented to the Senate for the trial.

As far as any late news regarding the submission and acceptance of “new” evidence in the form of documents and/or witness testimony is still to be determined. As you know, House members along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have for weeks been demanding for the Senate leaders to agree to coordinate the structure of the trial with House leaders and to set up its structure before the trial begins. In fact, that is why House Speaker Pelosi kept the articles away from the Senate for 28 days, trying to use that delivery as leverage over the Senate. It did not work.

Both Senators and Representatives have tossed around their personal ideas regarding the call of witnesses to testify. Of course, the Democrats are demanding they be allowed to call witnesses: the same ones they called before. They are especially interested in “forcing” all those they subpoenaed that did not appear before the House because of executive privilege. Additionally, they certainly wish to hear from the just “discovered” Rudy Guliani “friend” who gave Democrats some information Dems say incriminate the President.

Republicans, on the other hand, wish to call and hear from the whistleblower, Rep. Adam Schiff (which is unlikely to testify), former VP Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and a number of former members of the Obama intelligence department.

Even if witnesses WILL be called is up in the air and will remain so for several days.

Remember: when the trial starts, it will daily last all day and into the evening, six days a week until it is completed. It is going to be very difficult to follow every important moment in the trial. We certainly want to make certain none at TruthNewsNetwork miss a thing. What we will do is every morning when our email with story link goes out to all our partners include a bullet-point summary of the important impeachment trial matters from the previous day. If you’re a TruthNewsNetwork subscriber, you’ll get that overnight email with the link early every morning. If you haven’t enrolled, please do so by filling in the form at the bottom right of the home page of

Have a great end to your weekend, and get set: we’re going to have a wild week!

How Much Does it Cost to Impeach a President?

Really….what is this Impeachment process costing America? Make no mistake: the costs are staggering. Our nation not since World War II has experienced anything so expensive and so life changing as this drama thrust on the world stage to capture the attention of hundreds of millions.

How expensive is it going to be? Let’s measure the impeachment ticket balance.

Add It Up

Although Republicans insist the impeachment proceedings are a partisan farce and Democrats claim that our democracy is literally at stake, there’s one result of impeachment that neither party can deny. It’s costing taxpayers — bigly, as President Trump would say.

As House Democrats have pursued impeachment for the past three months, they’ve already cost taxpayers $3.06 million, according to Heritage Foundation’s research.

Add up lawyers’ fees and the salaries of staff whose duties have been consumed by impeachment proceedings, and taxpayers are footing a hefty bill. As the Daily Signal reports, the price tag could be even higher.

The total likely is a low estimate because it does not factor in overtime hours for U.S. Capitol Police when House hearings ran well into the late evenings. The total also doesn’t include the cost of executive branch expenses, travel costs for witnesses, or supplies and materials.

While members of Congress waste time on the House floor reading the Pledge of Allegiance or comparing Trump to Jesus, both arguments for and against impeachment have wallowed in meaningless rhetoric. As support for impeachment appears to be dropping, Democrats are going to have to prove to voters that they’re doing the right thing, and they need to do it before public opinion turns even further away, tanking Democrats’ chances in 2020.

At the moment, House Democrats’ empty rhetoric isn’t helping their case much. And each second costs taxpayers more money.

Impeachment History in $$$

In 1999, The New York Times reported that five months of impeachment work on former President Bill Clinton’s case cost $1.2 million, according to records from the House Judiciary Committee. Adjusted for the cost of inflation, $1.2 million in 1999 would be equal to about $1.8 million in 2020 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s consumer price index inflation calculator.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the individual legal costs connected to the Clinton case detailed by the Times:

  • Payments to Chief Republican Investigator David Schippers: as much as $20,000 per month
  • Payments to Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell: as much as $18,000 per month

In 2020 dollars, those costs would be:

  • Chief investigator’s monthly salary: $30,179.05
  • Head counsel to represent the president: $27,161.15

Theoretically, in the exact same circumstances today  it would cost around $100,000 more to pay the lead investigator and counsel in this presidential impeachment case than it did in 1999, when Clinton’s impeachment trial concluded. Add to that an inflated cost of paying for the work of entire legal teams on both sides, and you have a considerable increase over 1999’s $2 million in impeachment costs.

If one adds to the actual impeachment process costs the expense of the 2.5 year Robert Mueller investigation, and the dollars for impeachment explodes. Mueller’s price tag was an estimated $40 million.

No matter if any of these numbers are accurate, impeachment costs are exorbitant. The only way Democrats can attempt to justify any of this expense is not and cannot be based on facts. The only reason they can possibly present for justification is that “history demands a president guilty of wrongdoing be held accountable.” And then there’s the constantly quoted saying by Pelosi and Company, “No one’s above the Law.” Pelosi can say that, but that’s not what she really means. What she is REALLY saying is “We’re creating a narrative that the President is guilty of wrongdoing.We don’t have evidence of impeachable offenses, so we’re going to do our best to sell the political narrative we have to the American people.”

