Category: Politically Speaking……

There’s a lot to discuss in politics that much of defies description. Nevertheless they are often important. Find those here.

Fear and Loathing

April 24, 2019

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS ‘72 is a book written by Hunter Thomson. It was a sequel to the original, “FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS.”

The  ‘72 book focuses almost exclusively on the Democrat Party’s primaries and the breakdown of the party as it split between the different candidates. Of particular focus was the manic maneuvering of the George McGovern campaign during the Miami convention as they sought to ensure the Democrat nomination despite attempts by the Hubert Humphrey campaign and other candidates to block McGovern.

Thompson began his coverage of the campaign in December 1971, just as the race toward the primaries was beginning, from a rented apartment in Washington, D.C. Over the next 12 months, in great detail, he covered every aspect of the campaign, from the smallest rally to the raucous conventions.

The War

It is uncanny the many parallels between the 1972 election and the upcoming 2020 election as Dems already at 20 in number have begun what is already a vicious battle for the Democrat Party spot to face-off against Donald Trump. Each of the already declared Dem hopefuls certainly dreads that the tactics used against McGovern in 1972 and similarly in 2016 against Bernie Sanders to make certain he would not take the party nomination away from Hillary might reappear in 2020. But stranger things have happened.

There already is a war of agreement between the declared Democrat candidates. Their war? It’s against capitalism and all who stand for it — especially Donald Trump. A large part of the Democrat Party actually has been brainwashed to some mystical magic in Socialism. Those people are fearful that capitalism will remain in the U.S. It’s funny: every GOOD thing we have in America is a direct result of capitalism and its opportunities for all. Socialism? There’s no example in World history of Socialism EVER surviving. Why? To quote former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “Socialism always fails because you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.”

That being said, the skeletal pieces of the Democrat Party platform are so outlandish (at least so far to most Americans) it remains to be seen when the internal attacks among these candidates that are certain to show up during their primaries will begin. But there is plenty of ammunition they can use.

Fear

There certainly was fear in 1972 among Democrats. Half of Democrats feared McGovern winning their nomination and the other half were afraid of Humphrey doing so. The loathing was divided the same way. It had been quite a while that Dems were split and so divided. Remember: they had been through a glorious decade that began with the installation of “Camelot” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. JFK’s personal magnetism and populist message united Democrats in a way unseen decades. His tragic death left a massive hole that none could plug until Bill Clinton.

Clinton put Democrat fears to rest for a while. Democrats seized the opportunity for power. Clinton led the takeover of the American government while conservatives slept in America. By the time George W. Bush took the oath of office, Democrats had transformed every government agency in D.C. to operate simply as a tool for Democrat leaders. The tool used to seize benign support was the hunger by those politicos to be invited “in” to partake of the freebies of unimaginable magnitude that accompanies unfettered power and control of every part of U.S. government. I’ve often wondered why the Democrats so adore Bill Clinton, especially with the plethora of examples of corruption during his 8 years. He created and implemented the methodology that literally took the U.S. government control away from “we the People” and gave it to the leaders of the Democrat Party. Probably 95% of the middle class that are members of the Democrat Party have no idea how that other 5% use hundreds of processes created by their hero and his minions in the 90s to stealthily take control of our government. It’s so bad today that the only thing left for the American people is the right to vote. And Dems have watered down what our vote means or if it means anything at all. And to regain all the power they lost they desperately fight to eliminate the electoral college which is the only protection from the government the American voters still “own.”

Democrats fear American conservatives and conservatism itself. Why? Those Americans and conservatism are the only 2 things that can “steal” back that power that Democrats have “stolen” from Americans. They fear the truth that they see and hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, FOX News, Breitbart, Bongino, and the few conservative newspapers in the country that are believed by Americans who went to sleep regarding the political process 20 years ago. They fear the Truth! They fear that the sleeping giant of “government, by, of, and for the People” will awaken Americans to the sneaky giant of Big Government who has already wrestled D.C. power away and has initiated an all-out war to hold onto it.

Leftists fear Donald Trump. Why? Not one national politician in recent history has ever won a presidency and given to the American public what they promised during their campaigns: Democrat OR Republican! Donald Trump is the first since Reagan. And they are scared to death of the wins during the young Trump presidency that includes his campaign promises.

How could their missionary appointed to send Trump packing using the fake Steele Dossier as evidence of Trump colluding with Russians in 2016 fail in that one simple task? How could Mueller with an unlimited budget, staff, and access to all things Donald Trump fail to find enough evidence against Trump to jumpstart Impeachment? They are so afraid that their determination was to simply ignore their hero’s findings of “No there-there” and decided to just pick up the mantle of “dumping Trump” themselves, and with their newfound control of the House investigate everything and everybody that has any Trump connections into oblivion!

That’s how fearful they all are.

Loathing

Loathing defined: “extreme disgust: detestation, aversion, disgust, distaste, horror, nausea, repugnance, repulsion, revulsion.”

We’d be here all night if we listed everything and everybody Democrats loathe. Let’s just bullet point a few.

Democrats Loath:

  • President Donald Trump.
  • Everyone who works for the President.
  • Every member of his family.
  • Attorney General William Barr.
  • Republican leadership in the House and the Senate.
  • Every elected Republican or Conservative in Congress.
  • FOX News and every other honest news reporting entity.
  • Republican National Committee.
  • The “Rule of Law.”
  • Equal Justice Under the Law.
  • The U.S. Constitution.
  • The electoral college.
  • National Borders.
  • U.S. Immigration in its entirety.
  • ICE and all those who work within ICE.
  • Immigration Laws.
  • Campaign finance laws.
  • Tax Reductions on corporations and Americans personally

What do Liberals (Democrats) loathe the most? Americans who voted for and support Donald Trump.

Here’s where they are headed. They certainly have very obviously shown their total rejection of the findings of their “darling” Robert Mueller. Their fear and loathing just launched their processes of “going after all things Trump” into a Part 2. Oh, they’re going to impeach this president. We at TruthNewsNetwork have maintained that since the day the Mueller probe was announced. After all, Donald Trump has attacked their gravy train of unadulterated power. And the one tool that Trump has used to bring success in that process is something that horrifies Democrats and liberals who are even farther Left than Dems: Totalitarianists. And remember that those Far-Leftists are pushing the Democrat Party farther left than it has ever been in American history.

How will they get to impeachment if Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction of justice? In closing, rather than us giving you our summary and answer that question, let’s turn to one of the ringleaders of the process of “dumping Trump,” Representative Jerold Nadler (D-NY) who is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. That’s where (if Democrats do launch formal impeachment actions) Articles of Impeachment must be created. Listen closely to what he says in this conversation with ABC’s George Stephanopolous:

Nadler, an attorney who NEVER practiced law after he got his law degree in New York, who has been a politician his whole life, who in this interview in error calls Robert Mueller Special “Prosecutor” rather than “Counsel,” which is what Mueller was, will ultimately drive the impeachment train of Congress to perpetuate this dark chapter in American history, which is the largest and most obvious attempt by one large group of people to overturn the results of a legal and just election of an American president without a shred of evidence supporting their doing so.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Russian Hacking: It’s True Part 2

April 22, 2019

In Part I of this revelation, we proved to our readers/listeners that there actually WAS Russian hacking attempts that in some cases were successful during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. There really is “there-there.” Today as promised we go into “who” and “how” it happened.

This is really important information — stuff Americans need to understand. Read and listen closely! And make certain you look-in to our Summary at the completion of this story.

Leaks and Counterfeit Profiles

Russia has been quite open about playing its hacking card. At a conference in Moscow, a top cyberintelligence adviser to President Vladimir Putin hinted that Russia was about to unleash a devastating information attack on the United States.

“We are living in 1948,” said the adviser, Andrey Krutskikh, referring to the eve of the first Soviet atomic bomb test, in a speech reported by The Washington Post. “I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having something in the information arena that will allow to us to talk to the Americans as equals.”

Mr. Putin’s denials of Russian meddling have been tongue-in-cheek. He allowed that “free-spirited” hackers might have awakened in a good mood one day and spontaneously decided to contribute to “the fight against those who say bad things about Russia.” Speaking to NBC News, he rejected the idea that evidence pointed to Russia — while showing a striking familiarity with how cyberattackers might cover their tracks.

“IP addresses can be simply made up,” Mr. Putin said, referring to Internet protocol addresses, which can identify particular computers. “There are such IT specialists in the world today, and they can arrange anything and then blame it on whomever. This is no proof.”

Mr. Putin had a point. Especially in the social media realm, attributing fake accounts — to Russia or to any other source — is always challenging. The Central Intelligence Security Agency concluded“with high confidence” that Mr. Putin had ordered an influence operation to damage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and eventually aid Donald J. Trump’s. Facebook published a public report on information operations using fake accounts. It shied away from naming Russia as the culprit until when the company said it had removed 470 “inauthentic” accounts and pages that were “likely operated out of Russia.” Facebook officials fingered a St. Petersburg company with Kremlin ties called the Internet Research Agency.

Russia deliberately hides its role in influence operations, American intelligence officials say. Even skilled investigators often cannot be sure if a particular Facebook post or Twitter bot came from Russian intelligence employees, paid “trolls” in Eastern Europe or hackers from Russia’s vast criminal underground. A Russian site called buyaccs.com(“Buy Bulk Accounts at Best Prices”) offers for sale a huge array of pre-existing social media accounts, including on Facebook and Twitter; like wine, the older accounts cost more, because their history makes hacking harder to spot.