Let’s be honest: the actual articles of impeachment sent over to the Senate have nothing to do with what Democrat members in the House used in multiple impeachment motions in the first months of his presidency. Remember: just hours after he spoke his oath of office, on mainstream newspaper published a story with this headline: “Let Impeachment Begin!”

From the beginning of his presidency, numerous Democrats made this ridiculous statement: “Donald Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses committed even before he was elected!” Do you know how ridiculous that is? No president can commit an impeachable offense WITHOUT BEING PRESIDENT! What they SHOULD have said was, “We don’t have any evidence of any impeachable offense by Mr. Trump. But we hate him. So we’re going to scour the world to find some wrongdoing we can accuse him of and impeach him.”

I questioned President Trump’s constant use of the term “Witch Hunt” for the Mueller investigation. But now I thoroughly understand the amazing similarities between this impeachment circus and the actual witch hunts that sent dozens and dozens of innocent people to their deaths in Salem, Massachusetts: “The Salem Witch Trials.”

The dollars and cents estimates of impeachment detailed above are hardly a drop in the bucket of the real impeachment costs. Don’t think for one moment those can be measured with a calculator. One thing is certain though, History will detail the cost of this charade. It certainly will NOT have dollar signs.

The REAL Cost of Impeachment

One entire generation of Americans — and maybe two generations — have been virtually lost when it comes to truth in politics. The current elementary, high school, and college generation have been brainwashed by educators who in large swallowed the pill of Socialism that has consumed their thinking. And what do teachers and professors all do? Teach their students not what they should regarding American government but what those educators personally think and feel about politics. (It’s all about politics, not government)

Do your children have a Civics class at their middle or high school? If they do, they are the rare fortunate ones. Civics is a lost compilation of the structure of the greatest country in World history and its government and operations. Instead this and the last generation have been filled with these thoughts: “Capitalism is an evil manipulation of the economy to benefit only large companies and the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans. Those corporations and wealthy Americans pay hardly anything in taxes while the middle class bear the brunt of financing the United States.”

Here’s the conundrum with that: there’s no debate of those statements. No one is there to present an alternative perspective. And since American adults have held confidence in our public educators’ teaching methods, (assuming that they still do as teachers did in our years in school) we have trusted them to feed our kids the truth about Capitalism, Democracy, Socialism and Totalitariansim, and free markets.

They haven’t done this. Now we have a generation that has not only lost its way and grasp on the truth, they have developed what they feel is the reality that Democracy, Capitalism, and free market ideas are oppressive concepts forced on Americans for decades.

How could that be? It’s simple: if a baby pig from birth is not allowed to oink but taught to bark each day, after a while it will begin to think and act like a dog!

That may be an extreme example, but, after all, isn’t that how education works? We teach what we want others to learn and duplicate in their own lives. That’s what these Millennials and Gen X-er’s are doing: living what they’ve been taught.

The Big “Kahuna”

Sadly, there’s one much bigger cost playing out in today’s political system illustrated most vividly in this impeachment process. We’ve said this often here at TNN: “The difference between Democrats (the Left) and Republicans (The Right) is that when political opponents of Republicans disagree with those Republicans, Republicans do not like what these opponents feel and express. When political opponents of Democrats disagree with Democrats, Democrats do not like what these opponents feel and express. But today’s Democrats take that one step further: THEY HATE THOSE REPUBLICANS!

This hatred, vitriol and vicious rejection of everyone with a different political perspective than do these Leftists has split America right down the middle. Polls don’t necessarily show how deep and concentrated it is. Why? Because many conservatives by the nature of Conservatism on the most part don’t become confrontational in political disputes while leftists often go right to the confrontation from the start. So conservatives just walk away.

I’m not foolish: I know there are hateful conservatives among Republicans. I also know that in the context of the whole of American conservatives, that number is minimal and is NOT the skeleton of the Conservative movement.

I sadly know that those Leftists that have found themselves in demonstrations-turned-riots shown on television beating and severely hurting conservatives have no hunger for truth or justice. All they know is the hunger their hatred pushes them to appease. And that hatred is quickly turning to evil. And evil is stealthily stealing the soul of America.


House Speaker Pelosi with total arrogance consistently denigrates President Trump, publicly makes baseless allegations against him she knows when they’re made against him that their false. She shows NO remorse for doing so. She consistently attacks him personally. And she has NEVER given him credit for a single accomplishment of all those that have created better lives — significantly better lives — for tens of millions of Americans.

A House Speaker that is untruthful, disrespectful of the Presidency, the U.S. Government, America’s election system, and all conservative Americans has never existed before in my lifetime. Quite simply, most Americans do not know how to respond to this. I could detail example after example of the anger and hatred by Leftists in the U.S. government and in the media. Let’s not go there — I’m certain we agree about that.

One thing is certain: our nation has taken on brand new characteristics that have never before been seen in the majority in the U.S. I pray they NEVER become representative of the majority in the nation.

What is about to occur is that the nation will in the next few weeks witness firsthand how far left these people are and that the only sustenance for their rabid hunger for power is total domination. And they’ve pushed the throttle to the floor to get there.

Truth will expose them, their intentions, and the process they’ve chosen for power and domination of every aspect of American life.

I doubt Americans will allow fulfillment of their dream. I PRAY Americans will not allow it.


Impeachment: Where Are We Today?

  1. Today’s special interview with a TNN subscriber-partner is just moments away. This conversation with a middle-American businessman is NOT an entire podcast. To hear it, click on the link directly below the section titled “McConnell and the Senate.”

House Speaker Pelosi pushed and pushed. With the help of fellow Dems. Adam Schiff of California and Jerrold Nadler of New York, Pelosi was able to wave her magic wand and achieve two Articles of Impeachment of President Donald Trump from the full House of Representatives. What’s next? What’s next SHOULD be those two articles presented to the Senate for a trial. But Pelosi made a historical decision to not send over those articles. Congress took a couple of weeks off for the holiday,s which meant nothing — nothing at all — was achieved by our government. That includes impeachment proceedings and any other legislative matters that are piling ever high have even been considered. Congress has done virtually nothing except the bare essentials while they do everything possible to get rid of Mr. Trump. That’s not “Job #1” for Democrats in Congress. It’s “Job Only.” Nothing else seems to matter to Democrats. So what’s next?


“Queen Pelosi,” as she is often called on Capitol Hill behind her back, is holding the cards on impeachment timing. According to the Senate rules, any impeachment trial cannot begin without articles of impeachment being presented along with the names of House prosecutors who will act as the Impeachment Trial prosecutors during the Senate trial. Neither has been provided to the Senate Majority Leader McConnell of Kentucky. And it appears no one has any idea of when that will happen.

Many are struggling to compute what could be Pelosi’s reasoning for these delays. Some say it is to, in some way, gain an advantage over the Senate for such a trial to be able to force Senate Republicans to bow to her wishes. That’s virtually impossible since the Constitution in Article II states that the Senate has sole power over an impeachment trial. And Republicans have the majority in the Senate.

Could it be to simply prolong a trial or to keep the trial in “pending” status throughout the entire year? One explanation for that would be to guarantee that Mr. Trump has an “Impeachment cloud” over his head throughout the entire 2020 election cycle to somehow discredit his credentials to voters sufficient to prevent his 2020 re-election for four more years.

And then there are those who have stated House Republicans can and will keep looking for Trump wrongdoing that supports MORE articles of impeachment, even IF he’s acquitted by the Senate if a “first” impeachment trial happens!

Maybe Ms. Pelosi plans to never turn those articles over to the Senate at all. There is no Constitutional requirement for her to do so. That too might discredit voters during this presidential election.

What would happen then? Who knows! As was just stated, the Constitution leaves such issues up to Congress. And, of course, when Congress gets in unresolvable dilemmas like this, the federal courts weigh-in. If this should happen, one can bet the U.S. Supreme would immediately step-in. And nothing like that has ever happened.

McConnell and the Senate

Majority Leader McConnell too has been all over the spectrum of possibilities regarding this impeachment. He first stated that when the House sends over articles of impeachment, they will be “dead-on-arrival.” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC,) who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would make a motion immediately following receipt in the Senate of those articles for the Senate to decline to even consider impeachment.

McConnell then stated, “The Senate has no Constitutional choice but to conduct a trial.” Graham then stated though he does not want any further witness testimony if/when such a trial occurs, he knows many Americans want to have all those involved in the Mueller investigation, old and current FBI investigations, and investigations by U.S. Attorney John Durham stand before Americans in an open Senate impeachment trial and, under oath, answer questions about their alleged wrongdoings before and during the Trump presidency.

So what will it be? That’s the million-dollar question. Many think that before the end of business this Friday — January 10, 2020 — we will know in what direction the impeachment of Donald Trump will go regarding Congress.

One thing is certain: we know that every member of the American press has their own ideas of what “is” happening now in the impeachment trial and what “should” happen going forward. Our guest today — “Phil” — is an Oklahoma businessman that, in full disclosure, is a Republican and a Trump supporter. He has his own opinions about “all things Washington” as do all Americans. By the way, you’ll hear him with some very pointed observations about today news media.

Meet “Phil”

(Click the link below)

Democrat “Suicide”

Many on the Right feel like the Pelosi House of Representatives by voting to impeach President Trump are committing political suicide. But they need to stop and consider a few things. First, Nancy Pelosi is a savvy politician. In her storied career, she has learned to carefully calculate every move she makes using all the tools available to her to guarantee political victory each time. As House Speaker, Pelosi has never lost a vote.

I know: she put another “x” in the win column with the House voting Articles of Impeachment. That prevents any blemish on her perfect House voting record. But Conservatives look ahead to 2020 and feel like the House impeachment is certain if not to return House majority status to Republicans, certainly make the Democrat majority a much slimmer one. And in either scenario, many first-year Democrat legislators probably made the most critical vote in their political careers with their vote to impeach the President. Why do we say that? Most of them are likely to find themselves as “one-term Representatives” come November 2020. Conservative and Independent voter rage in a large number of Congressional districts is rising daily. It’s doubtful that anger will subside by November 3, 2020.