The trail that leads from the Russian operation to the bogus Melvin Redick, however, is fairly clear. United States intelligence concluded that DCLeaks.com was created in June 2016 by the Russian military intelligence agency G.R.U. The site began publishing a collection of hacked emails, notably from George Soros, the financier and Democratic donor, as well as a former NATO commander and some Democratic and Republican staffers. Some of the website’s language — calling Mrs. Clinton “President of the Democratic Party” and referring to her “electional staff” — seemed to contradict its pose as a forum run by American activists.

DCLeaks would soon be followed by a blog called Guccifer 2.0, which would leave even more clues of its Russian origin. Those sites’ posts, however, would then be dwarfed by those from WikiLeaks, which American officials believe got thousands of Democratic emails from Russian intelligence hackers. At each stage, a Large group of Facebook and Twitter accounts — alongside many legitimate ones — would applaud the leaks.

During its first weeks online, DCLeaks saw no media attention. But The Times found that some Facebook users somehow discovered the new site quickly and began promoting it on June 8, 2016. One was the Redick account, which posted about DCLeaks to the Facebook groups “World News Headlines” and “Breaking News — World.”

Melvin Redick’s Facebook Profile

Inconsistencies in the contents of Mr. Redick’s Facebook profile suggest that the identity was fake.

  1. Neither Central High School nor Indiana University of Pennsylvania has any record of Mr. Redick attending.
  2. According to his profile, Mr. Redick was born and raised in Pennsylvania, but one image shows him seated in a restaurant in Brazil, and another shows a Brazilian-style electrical outlet in his daughter’s bedroom.
  3. Mr. Redick’s posts were never of a personal nature. He shared only news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.

The same morning, “Katherine Fulton” also began promoting DCLeaks in the same awkward English Mr. Redick used. “Hey truth seekers!” she wrote. “Who can tell me who are #DCLeaks? Some kind of Wikileaks? You should visit their website, it contains confidential information about our leaders such as Hillary Clinton, and others http://dcleaks.com/.”

So did “Alice Donovan,” who pointed to documents from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations that she said showed its pro-American tilt and — in rather formal language for Facebook — “describe eventual means and plans of supporting opposition movements, groups or individuals in various countries.”

Might Mr. Redick, Ms. Fulton, Ms. Donovan and others be real Americans who just happened to notice DCLeaks the same day? No. The Times asked Facebook about these and a half-dozen other accounts that appeared to be Russian creations. The company carried out its standard challenge procedure by asking the users to establish their bona fides. All the suspect accounts failed and were removed from Facebook.

On Twitter, meanwhile, hundreds of accounts were busy posting anti-Clinton messages and promoting the leaked material obtained by Russian hackers. Investigators for FireEye spent months reviewing Twitter accounts associated with certain online personas, posing as activists, that seemed to show the Russian hand: DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, Anonymous Poland and several others. FireEye concluded that they were associated with one another and with Russian hacking groups, including APT28 or Fancy Bear, which American intelligence blames for the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails.

Lee Foster, who leads the FireEye team examining information operations, said some of the warlist Twitter accounts had previously been used for illicit marketing, suggesting that they may have been purchased on the black market. Some were genuine accounts that had been hijacked. Rachel Usedom, a young American engineer in California, tweeted mostly about her sorority before losing interest in 2014. In November 2016, her account was taken over, renamed #ClintonCurruption, and used to promote the Russian leaks.

Rachel Usedom’s Twitter account was taken over and used to post political leaks.

Ms. Usedom had no idea that her account had been commandeered by anti-Clinton people who used her account to spread propaganda . “I was shocked and slightly confused when I found out,” she said.

Notably, the warlist tweets often included the Twitter handles of users whose attention the senders wanted to catch — news organizations, journalists, government agencies and politicians, including @realDonaldTrump. By targeting such opinion-shapers, Mr. Foster said, the creators of the warlists clearly wanted to stir up conversation about the leaked material.

J. M. Berger, a researcher in Cambridge, Mass., helped build a public web “dashboard” for the Washington-based Alliance for Securing Democracy to track hundreds of Twitter accounts that were suspected of links to Russia or that spread Russian propaganda. During the campaign, he said, he often saw the accounts post replies to Mr. Trump’s tweets.

Mr. Trump “received more direct replies than anyone else,” Mr. Berger said. “Clearly this was an effort to influence Donald Trump. They know he reads tweets.”

Only a small fraction of all the suspect social media accounts active during the election have been studied by investigators. But there is ample reason to suspect that the Russian meddling may have been far more widespread.

Several activists who ran Facebook pages for Bernie Sanders, for instance, noticed a suspicious flood of hostile comments about Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Sanders had already ended his campaign and endorsed her.

John Mattes, who ran the “San Diego for Bernie Sanders” page, said he saw a shift from familiar local commenters to newcomers, some with Eastern European names — including four different accounts using the name “Oliver Mitov.”

“Those who voted for Bernie, will not vote for corrupt Hillary!” one of the Mitovs wrote on Oct. 7. “The Revolution must continue! #NeverHillary”

While he was concerned about being seen as a “crazy cold warrior,” Mr. Mattes said he came to believe that Russia was the likely source of the anti-Clinton comments. “The magnitude and viciousness of it — I would suggest that their fingerprints were on it and no one else had that agenda,” he said.

Both on the left and the pro-Trump right, though, some skeptics complain that Moscow has become the automatic boogeyman, accused of misdeeds with little proof. Even those who track Russian online activity admit that in the election it was not always easy to sort out who was who.

“Yes, the Russians were involved. Yes, there was a lot of organic support for Trump,” said Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media. “Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”

Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts “Kremlin trolls” based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.

“Hillary’s a warmonger,” said Marilyn Justice, 66, who lives in Nova Scotia and tweets as @mkj1951. Of Mr. Putin, she said in an interview, “I think he’s very patient in the face of provocations.”

Another of the so-called Kremlin trolls, Marcel Sardo, 48, a web producer in Zurich, describes himself bluntly on his Twitter bio as a “Pro-Russia Media-Sniper.” He said he shared notes daily via Skype and Twitter with online acquaintances, including Ms. Justice, on disputes between Russia and the West over who shot down the Malaysian airliner hit by a missile over Ukraine and who used sarin gas in Syria.

“It’s a battle of information, and I and my peers have decided to take sides,” said Mr. Sardo, who constantly cites Russian sources and bashed Mrs. Clinton daily during the campaign. But he denied he had any links to the Russian government.

But if Russian officials are happy at their success, in 2016’s election and beyond, they rarely let the mask slip. In an interview with Bloomberg before the election, Mr. Putin suggested that reporters were worrying too much about who exactly stole the material.

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” he said, in a point that Mr. Trump has sometimes echoed. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public.”

Summary

In the wake of the nonstop claims from absolutely everyone on the Left about Russian meddling in 2016 and even some Republicans, it’s good to finally have verification that it really happened. Even though the world knew the Russians were proficient and committed to diligently working to thwart the wills of voters not only in the U.S. but in other countries, it has been extremely puzzling to locate, identify, and confirm factual occurrences of their election tampering attempts. It’s even more difficult in the case of the 2016 U.S. election to find factual confirmation of any of their efforts having any substantial impact yet alone that they changed or affected actual vote counts.

But what it most certainly has done is alert Americans — ALL Americans — to the fact that several countries have been and are trying to interfere with our elections. I’m certain part of their hopes in doing so is to distract Americans and the government from foreign policies that impact their countries directly. Let’s be honest: the U.S. has consistently and diligently worked hard to do the same things in the elections of our foreign foes.

Intelligence spying capabilities throughout the world have far exceeded the capabilities that in the 1970s were seen and heard only in James Bond movies that we all thought were impossible and would never be achieved. Yes, in part we conduct such activities to keep Americans safe and our country free from outside interference from other countries. But let’s be clear about this: we are at a tipping point in how we not only listen-in and watch through spying and electronic surveillance the activities of our foreign enemies, we found out daily just how much our government is using these tactics in the name of the Law to monitor every aspect of AMERICANS’ lives. No matter what the leaders of the “Spook” agencies tell us, that capability with very little accountability to Americans is deadly. The scary stories contained in Orwells 1984 are actually reality today and have been for much longer than we even thought was possible.

What about Russia? No doubt they’re our #1 enemy. Even with our weakened economy for 8 years from Obama Administration financial starvation, we still have the #1 military on Earth. With the rebuilding of the military and our intelligence infrastructure being cleaned of those who have perpetrated these frauds on our public, we’re well on our way to putting significant space between us and Russia. But we better be smart. Unearthing their attempts to tamper with our elections is a big victory for us, but only if we take demonstrative actions.

Let their secrecy from those in the Obama Administration going unseen by our CIA, NSA, and FBI during the 2016 election cycle a warning. Unless we take care of our own country using every opening available to ferret out their foreign intelligence ploys, they will be here in great force very soon. Vladimir’s greatest desire is to instigate processes through KGB leftover ideas that dismantle the intelligence structure of the U.S., thereby forcing us to our knees. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he promised to rebuild and re-establish the American military might and he’s started that process with a vengeance.

We close with this: did Russia change by their actions any votes from Hillary to Trump in 2016? We probably will never know. But what we DO know is they could have and almost certainly will going forward unless we take demonstrative steps to prevent those.

I know secrecy is critical regarding many elements of these efforts by our intelligence community. But certainly there are ways of communication they can use to make Americans feel comfortable that these agencies are really working for us. And instead of Congress chasing cameras all day every day to talk about Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment, how about they instead pass meaningful legislation to make and keep America safe?