Why would Rep. Pelosi (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) not just lead the House to the impeachment trough, but rush the House to it? Conventional wisdom is that impeachment stands no chance to succeed in a Senate trial, which will assure Donald Trump serves the balance of his first term in office? Mr. Trump certainly now has an advantage.

As smart as is Pelosi, it appears her letting impeachment happen on her watch is suicide. What could she be thinking? Let’s together try to filter through the anger, hatred, and constant uproar of impeachment to determine if Pelosi has a specific longterm objective for not only pushing Trump impeachment but forcing the process from inception to the actual House impeachment vote in the House in just 90-days. Remember: the Clinton impeachment process lasted five years. This House of Representatives voted for two articles of impeachment after only three months!

Pelosi and Company must have some plan. Let’s think this through.

I. The “Benghazi Effect”

Columnist Denis Bedoya offered up an excellent possibility to answer our question, “What next?”

When the Benghazi investigation came to a close in 2014, the House Intelligence Committee found “no deliberate wrongdoing” by the Obama administration. This was viewed as a massive failure for the GOP and a huge win for the Democrats — Hillary Clinton, in particular, who everyone knew would be the next DNC candidate for president.  The Republican majority then set up a special Select Committee to continue the probe.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, at the time the Republican majority leader in the House, was candid in a 2015 interview about why the GOP fought so hard to investigate Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi disaster.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought,” he said.

McCarthy and his fellow Republicans knew the likelihood of any conviction coming down on any Obama officials was next to none. That wasn’t the point. The point of the Benghazi investigations was creating a “strategy to fight and win” – in the long term, not the short term.

Convicting Clinton was never the goal; the goal was to kick the Democrat Party out of the White House. People mocked McCarthy and the GOP establishment after the Benghazi hearings and again when he admitted the real reason behind those investigations. But they stopped mocking him after Donald Trump assumed office almost four years ago.

Think about it: Democrats certainly realize this U.S. Senate will not vote to remove President Trump from office. Democrats will NOT stop trying to remove Donald Trump. Yes, they hope all the noise of impeachment will discredit Mr. Trump in the eyes of enough of his supporters to move the needle to “Democrat” in the 2020 election. Benghazi helped the GOP keep Hillary from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If it doesn’t work to keep “The Donald” as President for four more years, they plan on their continual onslaught of venomous hatred for the President to blackball any Republican in 2024.

II. Impeach Every Opponent

Did you know that with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower (because he was a war hero), Democrats have tried to impeach every “elected” Republican President since World War II! I use the word “elected” because Gerald Ford was not elected. He became President when Richard Nixon resigned. But even Nixon was attacked with impeachment. Let’s take a look:

Richard Nixon

On May 9, 1972, Congressman William Fitts Ryan submitted a resolution to impeach President Nixon. The next day, John Conyers introduced a similar resolution, and both were referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Ronald Reagan

In March 1987, halfway through Reagan’s second term, Rep. Henry Gonzales, D-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment based on the Iran-Contra scandal. The effort failed.

George H. W. Bush

On January 16, 1991, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced articles of impeachment against President George H. W. Bush for starting the Gulf War. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it died. Not to be deterred Gonzalez tried again in February 1992. He then referred both bills to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commerce. Still, both resolutions died. Importantly, in 1992, Democrats controlled the Senate (57 to 42) and the House (258 to 176) yet could not get an impeachment vote that only required a majority in the House.

George W. Bush

Donald Trump

On May 17, 2017, Representative Al Green called for the impeachment of President Trump on the House floor. A few months subsequently (and less than a half-year into his presidency). Representative Green was joined by Representative Brad Sherman to introduce a resolution that contained an article of impeachment.

Shortly afterward, Representative Steve Cohen joined five other Democrats to introduce five articles of impeachment that included “obstruction of justice,” “violation of the foreign emoluments clause,” “violation of the domestic emoluments clause,” “undermining the independence of the federal judiciary,” and “undermining the freedom of the press.

The impeachment (or attempted impeachment) of duly elected Republican presidents seems to be a plank in the Democrat Party Platform. And it seems to be a considered and purposely implemented plank in the foundation of political options for them.

III. Hiding

This as a possibility for the Trump impeachment is the scariest to me. Remember the example we have used here multiple times regarding “left-hand/right-hand?” Let me refresh your memory.

A good “trickster” (or magician) often uses the art of sleight of hand. They prepare their audience to believe that something is about to happen in their right hand. The audience focuses on that right hand, wanting to catch the trickster in the act. But what the audience members seldom realize is that the magician is manufacturing the trick with his left hand. The audience is unaware of the real method because their full attention is on his right hand. His trick works.

Could Pelosi and Company be the perpetrators of the same sleight of hand? For that to be true, the action they show their audience today is occurring in their right hand: Impeachment. Their promotion, advertising, press conferences, news stories, and political ads all point to the horrors of what is happening in their right hand. At the same time, however, the things they wish to keep from their audience are quietly being put in place and operating in their left hand.

In President Trump’s case, this would mean that all the noise that has so effectively distracted Americans is what is fueling Democrats’ sleight of hand trick play on their audience: the American people. While that has been in full swing — actually since before his inauguration — Democrats have been hard at work to keep their power and control protection intact through at best unethical, at worst hidden illegal acts.

What could those “hidden things” be — those things in their left hand?

  • Democrat operatives were caught in the act of tipping the 2016 election scales in favor of Hillary Clinton. They used “operation research” in the Steele dossier as fuel to mount sufficient voter outrage to turn Trump supporters to Clinton. It didn’t work. Behind the scenes (in that “left hand”) DOJ and FBI never-Trumpers worked together to fabricate story after story, media leak after leak, all the while faking news stories from “anonymous” and “confidential” sources passed around from Lame-Stream media outlet to the next one. All this was an attempt to hide a carefully coordinated political coup d’état instituted by top-level intelligence agency officials with strategically planned media leaks of everything from Trump illicit sexual activity to alleged treason, abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress.
  • After the election (and even before the Trump inauguration), anti-Trump supporters orchestrated fake voter demonstrations all over the nation. Some of those demonstrators were paid mercenary political hacks who were literally on the job to ramp up faux voter anger for Clinton’s loss to Trump initiated by the Russian hacking of the election. (Of course, the Trump Campaign coordinated that Russian hacking with Vladimir Putin)
  • The most sinister of all that Democrats hid were the numerous government employees with top security clearances working in classified positions who aggressively together with others of the same ilk to craft a plan to “kick” Donald Trump out of the White House. Texts and emails revealed they even had an insurance plan against Donald Trump’s success.

IV.  Running the Table

This might be the Democrat Party’s swan song. They may just be throwing in the towel. “Wait,” you say. “Democrats might be quitting and just rolling up in a ball on the floor because of Donald Trump?”

I know it may seem odd, but think it through: Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, and other senior members of Democrat House and Senate leadership have a couple of centuries in U.S. government service collectively, they are tired of the grind. And some are probably ready to “go to the House.” The first thought is that they have amassed their pile of power, have eaten at the King’s table, played their games with the People’s money, passed out billions of dollars to political donors, friends, and relatives, and have grown accustomed to all the luxuries that life affords. They would never quit!

That’s the point: those evils were not implemented and used without significant angst, manipulation, threats, intimidation, and maybe even blackmail to get and maintain all those beautiful things that go along with political power. There’s a price for that.

Imagine this: one northern California native young girl from a prominent political California family gets elected. Her background gave her recognition, credibility with her fellow Californians, and connections. She grew-up with plenty of material things and opportunities given to her. And she liked it. With Nancy as a young Congresswoman and Paul as a commercial real estate developer, the two discovered power — especially Washington political power — opened every door of financial opportunity in the U.S. They rolled the dice. And they hit their number over and over and over again. Today, as a result, they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why do they need to continue the fight and struggles to maintain their status any longer? They have everything they ever wanted and possibly could achieve. Maybe they want to take it easy.

The same thing applies to all these other Democrat political heavyweights that are leading Congress and have been for decades. It’s time for them to “pass the torch.”


Some or all of this might seem far-fetched. But it all makes sense. Before Trump supporters begin to take any victory laps, think these things through. Pelosi & Company are who they are, have achieved what they have made, and have left many powerful political opponents in their wakes while controlling the United States Government. Democrats are NOT going to give up; they are NOT going to give in; they are NOT going to quit.

Even if their plan is my number IV plan, it will not be a concession. It will be to take these babies in Congress that just started their political careers, teach those youngsters all of the tricks these Democrats created and perfected over time, and help them implement them in 2020 political America.

Things won’t look the same in Washington: AOC may get sent packing along with several other of her “Squad” counterparts. But a generation of babies is coming of age. Pelosi & Company are prepared to pass the mantle on to them.


FISA: Time to Reform or Time to Go?

Unless you live in a barrel, you have heard in numerous conversations the word “FISA.” “FISA” actually stands for “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” FISA legislation regulates the United States Government’s ability to surveil (or “spy”) American citizens who may be communicating with people outside the U.S. Such surveillance is governed by a special court called “FISC,” or “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” Why would this ever be necessary?

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In 2013, a top-secret order issued by the court, which was later leaked to the media from documents culled by Edward Snowden, required a subsidiary of Verizon to provide a daily, on-going feed of all call detail records—including those for domestic calls—to the NSA. The Edward Snowden matter brought the FISA process to light and thrust it into the forefront of intelligence agencies’ process operations. This was the first time average Americans knew anything about this process.

How Does FISA Work?

Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is given to an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of approval and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after approval of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.