And they might start with stopping the aliens from storming our southern border. Those aliens are actually breaking the law!

Mueller Time!

April 19, 2019

Attorney General Barr appeared with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to give his “final” report about the presentment of the Mueller Report to Congress and the American people. The report in full (with minimal redactions for legal purposes) was released 2 hours later to Congress and the public.

We are NOT going to go through the details of the report. This story today is simply to point out some facts about the process and how those facts and the process itself play into the future of the U.S. To that end, let me say this: the Mueller Report and Mueller’s entire process of putting his team of attorneys together, the methods they used for interrogations, grand juries, and even making arrests have never been seen in American history in past Special Counsel or Special Prosecutor cases. 

We did predict here the release of his findings would certainly NOT end the noise about Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russia and also alleged obstruction of justice. In fact, Mueller’s findings and the structure of his report left the door open for all those on the Left to simply ratchet-up their investigation threats, subpoenas, and more allegations. In our Summary, we’ll detail exactly where we are. Let’s put all this in bullet points to make it easy to follow (and keep it brief):

♦Collusion

“The Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations.

“First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.”

The report said there was no collusion found between Donald Trump or any member of his campaign and the Russians regarding manipulation of the 2016 election.

♦Conspiracy

The report said there were numerous contacts between members of Trump’s circle and Russia and that the campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

But it said the efforts did not amount to criminal conspiracy.

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

♦Obstruction of Justice

The report said the special counsel investigated numerous actions by Trump “that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice.”

These included “public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

“The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct.

“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

♦Efforts to Remove Special Counsel

The report detailed an effort by Trump to have the special counsel removed.

“On June 17, 2017, the president called (White House counsel Don) McGahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say that the special counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

“McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”

The determination by the Special Counsel was that President Trump could not be legally implicated in any action to remove Special Counsel Mueller.

♦The “Rest of the Story”

I know, the above is really brief. And what it does is summarize all of the “meat” — if one can call it meat — in the report. But, believe me, there’s plenty more “stuff” in the Mueller Report.

Again, we will not detail it all — there’s a bunch of stuff that basically seems to be included to in some way justify the $25 million + of taxpayer dollars spent and the 2 years of constant daily political uproar regarding the president and nothing more.

The report highlights most of the areas of question American have had and still have, even with the release of the report. Questions regarding the possible influence many felt the President tried to use to “influence” Michael Cohen in his multiple testimonies to Mueller’s team were included in the report with “no finding of wrongdoing.

Conventional wisdom states that in spite of the bottomless budget of taxpayer dollars used in this investigation, in spite of millions of pages of documents, numerous subpoenas, and testimony, 37 indictments (none of which implicated Mr. Trump or his campaign for Russian collusion), Donald Trump is walking away with no “baggage.” But is he?

Mueller may be done, but Congress is not. Members of Congress — all Democrats — who hold very critical jobs heading committees are still beating the drum of  “Collusion and Conspiracy.”

♦“Russia, Russia, Russia!“

Who’s guilty of still carrying the “Russia” torch?

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA)

March 27, 2017: The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said on MSNBC there is evidence that is “not circumstantial” of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

August 5, 2018: Rep. Schiff said there is “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight” regarding the Trump campaign and Russia.

March 25, 2019: “There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY)

March 24, 2019: “Obviously, we know there was some collusion,” he said during an appearance on CNN. “We know the president’s son and campaign manager were involved in a meeting with the Russians to receive what they thought was information stolen by the Russians from the Democratic National Committee, as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help Trump in the election.” (It was later shown in sworn testimony that the meeting was called to make available “Opposition Research” materials to the Trump team which was perfectly legal and used by every campaign in the 2016 election)

(One note here since we’re speaking of Congressman Nadler: in the Clinton Impeachment Starr Report that Starr released without redactions to the public. Nadler and 13 other Congressman currently still in the House all fought AGAINST its release at the time. But Nadler’s committee is demanding continuously for the Mueller Report to be released without any redactions)

Calling the comparison “apples and oranges,” Nadler said his remarks on the Starr report concerned the release of grand jury information to the public rather than to Congress.

Nadler did not take a position on whether the full Mueller report could contain grounds for impeachment, saying “there could be grounds for impeachment, there could be grounds for other actions, there could be things the American people ought to know.”

Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA)

March 25, 2019: Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted from a March 2018 interview on CNN saying, “In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion.” He was referring to his panel’s Russia investigation. That inquiry took place when the House Intelligence Committee was in GOP control and concluded there was no collusion.

March 26, 2019: Swalwell told Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, that all the evidence points to the president being a “Russian agent” and that he has not seen “a single piece of evidence that he’s not” a Russian agent. He stood by those claims on Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

March 4, 2019: Senator Mark Warner said there are “enormous amounts of evidence” linking the Trump campaign to Russia — the same day House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said there’s “direct evidence” of collusion between the two.

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)

March 6, 2017: Liberal Delaware Senator Chris Coons caused a stir when he indicated during a televised interview that yet-undisclosed transcripts of recorded phone conversations conclusively prove that elements of the Trump campaign explicitly colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)

March 24, 2019: “Here you have a president who I can tell you and guarantee you is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy,” Waters said.

Waters predicted in December 2017 that Mueller’s report is “going to lead right to, not only collusion, obstruction of justice, money laundering.”

♦Summary

As we warned, Democrats are just getting started. And their attack dogs — the Leftist Media — moments after the completion of Barr’s presentation summary of the now released report showed America what Democrats are totally about for 2020: NOTHING NEW. Sadly for their base, they have nothing to offer the nation other than “Get Donald Trump.” STILL!

We close today with the most troubling revelation in the Mueller report. There is stark proof that the President’s terminology of the Mueller investigation as a “Witch Hunt” was and is warranted. It’s contained in the following statement from the report:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”

By making this statement as THE basis — not for their findings but for their NO-findings — Mueller and his staff of “13 angry Democrats” (as termed by Sean Hannity) have categorically reversed a fundamental  guarantee given in the U.S. Constitution. According to Mueller, the inability of such a mass of investigators with such a mountain of evidence never before seen in any other federal investigation could not find evidence to justify charging President Trump with a crime. Yet they end the report by saying they could not conclusively determine that no criminal conduct occurred! 

It either DID occur or it DIDN’T occur. If it happened, a crime was committed. If it didn’t happen, NO crime was committed.

The Mueller gang just stomped all over the fundamental that millions of people charged throughout American judicial history in civil and criminal trials alike have relied on for fundamental fairness in their prosecution: The Presumption of Innocence. That presumption clearly states that those charged are “Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty.” 

It’s sad that a sitting president who in the 2016 presidential election demolished a career-political opponent who was a shew-in for the White House was NOT given the Presumption of Innocence.

Maybe that is the “new” way for the Judiciary in America to operate now. Maybe it’s so just in politics.

Or maybe — just maybe — this was Robert Mueller’s parting shot at President Trump for NOT offering him the FBI Director’s job in that Oval Office meeting with Rod Rosenstein which was purportedly a job interview for Mueller.

Is that what Due Process in America has come to?

 

 

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The 30,000 Foot View

April 15, 2019

Have you ever heard the saying “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” For years my company managers heard me say this quite often: “Just skip the ‘stuff’’ and give me the executive summary.” Both pretty much mean the same thing. And just in case you don’t understand either of these, let’s make it easy: Often we get so caught up in the nitty-gritty of what we’re doing that all of our attention is given to JUST what we’re doing at the moment and not what the overall picture is supposed to look like. For that reason, it’s often better to occasionally back away from the detail to make certain to see or imagine what the final result is to be.

So it is when we look at something from 30,000 feet in the air rather than from ground level. Stand on a street in Durango, Colorado and you are simply standing on the street of a small town in southwest Colorado. Fly over that same street at 30,000 feet in altitude and look out the plane window, you’ll see you’re above the Rockies. That street in Durango is still there, but it’s just a blip on the map you are looking at. Both are true, but each has different perspectives.

The picture at the top of this story is of Beirut, Lebanon was taken from a  jet. Imagine how different Beirut looks from a downtown street than from looking at it from a plane.

So which view are you using today to look-in on the American political world? If we’re honest with our answer to that question, most of us will answer, “I can’t see the forest for the trees.” And today’s American political “forest” is pretty nasty.

Perspective

Would you like to change your perspective? Honestly, it’s probably driving you crazy. I’ve asked hundreds of times in the last decade or so why we cannot easily discern the truth about our political landscape. We certainly don’t hear the truth about it from politicians, political pundits, or the media. Everything THEY say is skewed from their political perspective and their political agenda.

Remember Bill Clinton and his response during his impeachment process when under oath he answered a question by saying, “It depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is!” How are we to know today’s political truths so as to shape OUR perspectives to prepare us for whatever changes we should and could make going forward? We’re a year and a half away from elections for Congress and the presidency, and there are already 20 Democrat candidates announced to run. Talk about noise and confusion! Not only are our perspectives flavored by what we hear those candidates say about their ideas and plans, but the media also takes those ideas and puts their spin on them to filter for Americans who watch, read, and listen. Political perspectives are certainly problematic for the process of voters making educated choices. How can we shape our perspectives based only on facts? That’s a really hard one, but it’s one that we MUST find a way to implement.

Facts

The foundation of shaping a factual perspective is to find facts. Contrary to what today’s media wants you to believe, there are NOT different versions of the truth of any issue, political position, statistic, or policy. Each is absolute. Our problem in getting facts is the methodologies used in today’s politics in distributing facts. Why so?