If one judge of the court denies an application, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court but may appeal to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was occurred in 2002 (In re-Sealed Case No. 02-001), 24 years after the founding of the court.

Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. (this is important and will be discussed later) Fewer than 200 requests were modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected applications were all from 2003, and all four were granted in part after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the applications that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven were rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court issued 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests. This total does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court.

FISA Corruption

It’s easy to see how the FISA process could easily be corrupted for partisan and covert purposes. The fact that FISA corruption is so easy to implement has given pause to numerous of those on Capitol Hill, who are both concerned with the obvious actual and attempted electronic intrusions into multiple U.S. companies and even the government itself. The most recent of such alleged FISA abuse occurred during the FBI Trump Campaign investigation. It allegedly began with a FISA warrant submitted to the FISC for authorization to surveil the communications of Carter Page, who was an associate of the Trump Campaign. Uproar ensued about alleged “wiretapping” of then Candidate Donald Trump shortly after a visit to Trump Tower by former NSA head Mike Rodgers. Speculation is that Rodgers, in that meeting, informed Mr. Trump that his campaign headquarters at Trump Tower was electronically surveilled. The next day, the Trump Campaign moved its headquarters to New Jersey.

NOTE: unless and until President releases to the American public the FISA warrant applications filed by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants, we will not know the specifics of the basis for that surveillance. It is expected for those to be released at any time

It is uncanny how partisan are the comments and analyses of the findings of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz as published in his 500+ page report a few days ago into FISA abuse alleged to have occurred during the Trump Campaign investigation. It depends on whom you speak or listen as to whether the Horowitz findings vilified the FISA process during the FBI investigation or supported it. Shortly after its release, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana made this request of the President:

“The Inspector General report showed the FBI was willing to do anything in order to spy on Carter Page, including making 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions. The American public deserves to know everything the FBI did,” Kennedy said in a statement. I’m asking President Trump to declassify the entire record so that Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray can release it to the American people. If the FBI wants to continue the employment of rogue, politically-motivated agents, then let the public read the entire record.”

As does Senator Kennedy, numerous Americans both inside and outside of Washington feel the structure of the Court gives the government an “open season” on surveillance of Americans — ALL Americans — that apparently have and could going forward be for partisan and political purposes. Remember this: only twelve of 33,942 FISA warrants filed in its history did the FISA Court deny.

Fix FISA or Dump FISA

The House recently voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702, proposed by Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and  Zoe Lofgren of California. FISA Section 702, which was inserted as an addition to the 1978 FISA Act in 2008, was intended to be used solely to monitor communications by foreign nationals outside of the United States.

In recent years, Edward Snowden’s revelations showed that Section 702 provided the government with a legal cover to collect data on communications between millions of U.S. citizens without warrants or probable cause. According to a National Security Agency (NSA) transparency report from April 2019, in 2018, communications by U.S. citizens or residents were queried 9,637 times, over 2,000 more queries than the previous year.

The Amash-Lofgren Amendment would have withheld funding for Section 702 in the budget for the fiscal year 2020. If it had passed, any requests for Section 702 funding by governmental bodies such as the NSA would have had to make an express commitment to not use those funds on the warrantless collection of U.S. citizens’ data.

Forty-seven organizations, including the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and FreedomWorks, urged Congress in a June letter to pass the amendment to “significantly advance the privacy rights of people within the United States.” Two Republican representatives, Chip Roy of Texas and Jim Jordan of Ohio, rose to defend the amendment during the ten minutes of debate that was afforded. Despite these endorsements, the change was struck down 252-175, with over 100 members of each party voting against it.

Unfortunately, as ordinary American citizens, we find ourselves in something of a conundrum. It’s hard for us to say, “Yes, we support FISA and want it to continue,” or “No, we think the Government with FISA has too many unchecked opportunities to abuse the FISA system, so we want it abolished.”


Here’s what a legal writer Mark Wauck stated about whether we should keep or abolish the FISA process:

“It seems to me that since Watergate our politics have been almost totally transformed, with the Left feeling ascendant, despite occasional setbacks. At the same time that the Left has taken over education and most other public institutions, the Intelligence agencies–and of course the FBI in particular–have assumed a huge role in domestic intelligence. It’s true that this is partly the result of the GWOT (“Global War on Terrorism”) and FISA’s application to it, but I believe it was happening anyway.

The current abuses that we’re seeing coming to light attributable to the Obama Administration, are very scary. However, given that the Left feels no constraints about our traditional liberties, is it possible that FISA actually gives them a bit of pause, slows them down a bit just to hide what they’re doing? If they were to have 8 years with no constraints, with the total and enthusiastic cooperation of Big Data companies, what might the result be?

This is what worries me. Would the abolition of what is undoubtedly unconstitutional lead to Big Brother?”

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul — a Libertarian at heart — has long questioned the validity of the FISA system in regards to the Constitutional protection of the rights of Americans. According to the Senator, the process in its purest forms should work correctly. But there is a problem: people with partisan opinions and perspectives of its purposes:

Should we fix the process hoping for good results? Or should we simply ax it to once again rely on a prosecutor presenting evidence to a judge sufficient to justify a surveillance warrant?