Newspapers sell newspapers. Radio and television shows sell 30 and 60-second ads. Their goal is readers, subscribers, and viewers. Facts are secondary (at best) to the media!

How do we make certain we really get the facts? In reality, we may not get all the facts from our current politicians and candidates for future office. But if WE are honest and if WE are diligent, there are ways to find MUCH of the facts. And we can ferret those out minus the filter of bias that engulfs ALL of what we see, hear, and read about them from the media. How?

  • Read. Reading is almost a lost art. The internet and electronics have just about destroyed it. Baby-Boomers grew up in an environment that encouraged reading to obtain information. We had no other option. Unfortunately for finding facts, we must sort through the noise, and reading gives us the best vehicle for doing so. Get your hands on as much of the writings available directly from the candidate or politician you are looking into. That’s possible using today’s media vehicles. Look for quotes. Search for legislation for which they have expressed their support or have written themselves. Find some of their historical writings and/or speeches. Getting it from the horse’s mouth is the only way to find the truth.
  • YouTube. I think it is asinine for today’s politicians to say one thing or take a controversial position on a matter when many know they’ve previously expressed the exact opposite. It’s as if they have forgotten in this YouTube generation, everything is on video. It may take some time, but use your search engine to look for their writings and speeches. Again, getting it from the horse’s mouth is the best way to know for certain what they say is where they stand OR if they’ve changed positions on a matter. And then find out why and when they made those changes. Examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton years ago called themselves Pro-Life. They changed. Barack and Michelle Obama AND the Clintons were all against same-sex marriage. Now they support it. How do I know that? YouTube!
  • Interviews. It will be tough and require careful timing, but we all should certainly be willing to find and watch or listen to as many interviews as possible for as many candidates as possible who are running in 2020. Unfortunately, the liberal media outlets have proven again and again they have an intense bias for conservative candidates while being “in the tank” for Democrats who are running. But watch and listen — not so much to the interviewers as you do how candidates respond and the content of what they say. Make some notes, especially when something they say gives rise to another question you may have for them.  Because there are so many candidates already that have declared for a presidential run in 2020, you will have ample opportunity to examine their answers on specific positions that interest you. Start early: soon they’ll start dropping out like flies. That in itself will open the door for new questions. Typically, the closer we get to nomination time, candidates began to firm their positions. Comparing policies closer to conventions with those candidates hold today will tell you something about their character.
  • Town-Halls and Debates. This is going to be an even more contentious season of Town-Hall meetings and candidate debates. Candidates will find it more and more necessary to begin to harden on their stances on controversial issues like Pro-Choice/Right-to-Life, Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration, Healthcare, taxes, First and Second Amendments, and even more. They will do this when it becomes more and more necessary to showcase the reasons why they would for voters be a better choice for each office than would their opponents. Town-Halls are typically better at garnering facts because they are usually more inclusive of audience members and questions and answers are more in number and allow more follow-up after the candidates respond to questions. This season will be much more difficult to watch regarding these public displays, but buckle down and stick in there because seeing and hearing what they say checked against details of their policy positions that are already in the public domain will be very important.
  • Endorsements. This is always a tough one. It’s tougher now because of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the “Citizen’s United” case. It pretty much allows unlimited financial contributions to PACs and SuperPACS. It’s impossible to know who in total have made campaign donations to any candidate because these organizations are not required to identify contributors as the candidate’s campaigns must. But the telltale sign of some of those contributors is endorsements. Two examples are the NRA and Planned Parenthood. Each organization has specific political agendas that are extremely controversial: the NRA private citizens’ gun rights and Planned Parenthood abortion rights. Checking endorsements for candidates from these and other organizations against their stated positions an be a sure signal of candidate’s truthfulness.
  • Speeches. One might think this is an unnecessary practice because candidates will almost always use the contents of speeches carefully so as not to raise alarms regarding policy conflicts. That is true MOST of the time. But often candidates find themselves caught up in the excitement of campaign rallies and giveaway certain ideas that just may conflict with their previously stated policy positions. We’re often guilty of relying on the media to point to such conflicts for us. But as we’ve seen so many times, Leftist media are quick to give Democrat candidates passes on conflicts while slaughtering Republican candidates. They typically call GOP folks “Liars,” while covering for Democrat candidates for their “mistakes” in the conflicts they expose.

Summary

Wow! That sounds like a lot of stuff to do and keep track of. It is. And it is true that most Americans are not willing to pay the price to find facts and confirm those facts are real. Here’s what most of us do: we say “I’m too busy to watch that debate, listen to or read that speech, Google the position on taxes and healthcare that they promoted when they ran for state office and see if they’ve changed. I’ll just wait until tomorrow morning and catch the analysis on CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or FOX News.”

That’s the REAL danger! Answer this: why are so many Generation Z members so open to socialism and so against capitalism? It’s because they’re going to high schools and universities who most of their teachers and professors are hardcore Liberals from the 60s and 70s. Those educators hated conservatism and despised capitalism then and demonstrated for socialist and even communist causes. What do you think they are going to teach our kids but their own ideas?

Here’s the scary part of the above scenario: these educators know that these kids were raised in a freer environment than did Baby-Boomers. They abhor personal accountability and responsibilities. Their parents were and are enablers. These students are sponges and therefore subject to what they are exposed to for the duration of their formative years. Those kids get all their information from 24/7 electronic news, the internet, and cable television. For the most part, most of the information and “news” disseminated to them comes from news anchors and reporters who are the same 60s and 70s people as are those teachers and professors! 

So how do we spend most of our time at the 30,000-foot level and get all this information we need to absorb that’s at ground level?

We can get just as absorbed and distracted at 30,000 feet as we do on the ground in the middle of everything. To ferret out the facts we need, let’s face it: we MUST engage. But we must do so without letting the “noise” at ground level drown out the realities and truth that we find there.

Organization and planning are the keys. I know, I know: we too can get caught up in electronics, in “instant news,” and in letting social media shape our political positions. We’re NOT saying we cannot take advantage of those to “assist” us. But we must use them as nothing more than “A” tool rather than “THE” source of our information. Use them to confirm what we have learned.

Honestly, it is much easier for conservatives to simply listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, and FOX News for information. On the most part, they do give out conservative info. But I don’t agree with everything THEY say. I DO agree with certain things I see and hear from MSNBC, CNN, Rachel Maddox, and Chris Matthews — granted, it’s not much though!

It ‘s unbelievably important for us to find facts and use every resource we have to do so. And we cannot always verify that every “fact” we surmise is really true. But I promise, if we truly investigate objectively and organize our doing so, we can then form objective opinions based on facts rather than emotions.

Remember this: there are many people around the World who still believe the world is flat! How is that possible? I’ve actually flown around the world, and it really is round! But everyone has done that. We form our “facts” based on our own experiences. And doing so is the ONLY WAY WE CAN KNOW FOR SURE.

I guarantee you that November 2020 election results need to be based on facts of policies. If results are based on emotion and “maybes,” we may find ourselves soon speaking in Chinese.

Over The Top

April 12, 2019

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of Thursday, April 11, 2019, 50% of Americans approve of President Trump’s job while 49% disapprove. In light of the incessant negative noise that permeates throughout the United States from media reports, achieving that 50% approval number is significant.

While we are considering thoughts about the President, what about Congress? According to Real Clear Politics polling division, as of April 9, 2019, just 18% of Americans approve of the job performance of members of Congress while 61% disapprove. Why do you think that is? And do you think the media might have something to do with that low approval number for members of Congress?

Let’s look at what Americans think about the media. Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year. Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

To those of us at TruthNewsNetwork, the combined low approval ratings by Americans of members of Congress AND the media are tied directly together. In objectively reviewing both groups, one can reasonably compute that American distrust of its elected leaders AND validity of what the media disseminate daily go hand in hand.

Why?

Great question. Under today’s circumstances, it is critical for Americans — including those in Congress AND the media — to finally and in earnest open discussions to “right the ship” of the distrust of Americans for both groups. Can those honest conversations begin? Will they begin?

If we base our hopes on what happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the day before (Tuesday) that set fires previously unseen in the media and in Congress, our hopes are already dashed! Attorney General Barr in yesterday’s Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing lit the fire when said this:

He actually used the word “Spying!” His saying that has set the media world on fire, also among Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who said that Attorney General William Barr was “going off the rails,” citing his public testimony over the past two days that appeared to support President Donald Trump’s claims that his campaign was spied on by the intelligence community in 2016.

“How very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails,” Pelosi said at the start of Democrats’ annual retreat. “He is the Attorney General of the United States, not the attorney general of Donald Trump,” she said. 

Pelosi’s comments, which followed an Associated Press interview featuring similarly harsh criticism of Barr, followed two days of appearances by the attorney general on Capitol Hill in which he said he wouldn’t provide Congress with an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and raised concerns that the government was “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016.
It came as no surprise that media outlets took the lead from Congressional Democrats and started in on Barr with furor unseen in quite a while. CNN got things started:

CNN — Congressional Democrats are furious over Attorney General William Barr’s statement Wednesday that Donald Trump’s campaign was spied on, accusing the attorney general of mischaracterizing the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation in an effort to please President Donald Trump.