There is far too much corruption at the DOJ and FBI that has been exposed in the last few years for me to feel comfortable recommending continuation of the FISA process. Too many people in powerful positions that impact FISA investigations have been shown to be grossly politically biased. Unless and until the Intelligence agencies have demonstrated their commitment to strict adherence to not just the letter of FISA warrant applicant and subsequent warrants, but to the FISA process, I recommend that FISA be ditched and we return to the 250-year-old process to obtain warrants: convince a judge with facts of any case when presenting a sworn warrant application for a surveillance warrant. If facts in evidence justify such a warrant, that judge can issue it.

If there’s “meat on the bone,” justice will be served. And the personal lives of Americans will once again be protected from Big Brother or surveillance abuse who once gains power seldom every relinquishes it.


In a rare public order Tuesday, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] strongly criticized the FBI over its surveillance-application process, giving the bureau until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions, in the wake of findings from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

The order, from the court’s presiding judge Rosemary M. Collyer, came just a week after the release of Horowitz’s withering report about the wiretapping of Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to President Trump.

“The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above,” Collyer wrote in her four-page order. “The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

“As [FBI Director Christopher Wray] has stated, the inspector general’s report describes conduct by certain FBI employees that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of the FBI as an institution,” the bureau responded in a statement Tuesday night. “The director has ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the report’s recommendations, including some improvements beyond those recommended by the IG.”

Horowitz said he did not find significant evidence that FBI agents were involved in a political conspiracy to undermine Trump’s candidacy in 2016. However, the report did find numerous errors and inaccuracies used by FBI agents to obtain permission to monitor Page’s phone calls and emails.

While Collyer’s order did not specify exactly what reforms the FBI needed to implement to its policies for obtaining permission to wiretap people under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the order did say that the FISA court will weigh in on whether the reforms are deemed sufficient.

“The [FISA court] expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the court,” Collyer wrote. “Without it, the [FISA court] cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis.” (FOX News)


McConnell and Graham: Let’s Have a REAL Trial!

Both Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have intimated that their preference is NOT to have a real impeachment trial that includes traditional trial witnesses and evidence presentation complete with cross-examination. Their doing so is to “get on down the road” in legislation. In fact, Senator Graham added this: “When you are about to receive an innocent plea, you don’t want to go through additional trial actions.”

I get all that. But if these two Senators who wield tremendous Senatorial power proceed that way, they will commit severe damage. That damage will be to their party, President Trump, members of his administration, and his family who have all been excoriated for scads of wrongdoing for 3.5 years. There needs to be a public environment that any Americans can witness in which each of the “questionable” players who factored into the establishment and perpetuation of all processes intrinsic to the President Trump investigation will testify about their specific parts — all under oath. Americans deserve to not only get the truth but to confirm that our government and our representatives within our government are held to the same standard of truth as are all others under U.S. law.

Some will point to the fact that impeachment is not a criminal process, but a political process and, therefore, should be exempt from much of an ordinary civil or criminal trial process. Quite the opposite is exact. This trial more than any other cries for 100% transparency and full disclosure of every part of the process that led us to this place. That means questions and answers about every part of the FBI surveillance of the President’s staff and operations, the alleged collusion with Russians by the Trump Campaign, and all details of the four FISA warrants the FBI presented to the FISA court for surveillance warrants. Anything short of that would be a travesty. It would show that government employees and contract workers fly high above everyday Americans and are bound by different standards than are all other Americans.

What’s At Stake

Let’s be honest: Americans have less trust and far more mistrust in Government than at any time since political pollsters have gathered those numbers. Why is that? It happens almost exclusively for the reality or perception — whichever it may be — that those in the U.S. Government operate and live in an alternate American legal reality than do all other Americans. “Equal justice under the law,” as seen in the Hillary Clinton email server debacle, was NOT equal. Can you imagine a reality in which you or I, as a government employee — the Secretary of State — unilaterally decided to conduct all of our email correspondence on a private email server? What would be our consequences for not registering that server with State Department IT experts, and those experts had not tested it and given it security clearance? That meant that all emails sent and received to and from that server for dissemination contained classified information. We would have been guilty of multiple violations of federal law for which each violation was a felony. What would have happened if we decided after receiving subpoenas for all the emails to delete hundreds of thousands of those emails using Bleach-Bit, a computer hard drive scrubbing software program? The answer to all of these questions is simple: we would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of federal law and would likely be in prison.

One question that seems to never come up in this is precisely what did President Obama know about the investigation into the Trump Campaign? In a Sept. 2, 2016, text from Lisa Page to Peter Strzok about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, Page said it was essential to do so because “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” He knew. But how much and when?