Barr’s comments are likely to ratchet up Democrats’ unease over the attorney general that’s already simmering over Barr’s role in the Mueller investigation and the decision there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice.
“I’m amazed that the AG would make that kind of statement, I think it’s in many ways disrespectful to the men and women who work in the DOJ, and it shows, I think, either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance on what goes into a counterintelligence investigation,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “He almost seems to be endorsing one of these theories that have been debunked time and time again by the various, even House Republican-led, investigations trying to show some kind of resentment,” Warner added.
Not to be left out of the relentless attacks on the Attorney General, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) piped in:
Chuck Schumer accused Attorney General William Barr of spreading conspiracy theories on Wednesday after the Justice Department chief said he thinks “spying did occur” on President Trump’s 2016 campaign. In a terse tweet, Schumer demanded a retraction from Barr.

“AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign ‘did occur.’ AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up. Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Reality

If anyone wonders about American distrust of Congress and the media, this back-and-forth unanimous attack by Democrats and members of the media illustrate the reason for the distrust better than any one person can explain. What Congressional Democrats AND members of the media have not even mentioned are the “facts” that are known already. These “facts” are those that have appeared over the last two years as the basis for the investigations of all things going on regarding tampering in the 2016 Election. And there are plenty of pieces of evidence of such that have resulted in ongoing (yet quiet) investigations by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz and former Federal Attorney Jim Huber out in Utah. Those investigations have been quietly underway for more than a year. And the “facts” that initiated those two investigations are the “facts” on which AG Barr based his “Spying” comments in his testimony. Obviously, Democrats and the media ignore those two investigations AND those widely known facts.

What are they? Here are some “Facts:”

  1. The Steele Dossier.  We will not even discuss the details of that expose prepared by former FBI informant Christopher Steele on behalf of the Clinton Campaign who paid Steele for what they called “opposition research.” It was nothing more than a fake story that we just found out had existed for years, but was reshaped and edited to implicate Donald Trump for the Clinton Campaign. We know for certain that dossier was an important part of the FISA warrant application if not THE important information that began the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign that later became a key element of the Mueller Investigation. Former FBI Director Comey testified before Congress that the FBI knew that dossier was unverified as to its truthfulness. Christopher Steele himself testified in court that HE could not verify its validity. And he’s the one who wrote it!
  2. Trump Campaign Surveillance. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers may have notified Team Trump of Obama’s Intelligence Community (James Clapper and John Brennan) spying on their activity. As you look at the FISA request dates below, it’s important to note that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers would be keenly aware of both the June request – Denied, and the October request – Granted.  Pay specific attention to the October request. “October”!.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

♦ On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held.  Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.

♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.

Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and Intelligence Community within Deep State to dump their “leaks” and stories.  The State Department “leaks” to CNN for the same purposes.

♦ On Saturday November 19th Reuters reported on the WaPo Story and additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike Rogers.

Many feel that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme (Clapper, Brennan, etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into the Obama labyrinth underlying his remaining loyalists.  After the October spying operation went into effect, Rogers unknown loyalty was a risk to the Obama objective.  10 Days after the election Rogers travels to President-Elect Trump without notifying those who were involved in the intel scheme.

Did NSA Director Mike Rogers wait for a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) to be set up in Trump Tower, and then notify the President-elect he was being monitored by President Obama?

Summary

It is clear to Americans that there IS plenty of detail exposed to the public in the two-plus years of the Mueller Investigation that it is likely something was going on regarding some type of “spying” on the Trump Campaign. What is still unknown is who did it, what was its purpose(s), and if its implementation and operation was justified under U.S. laws that regulate surveillance of Americans.

It is further clear to Americans that Democrat leadership and media pundits are obviously in the tank for Democrats. How else can one explain how they can possibly justify ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that has already pooped on the floor? Attorney General Barr simply made it clear that, when he was asked, an investigation into the specific details of that already known surveillance was legal and legitimate.

But the media and Democrats both ignore his revealed purposes AND have done nothing but attempt to destroy the impeccable reputation he developed and earned from both Republicans and Democrats over decades. That’s the way they operate.

“If” they had really listened to the attorney general, and “If” they really cared about truth, they would be instead of attacking Mr. Barr nonstop would be talking about what he stated further into that testimony. As always, we at TruthNewsNetwork have it all for you:

“Later, Barr was asked twice whether he wanted to clarify his statement. Barr first said he wanted to make sure no ‘unauthorized surveillance’ occurred, and then offered up his own clarification at the conclusion of the hearing.

‘I just want to make it clear, thinking back on all the different colloquies here, that I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,’Barr said. ‘I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.’

When Barr spoke of ‘spying,’ according to a source familiar with his thinking, he meant it in the ‘classic sense’ of intelligence collection. The source said Barr doesn’t view the term as ‘pejorative’ and is focused on where there was proper ‘predication’ for any surveillance. The source said Barr did not use the term ‘spying’ in order to throw red meat to Trump and those who have voiced concerns over surveillance tactics.”

Here’s the sad part of this entire story. Our elected officials — and NOT just Democrats in Congress, but every member of Congress — each take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States. Taking care of U.S. citizens and protecting everything to do with our nation is their Job #1. To that end, they each should be concentrating on those things that come into the lives of Americans that attack the one thing that differentiates our government from other world governments: “The Rule of Law.” That means anytime any law enforcement agency uncovers such a possible attack, prudence AND their oath of office dictates that a true and full investigation must be conducted to either prove the attack was not real and was not going to happen, or to vett details, determine the specifics of the wrongdoing, and guarantee those responsible are brought to justice.

But in this case we watch as members of the media and Congressional Democrats go stark raving crazy because the senior law enforcement official of the United States — Attorney General William Barr — when asked in a Congressional hearing states he is making certain that the acts of surveillance that occurred against the Trump Campaign that are known to have happened were legal, warranted, and conducted in the legal and proper manner. Something’s not right about that!

Would Democrats and the media prefer that even though it is known that such surveillance occurred to turn a blind eye and just ignore the possibility of such surveillance being illegal in nature? Normally the answer would be “Certainly not!” Sadly though, it appears that Democrats and the media don’t want the truth of the matter to be confirmed OR that they want the possible wrongdoing to remain hidden.

THAT’S THE REASON WHY AMERICANS DON’T APPROVE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND DON’T TRUST THE MEDIA TO TELL THE TRUTH!

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In The Beginning…

April 8, 2019

We’re two years in and now with the completion of the Mueller investigation, and at least six months more investigating by the FBI pre-Mueller. We have a Mueller declaration of no-finding of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump Campaign and also no finding of obstruction of justice. And you know what else? We still don’t know how and who started this entire war against Donald Trump!

There are many ideas being thrown about by very intelligent people who certainly have access to a bunch of government intelligence that folks like you and me do not. But even those people have come up empty — “so far.” But how could that be? I’m an amateur in all this investigating stuff. But I am a researcher. And using all of TruthNewsNetwork’s considerable contacts for inside information, we have come up empty as well. But we’ve stumbled onto something that is the first piece of concrete information we’ve identified in this cesspool of Washington D.C. regarding this concerted and coordinated effort to unseat a sitting President.

Who has the power to bring to bear the considerable resources necessary to orchestrate such an attack and potentially win a battle to drive Donald Trump out of Washington? Who can do so and keep quiet his or her involvement in it for two years plus?

The book with the answers to this is still not on the menu at Amazon. But someone who very few expected has turned on a light — a bright spotlight — on this entire situation. And that someone has come forward with a big bunch of answers.

We have those answers to your “Mueller-Trump Debacle” questions. And we are bringing them to you straight from the proverbial “horse’s mouth.” This is about 24 minutes long. But once you begin this, you will NOT turn it off. In fact, you’ll watch and listen and again and again and again. Better yet, you’ll tell someone elsewhere to go to watch and listen for themselves.

So, here we go! I suggest you don’t turn this on until you know you can do so in twenty-four uninterrupted minutes. Then we’ll get together to summarize what we’ve seen and heard. Here with what happened “In The Beginning” is Dan Bongino.

Summary

If you did not know already, Dan Bongino was a longtime Secret Service Agent, New York policeman, has a widely viewed daily podcast and is a regular FOX News contributor. He also ran for Congress in Maryland. He like few has access to those who work inside the federal government — some currently and many formerly with various Intelligence Departments.

Now that you have listened and watched to this narrative, think back: how often did we maintain with our deductive reasoning that the chain of responsibility had to far up the chain of power in Washington — all the way to the White House. But think it through: all of the “leaks” of data and information by the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, and others had to be initiated by not just a flunkie on the White House staff. Someone with access to the Oval Office had to be in that loop. In the Obama Administration, that narrowed the group of those possible to Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Senior “Handler” Valerie Jarrett, or Michelle Obama. But even if one or several of these were included in that information stream, none would have initiated it. It has to be President Obama himself.

So what happens now? Certainly, federal attorney Jim Huber in Utah who was given the green light in 2017 to investigate all things to do with the Clinton Campaign, the 2016 election, and all illegalities that may have occurred regarding any of these, has unearthed facts that will document these conclusions. Additionally, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is deep into a separate investigation. Most do not realize that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions authorized Jim Huber to use all of the federal resources directed by the Inspector General that are necessary to get to the bottom of all this. Those resources: 400+ federal attorneys already engaged in this in the Department of Justice.

What happens now? There is very little left to occur but the exposure of those involved in this non-military coup to remove a duly elected President from office.

One final note: many think some of those 70,000 sealed federal indictments issued since October 27, 2017, are for some of these people mentioned above and others that participated in this operation. It is certain that those indictments are for very serious wrongdoing by a bunch of people. In American history, there have NEVER been more than 3000 such indictments issued in any 12-month period.

When will we find out? It certainly will be soon. But here at TruthNews Network, we are confident this entire matter has never been seen before in American history. It runs really deep, and it involved hundreds of people. When revealed, many people who we know well with lengthy political histories in D.C. will be named.

I think we’re seeing the layers of the onion being peeled already. How many layers and how many in each layer is still to be determined. One thing is certain: as the onion layers are peeled away, there will be many tears for those guilty of wrongdoing.

Then maybe — just maybe — we can allow this President to get about the business of America for which he was elected.

Mysterious Disappearances

April 7, 2019

The coordinated vitriol from the Left has been deafening during the entirety of the 2016 Presidential election campaign period and continued through the Trump Administration. No reasonable person can claim that someone somewhere is “passing out” Leftist talking points that are parroted by Democrat lapdogs in the media and Democrat politicians themselves.

Want an example? Google this: “Attorney General Barr is Trump’s hand-picked attorney general choice.” I’ve heard that from at least a dozen House Democrats and Leftist news anchors.

Why would that be unusual? Just name one Attorney General in U.S. history who WASN’T hand-picked by the President in office at the time! They all are.

But there have been far more than just that one example of coordination in political messaging. We’ve seen and heard them all. Am I complaining about that? Absolutely not! Let’s face it: coordination of all kinds in governing is an admirable trait that Democrats have perfected. Congressional Democrat leadership has been amazingly effective at keeping their caucus united, especially when it comes to hot political topics that are seen as being advantageous to the attraction of voters. Republicans have been absolute failures at doing so.

What else has been obvious is that of late many Conservative noise-makers have grown suddenly quiet on the national stage. I wonder why that is? Where have they gone? Doesn’t the media have an obligation to bring news — ALL news — to the American people?

I have thought it through for more than a year. Apparently so has FOX News’ Tucker Carlson. He recently penned a column about that very subject. We at TruthNewsNet could not make these “disappearances” more understandable than did Carlson.

Ever notice how certain people have started to disappear? Not vagrants or runaways, the usual missing persons. But fairly prominent, well-educated people with dissenting political opinions. One day you’re watching or reading them online. The next time you check, they’re gone. You can’t find their videos. They’re not showing up in your Facebook feed. Suddenly you can’t buy their books on Amazon.

You Google them to find out what happened and discover they’ve been banned. They’re being called dangerous extremists, bigots and Nazis. For the public good, they’ve been shut down. Disappeared.

You’re a little surprised to hear this. They didn’t seem evil or radical to you. They were just free thinkers, saying something a little different from the party line on CNN. You don’t complain about it, though. You don’t want anyone to know you were watching forbidden videos. There’s a penalty for that.

This is what an authoritarian society looks like. It’s a place where the group in charge will tolerate no criticism at all. That’s what we’re becoming.

It was only a matter of time before they came for Fox News. Of the top dozen news networks in the United States, only Fox has an alternative view. The other channels speak with one voice. They are united on every issue, every time. They’re in almost perfect sync with the priorities of the Democratic Party.

Fox News stands apart. The opinion shows on this channel have another perspective. You might consider that valuable diversity, something different in a sea of sameness. The left does not think that. They would like Fox News shut down tomorrow. The other news channels agree. They would like that too. They are trying to do it now.

It’s worth explaining how the process of banning ideas works, the means by which so many voices have already been silenced. The first step is defining political disagreement as a mortal threat to the country. Something that’s dangerous. That’s the job of a group called the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization whose name intentionally masks its role as an enforcer for the Democratic establishment.

Groups or individuals who challenge the official story on virtually any subject find themselves designated as a “hate group” by the SPLC. This is a handy way to crush your political enemies. By definition, hate groups don’t have legitimate ideas or positions. They spew only hate. You don’t have to listen to them or debate their claims. You can ignore everything they say. Your only duty is to suppress them. That’s the beauty of the SPLC: Once they call the people you disagree with a “hate group,” you can immediately move to shut them up by force. That’s what they do.

That’s where Media Matters comes in. Media Matters is a George Soros-funded lobbying organization whose sole mission is to punish critics of the Democratic Party. Media Matters often uses propaganda from the Southern Poverty Law Center to bully corporations, news executives and tech companies into punishing people it doesn’t like. Not surprisingly, the media love Media Matters.

One former Media Matters employee described the group’s relationship with MSNBC this way: “We were pretty much writing their primetime.” When Media Matters issued a press release, MSNBC picked it up “verbatim.” Media Matters staffers once explained the organization’s close relationship with many journalists in the national press corps were vast. Here are some quotes:

“Greg Sargent of the Washington Post will write anything you give him.”

“Ben Smith [now at Buzzfeed] will take stories and write what you want him to write.”

“The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate.”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff.”

“Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

Brian Stelter has since left the New York Times. He’s now more CNN spokesman than journalist, specializing in announcing proclamations from his boss, Jeff Zucker. He takes his talking points from Media Matters.

“It’s about decency!” cries Stelter. “We must have decency!” By which, Stelter means, less disobeying. More obedience. “Stop criticizing the program!” Or else.

This is the face of state media. Why does Fox even exist, they wonder. We’ve got 11 other perfectly good channels, all of them approved by management and obedient to the people in charge. How could anybody watch something different? Fox can’t be legitimate. They must be lying. Their viewers must be stupid. Listen to “Don L’Mon” and the New York governor’s brother tell you why Fox News shouldn’t even be allowed:

Don Lemon, CNN anchor: As journalists, we have to give you the facts, but what happens there (at Fox) is you don’t talk about the substance of what you said or if it’s factual or not. You don’t talk about that. What you do is you say “Everybody’s out to get me. Everyone is out to get conservatives … They just say, “There’s outrage on the left, and they have Trump derangement syndrome” without ever addressing the substance.


Chris Cuomo: They’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.

Lemon: And then their audience just eats it up. “Yeah! that’s right!” Not even caring about the facts.

Don L’Mon is calling you dumb. Savor the moment. But there’s an ominous undertone to all this.

Don L’Mon doesn’t have the power to have you arrested. Dana Nessel does. Nessel is the attorney general of Michigan. She has created a special “hate crime unit,” whose charter is to investigate any organization identified as a “hate group” by the SPLC. This is what weaponized politics looks like. Criticize the people in charge, and the SPLC will sick men with guns on you. It’s terrifying.

Even worse, you’re subsidizing it, without knowing it. Both the SPLC and Media Matters are, amazingly, tax-exempt organizations. In its original tax application to the IRS, Media Matters claimed that the American news media were dominated by a pro-Christian bias and that they were needed to balance it. Despite the obvious absurdity of this claim, the group received non-profit status. It has been violating the terms of that status ever since.

During the Obama administration, Media Matters held weekly strategy discussions with the White House about how to hurt its political enemies. Media Matters kept an “enemies list” of Republicans to destroy, including Steve King of Iowa. This is a violation of federal tax law. Tax-exempt non-profits can’t function as an arm of a political party. Media Matters clearly does.

According to a piece in the liberal magazine The New Republic, Media Matters changed its mission during the 2016 Democratic primaries to campaign for Hillary Clinton. We were “running defense for Clinton,” one Media Matters staffer said. “Defending Hillary from every blogger in their mother’s basement.” In a leaked 2015 memo from inside Clinton’s campaign, staff discussed cooperating with Media Matters to attack Republicans and accuse the press of biased coverage.

In an email from January 5, 2016, Hillary’s staff discussed working with Media Matters to counter a Vanity Fair article on Huma Abedin. “We have Media Matters and core surrogates lined up, which we can expand on tomorrow,” the email read.

This isn’t just unethical. It’s illegal. Under IRS regulations, 501(c)(3), non-profits are totally prohibited from participating in the campaigns of political candidates. Media Matters broke the law. The group has never been punished. It retains its tax-exempt status.

That means you and every other taxpayer are subsidizing attacks on their own First Amendment. Why is this? How can this be happening? Someone should call the IRS and find out.

Democrat Attack: The Rule of Law

April 5, 2019

Americans are growing numb to the Trump attacks at the hands of Congressional Democrats. That numbness we are experiencing is real, but its impact is lessening everyday because its use by Dems is incessant and just morphs into a newer version almost daily. That is a dangerous thing: it’s much like the frog and the pot of boiling water. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and the frog quickly jumps to safety. Put that frog in a pot of cold water and slowly increase the water’s heat and the frog will stay in the pot until it’s too late. For Americans, the pot contained cold water at the beginning of the Trump Administration, but Dems have steadily turned up the heat.  Their attacks are obviously all aimed at Mr. Trump. But in doing so, we are watching a planned and coordinated attack against the Rule of Law. And conservative Americans are ALL in their sights with the President.

What is The Rule of Law?

The rule of law is a framework of laws and institutions that embody four universal principles:

1. Accountability
The government, as well as private actors, are accountable under the law.

2. Just Laws
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons, contract and property rights, and certain core human rights.

3. Open Government
The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient.

4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Before we move forward in this conversation, it is important for us to break-down the specifics of Law so we can relate them directly to today’s United States legal operations by our government and exactly what House Democrats are really up to.