Ironically, so many intelligence operation matters were secretly changed by members of the Intelligence Community under Barack Obama. And there are many. As explained by Yale Law professor Jack Balkin in 2009:

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President – now President Obama – the authority to run surveillance programs similar in effect to the warrantless surveillance program [secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001]. That is because New FISA no longer requires individualized targets in all surveillance programs. Some programs may be ‘vacuum cleaner’ programs that listen to a great many different calls (and read a great many e-mails) without any requirement of a warrant directed at a particular person as long as no U.S. person is directly targeted as the object of the program.

Also, since the spying against Team Trump began as a counterintelligence operation, Obama would have been updated regularly via the President’s Daily Intelligence Brief.

The Durham Investigation

I’m beginning to think that Washington bureaucrats — even some of the Republican Congressional leaders — are using the Durham Investigation (that has been announced to be a criminal one) as a diversion. Though it is underway, its secrecy prevents any outsiders from knowing what is underway. Under Robert Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and others, the cloak of investigative secrecy only applied to average Americans. Those in the FBI and DOJ who wanted the information to spill into the American media pool made sure it became public. And most of the time it was stated that information originated from “unnamed” or “anonymous” sources. Those leaked news stories almost always contained disclaimers like this: “Anonymous sources have stated….” or “Confidential sources on the promise of identity secrecy have stated…” More often than not, we have learned that these “anonymous” and “unnamed confidential sources” were just other media outlets! Here’s how it works:

  • One media source puts out a story that starts with this: “Unnamed sources have just reported that Donald Trump walks naked through the Rose Garden at night.”
  • Media source Two reports: “An anonymous source has confirmed that President Trump has been seen walking naked through the Rose Garden after dark.”
  • Media source Three reports: “Multiple sources have confirmed that President Donald Trump has been recorded multiple times walking naked after dark in the White House Rose Garden.”

Source One made-up the story using “Unnamed sources” as the story’s origination; Source Two uses the account from Source One (which is called “an anonymous source”) verifying the truth of Source One’s sources; Source Three states their confirmation of the story from “Multiple Sources.”

Just as the above story of Donald Trump’s naked walks in the Rose Garden, we can expect for news leaks to begin regarding John Durham’s criminal investigation. And in reporting those leaks, expect stories to be worded in the exact way or similarly as the above examples.


Americans desperately seek the truth in this investigation. As of today, most Americans feel there’s been some “adjusting” of facts and evidence under the James Comey FBI, the Loretta Lynch Department of Justice, and the Barack Obama Administration regarding the investigation of Donald Trump. Most Americans do not trust that Democrats have been fair in their impeachment inquiry’s operations. For that, many question the validity of what things have been said under oath and subsequently by Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler.

Americans want the truth. Americans want the reality presented to them objectively with evidence — no matter if damaging to Mr. Trump or not — that allows the consideration and development of an accurate picture of what went on, who was involved, and whether or not any laws were broken in the process. Americans additionally want any of those who may be guilty of law-breaking to be held accountable. And that means everyone involved.

I feel strongly that we need to have every person involved to testify under oath before the Senate in open hearings. They should each be asked the hard questions to exact truthful evidence that supports or bashes the Trump impeachment allegations. If Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses confirmed to be so, he should pay the penalty for doing so. But if he did not, he deserves to be publicly vindicated. That will require a full impeachment trial.

To that end, I on Monday wrote and sent the following letter to Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), urging them to guarantee the Senate does not hurry to get a “not guilty” verdict on impeachment. Americans want every person who was involved in the FBI Trump investigation, the Mueller investigation, and the subsequent impeachment matters to face Americans under oath.

Here’s what I feel will happen if U.S. Senate leadership decides to hurriedly conduct preliminary discussions and rush to get a vote NOT to convict the President:

  • Americans — and not just Republicans — will be angry that the truth was not publicly detailed. Republicans certainly want vindication for the President and for fellow Republicans for supporting Donald Trump.
  • Democrats want finality in what is alleged in the two articles of impeachment passed by the House. That finality is removal from office of Donald Trump.

In either case, the United States of America needs to put this all to rest based solely on facts. So far, there has been plenty of hearsay, innuendo, and allegations of impeachable offenses. Our nation needs a resolution to happen so that healing can begin. Whether or not that includes removing the President for his commission of Bribery, Treason, High Crimes, and Misdemeanors or closes the door with his exoneration, America needs to move on. Let’s face it: there are many good things initiated during the Trump presidency that have us far down the road of economic recovery we have so badly needed. And the effects of that recovery are being felt by virtually all Americans.

If a new president moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he or she will face many challenges that are standard parts of the job. But the latest fight will come as a direct result of the rending of the fabric of Equal Justice Under the Law promised to all in our Constitution that has been yanked away by this impeachment.

Either way, it’ll take some time to repair that fabric — and some hard work.

To express my concerns regarding a quick Senate impeachment trial without the comprehensive sworn testimony of those involved, here’s a letter I sent to Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham on Monday, December 16, 2019:

The Honorable Senator Mitch McConnell2

Members of the U.S. Senate: Let’s get this resolved through a comprehensive trial!


Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress: Huh?

Here we go!

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

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

Abuse of Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obstruction of Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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