  • Constraints on Governments Powers measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable under the law. It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent press. Governmental checks take many forms; they do not operate solely in systems marked by a formal separation of powers, nor are they necessarily codified in law. What is essential, however, is that authority is distributed, whether by formal rules or by convention, in a manner that ensures that no single organ of government has the practical ability to exercise unchecked power.
  • The absence of Corruption measures the absence of corruption in a number of government agencies. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three forms of corruption are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military and police, and the legislature, and encompass a wide range of possible situations in which corruption – from petty bribery to major kinds of fraud – can occur.
  • Open Government measures open government defined as a government that shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. The factor measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicized, and evaluates the quality of information published by the government. It also measures whether requests for information held by a government agency are properly granted.
  • Fundamental Rights measures the protection of fundamental human rights in the United States. It recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under the U.S. Constitution is at best “rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a “rule of law” system.
  • Order and Security measures how well society assures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule of law society and a fundamental function of the state. It is also critical in the realization of the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance.
  • Regulatory Enforcement measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Regulations, both legal and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. Strong rule of law requires that these regulations and administrative provisions are enforced effectively and are applied and enforced without improper influence by public officials or private interests.
  • Civil Justice measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. The delivery of effective civil justice requires that the system be accessible and affordable, free of discrimination, free of corruption, and without improper influence by public officials.
  • Criminal Justice evaluates the criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring an action against individuals for offenses against society. Effective criminal justice systems are capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offenses successfully and in a timely manner, through a system that is impartial and non-discriminatory and is free of corruption and improper government influence.

Clear Enough?

It certainly should be. Each area detailed in the above simple explanation of the Rule of Law is critical for the process of government that sets the U.S. apart from every other country on Earth is critical and MUST exist in tandem with the others. Without each and every one of them in force and adhered to in every area of government, NO government can truly be a democratic republic that promises “equal justice under the law.” 

Folks, we’re not in danger of losing that justice, IT’S ALREADY GONE!

How can I say that? It hasn’t been hidden very well. Its demise began decades ago while we benignly sat by and allowed it. We turned our eyes away from day-to-day government operations in D.C. We trusted our lawmakers to do the right things. As we watched, a seedy group of unscrupulous politicrats (Who together invented the perpetuity in positions of power that they solely control) quietly enacted a “new” legal system totally controlled by that group of elites. And it is in full operation.

Have you wondered how the FBI senior staff could almost en masse collude to perpetrate a coup against this sitting President who was duly elected? And they did it with impunity! Have you wondered why it has been so difficult for the “white hats” in Congress to obtain — even through subpoenas — documents, testimony, and other evidence of the “alleged” wrongdoing by many of those elites? How have people like Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, and dozens and dozens of others skated through the most egregious non-military takeover of the American government while we Americans simply slept while they did it? And that doesn’t even take into account the “leaders” of that coup — the only ones that could have originated the idea, built the operation, put it in motion and managed it to its end: Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. THEY ARE IN THIS THING UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS!

Summary

Our only hope is that enough of the 60+ million Americans who were awakened during the Trump campaign, had their eyes opened (at least to some small degree) to the horrors and illegalities that were underway right before our eyes and voted to keep that “cartel” from completing the government takeover began by the Clintons during their 8 years, and put in full gear during Obama’s 8, are still watching this horror as it is revealed one page at a time. (Yes there was a momentary pause in their plan during Bush 43)

Is there still time? I believe there is. But I’m not certain of that. Fortunately, Americans are in large part still a creative lot. There are enough free-thinkers that refuse to swallow the Leftist Koolaid of Socialism being peddled by the Democrat Party to right the ship, IF the “white hats” (the “good guys”) are allowed to continue the digging up and exposing those wrongdoers.

What can go wrong? Plenty! If this Democrat Party has its way, their attempted coup which is with total impunity attacking EVERY part of the Rule of Law we detailed above will take this country down. Even right now — today — the U.S. has lost a large part of its freedom. And they want to steal the balance. How?

  • Democrat hypocrisy in governing. Remember their glorification of their “savior” Robert Mueller? They even attempted to pass legislation to keep Trump from interfering with or even firing Robert Mueller. Then his report (though we haven’t seen it yet) apparently exonerates President Trump. And now those same Dems want Mueller’s head!
  • They seriously intend to force President Trump to release his tax returns. There is absolutely NO law that allows them to do that! Can you imagine a United States in which someone — ANYONE — can petition the IRS to release YOUR tax returns? Yet these Democrats are doing just that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez actually tweeted a threat to the President today about that, saying “We didn’t ASK you to release your returns.” In other words, she was saying they TOLD the President to do so. As if Congress has such authority!
  • They are more and more loudly shouting and demanding the release of the FULL, unredacted Mueller report, saying they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. They do that when it is already clear: there IS American law contained within the Special Counsel statute THAT PROHIBITS DOING SO! It is imperative to protect the hundreds of Americans whose grand jury testimony could potentially damage the reputations of those who were NOT indicted in that investigation. Remember: 500 witnesses testified; only 37 people were indicted. But Democrats don’t care!

If these attacks and Democrats intentions are allowed to be carried out, privacy of working class Americans will be gone: FOREVER! Once that liberty is taken by Big Brother, he will NEVER give it back.

There are enough guys who wear the “white hats” to take this on who are willing to “take one for the team” if necessary. Chief among them is Donald Trump. Let’s face it: I cannot think of one other Republican who ran that if elected, would have had the staying power this President has. It is simply amazing to watch how he refuses to cave even with the non-stop harassment he and his family sustain every day.

Encourage all you know to ferret out the truth in everything they hear spewed by each arm of the Democrat Party: The House of Representatives, and the Mainstream Media. Every conservative needs to turn up the volume in conversations with those with whom they interface when discussing these political matters. Remaining silent will allow the Rule of Law to be killed — permanently.

”Pray for all those who are in authority over you.” That is NOT instructions from TruthNewsNetwork. That’s from the Bible. I encourage all to make that a daily practice — including EVERYONE in authority. You cannot skip those with whom you disagree when you pray. In doing so, hold on to this:

”The effective and continual prayer of my people will bring to pass what is asked for in those prayers.”

Managing Crisis and Chaos

April 3, 2019

“I finally figured out that not every crisis can be managed. As much as we want to keep ourselves safe, we can’t protect ourselves from everything. If we want to embrace life, we also have to embrace chaos.”
― Susan Elizabeth Phillips

Wouldn’t the world be a much better place for us all if we knew factually that no matter what crisis we ever face, we can work right through each every time they show up?  Count my vote as “Yes” for that ability.

Everyone faces a crisis at some point in their life. Every company and organization deals with a crisis every once in a while. Unsuccessfully understanding and dealing with a crisis every time leads to chaos. Chaos will destroy any organization, individual, or even a family if not dealt with promptly and thoroughly. Leaving loose-ends in any crisis is suicide for the entity or individual to which it occurs.

Most Americans universally feel like the U.S. government is in a state of chaos right now, ushered in by both real and unreal crises. No doubt there are a plethora of issues that come up daily in governmental operations. That has and always will be ”business as usual.” The difference today is that an always-critical media shines a continuous spotlight on everything to do with our government, but not always with an objective purpose in mind. They often, it seems, are agenda-driven in crisis reporting. And their interpretations are too.

We have several “crisis of the month,” “crisis of the week,” or “crisis of the day” it seems in perpetuity. And we have one boiling over today. Are you surprised?

“Selective” Outrage: Congressman Steve King

A few weeks ago, we looked in to see a GOP Congressman chastised, excoriated, derided, and benched from House committees for speech:

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was stripped of his committee assignments by his fellow House Republicans Monday evening following bipartisan condemnation of King’s recent remarks on white supremacy and white nationalism.

“We will not tolerate this type of language in the Republican Party … or in the Democratic Party as well,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters. “I watched what Steve King said and we took action.”

In a formal statement, McCarthy said King’s comments were “beneath the dignity of the Party of Lincoln and the United States of America. His comments call into question whether he will treat all Americans equally, without regard for race and ethnicity. House Republicans are clear: We are all in this together, as fellow citizens equal before God and the law. As Congressman King’s fellow citizens, let us hope and pray earnestly that this action will lead to greater reflection and ultimately change on his part.”

In a statement of his own, King insisted that his comments had been “completely mischaracterized” and blasted McCarthy for what King called “a political decision that ignores the truth.” According to his website, King was previously a member of House committees on the judiciary, agriculture and small business.

A senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives getting stripped of prestigious committee assignments is a really big deal, believe me. It wasn’t just fellow Republicans, of course, the anti-conservative Mainstream Media weighed in:

Congressman King was not the only member of Congress who in this very young 2019 stepped across the “racist faux pas” line.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

 Freshman representative from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, cheerfully repeated this anti-Semitic trope, implying that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, pays politicians to support Israel. Top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have called on Omar to “reject anti-Semitism in all forms,” according to The Washington Post, while Republicans have argued that her comments reveal the depth of anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party. “I unequivocally apologize,” Omar said in a tweeted statement. “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA, or the fossil-fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

The CBS Evening News gave this scathing analysis of Omar’s actions:

Who Determines When Outrage in D.C. is Justified?

That requires an answer if we are to understand when outrage in D.C. is real. And that answer in today’s news cycle is easy: whoever is writing or broadcasting about that specific “outrage of the day!” But we, unfortunately, can narrow that answer even further: if President Trump is involved, it’s ALWAYS an outrage — not so much Democrat leaders in Washington or Democrats anywhere else in the U.S.

Here’s the scary thing about all this: remember the little boy who cried “Wolf?” He did it so often his audience was numbed to his cries. So when there really was a wolf and he cried, no one paid attention. In the case of Donald Trump, more and more Americans are growing “Wolf-numbed” at the constant attacks on the President and all in his camp. And it’s beginning to appear that Democrats are trapped in the “wolf” mode, and that they cannot get out of it.

America is dangerously close to watching as their government loses all of its once amazing power and credibility. Our elected officials have abandoned all reason in governing and have simply walked away from integrity. Political partisanship dominates every conversation, every policy discussion, and every legislative item. If Democrats like it or think it is good, Republicans automatically reject it as worthless for the American people. The opposite is true in the same way.

And we wonder why Congress gets very little done? Take a look at the current fallout from the release of the Mueller Report.

Integrity in D.C.

What a joke! Democrats and Republicans alike must literally think Americans have not discovered YouTube yet. EVERYTHING — yes EVERYTHING — that is said by legislators shows up in a YouTube video. Yet still members of Congress double and triple down on lies that are exposed over and over via some recorded news report or interview. And by doing so they expose one thing to Americans: THEY SIMPLY DON’T CARE! They say what they say when they say it in total disregard of what they have said about  the same issue previously. That can be for only one reason: they think Americans are so stupid we don’t remember!

That comes as no surprise to me. Don’t agree? Want some examples?

In 2017, Adam Schiff and fellow Dems went bonkers at the release by Congressman Devin Nunez of a Memo. Schiff stated that by doing so, “Congressman Nunes was ignoring the serious nature of the information contained in the memo that would certain jeopardize national security interests of the U.S.” Nunes sent the memo to the President for his final approval before its release to the public.

That was Congressman Schiff then voicing his concerns about sensitive information being released publicly and that doing so would damage national security. But today, Schiff is singing a different song about the same issues:

”Schiff has maintained his strong belief that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, after the nearly two-year probe came to an end last week without directly implicating the president.“

“Undoubtedly there is collusion,” Schiff told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “We will continue to investigate the counterintelligence issues. That is, is the president or people around him compromised in any way by a hostile foreign power? … It doesn’t appear that was any part of [special counsel Robert] Mueller’s report.”

Schiff made these demands without SPECIFIC knowledge of what is contained in Robert Mueller’s 300+ page report, knowing full well that names of individuals who are undercover intelligence operatives are contained in the counterintelligence report. Further, their demands include for full release of grand jury testimony which is illegal without a presiding judge’s full approval to do so.

Schiff’s doing so — especially in light of his charade in 2017 to NOT release that memo because of national security damage — proves he does NOT care what his previous position on any issue was. All that matters is what Democrats want today.

Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) who is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee went bonkers during the Bill Clinton impeachment matter when Ken Starr was pressured to release his report on the Lewinsky Scandal to the public. Nadler demanded the report be released only to members of Congress.

Imagine Nadler’s position today looking at a report release from the OTHER side of the aisle. He has actually threatened President Trump, Attorney General Barr, and others with criminal subpoenas if the entire report is not only released in full, BUT BY THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK!

Summary

There is no doubt there has been, still is, and will be for years to come all-out crisis and chaos in Washington D.C. Why is that so? Because partisanship is the only thing lawmakers can think of to try and maintain their upper hand in negotiations of any kind regarding any issue (no matter how large or small) so as to give their minions the appearance that they are working hard for the People. Poppycock!

What is encouraging for conservatives to note, however, is that in spite of what Democrats want Americans to believe, Donald Trump did not bring Crisis and Chaos to D.C. the day of his inauguration. He didn’t bring it at all. IT WAS ALREADY THERE! What Donald Trump did was from Day #1 shine a light of exposure on all the chaos and every crisis every day! His using Twitter to circumvent the Drive-By media and take his message directly to the American People is the reason the nation awakened to the fact that there IS Crisis and Chaos in D.C. Further, Americans now understand sending Donald Trump — the “Fixer” — to D.C. was the right thing to do to tackle both Chaos and Crisis. Why? Because his history is getting things done.

He certainly has gotten things done, hasn’t he!

What happens when the light gets turned on in the middle of the night in the kitchen? Roaches scramble to get away from the light.

Those D.C. roaches are getting bright light in their eyes everyday! And (hopefully) they’ll see the same light every night for the next 5+ years!

 

 

How Powerful Is Congress?

March 31, 2019

It depends on who you talk to. Right now, Democrats in the House of Representatives are acting like they have supernatural powers over everything and everybody — especially over this presidential administration and all its members. Since taking control of the House, Democrats heads of multiple committees have hire dozens of added investigatory attorneys for one reason and one only: they are hell-bent on attacking the Trump Administration and everyone in it. Why? One would think doing so would be the result of serious criminal wrongdoing and an effort to find those guilty parties and bring them to justice. But in this case the massive investigations that have already begin at the hands of Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) who have assumed the joint roles of “Investigators in Chief.” What are they investigating? Which crime are they investigating? All things Trump are the subject of investigations but there’s NO crime. Their hope is simple: they go to bed every night and get up every morning praying that they find something sufficient to run Donald Trump out of D.C.

Robert Mueller’s investigation was the one thing all these Democrats and their minions just knew would bring their quest to dump Trump to fruition. And when Mueller’s findings apparently proved Dems were wrong, many thought the battle was over. But it has just begun.

81 members of the Trump team have already been subpoenaed for personal appearances along with voluminous production of documents, many of which were already turned over to the Mueller investigators. For these 81 people, answering these subpoenas could easily be the beginning of the end of their personal and professional lives. Certainly, retaining legal representation sufficient to defend them throughout these Congressional probes will be devastating. Just look at General Michael Flynn. His defense cost him is home, all of his savings, and almost cost his son jail time. It is estimated the minimum cost of representation in these cases is $500,000 to $800,000! Not many people have that kind of “extra” money laying around.

Can Congress Legally Take Such Action?

Yes, Congress can. But what has come into question is the legality Congress does or not have in these investigations. And, believe it or not, The U.S. Supreme Court has weigh-in in previous cases that are similar in nature to what is unfolding now.

The principle target of Congress of course is Donald Trump. Word has it they are going after the President for potential wrongdoing on his part and of those who have worked for him for things from before he even campaigned for President! One would think any of that would have nothing to do with any liability for any president. This just illustrates how desperate Democrats in the House are to discredit the President and to get him ousted at all costs.

Can Congress take this approach? What do those people already under Congressional subpoena have to do? Can they thumb their noses at Congress? What happens if they ignore Congressional subpoena and simply refuse to appear and refuse to provide requested documents? The SCOTUS has a few things to say about that.

SCOTUS

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the US Constitution gives it the authority to expose individuals’ private affairs.

John Thomas Watkins, a labor union official from Rock Island, Illinois, was convicted of contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor under 2 U.S.C. § 192, for failing to answer questions posed by members of Congress during a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities on April 29, 1954. Watkins was born in July 1910 and ended his formal education in the eighth grade. At the time of his testimony, he had four children and was working on behalf of the United Auto Workers (UAW) to unionize workers at a division of Firestone Tire and Rubber in Illinois. The UAW underwrote his legal expenses. Watkins was asked to name people he knew to be members of the Communist Party. Watkins told the subcommittee that he did not wish to answer such questions and that they were outside the scope of the subjects on which he was summoned to testify and of the committee’s jurisdiction. He said: “I am not going to plead the fifth amendment, but I refuse to answer certain questions that I believe are outside the proper scope of your committee’s activities. I will answer any questions which this committee puts to me about myself. I will also answer questions about those persons whom I knew to be members of the Communist Party and whom I believe still are. I will not, however, answer any questions with respect to others with whom I associated in the past. I do not believe that any law in this country requires me to testify about persons who may in the past have been Communist Party members or otherwise engaged in Communist Party activity but who to my best knowledge and belief have long since removed themselves from the Communist movement.

“I do not believe that such questions are relevant to the work of this committee nor do I believe that this committee has the right to undertake the public exposure of persons because of their past activities. I may be wrong, and the committee may have this power, but until and unless a court of law so holds and directs me to answer, I most firmly refuse to discuss the political activities of my past associates.”

His conviction carried a fine of $100 and a one-year suspended prison sentence. Watkins first won a 3–2 decision on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but then lost, 6–2, when that court heard the case en banc. The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 7, 1957, and announced its decision on June 17, 1957.

Decision

The Supreme Court decided 6–1 to overturn Watkins’ conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority. Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question “pertinent to the question under inquiry” in testifying before a Congressional committee, but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision:

“There are several sources that can outline the ‘question under inquiry’ in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt.

The New York Times commented: “The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless.”

Senators James Eastland and William E. Jenner, who played principal roles in investigating left-wing activities, issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to “the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion.”

The decision’s impact was limited in that the Court limited the application of the principles it espoused in Watkins.

The power of Congress to hold hearings is an integral part of the powers of the legislative branch. Once a person is called to be a witness, Congress has contempt powers to compel him or her to answer questions. If the person refuses, then he or she can be held in contempt and sentenced to a fine or jail or both.

However, the power to hold a hearing comes from Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. This is the Necessary and Proper clause, which states that Congress has the power to do what is necessary and proper to carry out its function as a legislative power. Thus, the power to hold a hearing has to come from the authority to pass laws.

As a result, the scope of the inquiry must be related to the legislative authority of Congress, and any question must be related to that purpose. Further, the statute used to convict Watkins limited his punishment for failing to answer only questions that were pertinent to the question under inquiry.

Finally, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Rumely (1952) that the Bill of Rights is invoked upon any questioning of a witness, and in the face of such rights, Congress had to clearly define the nature of its inquiry and consider a balance of rights the same way it would if passing a law. Why? Because its authority to ask questions at a congressional hearing stems from its enumerated legislative powers, which always must consider the constitutional rights of those affected by the law.

Summary

Why is it that no one talks about the tax dollars Congress spends on these senseless investigations? Remember all the hoopla from Democrats and Republicans alike regarding any interference in the Mueller investigation by President Trump? Mueller was the savior of Washington and was empowered by God himself to bring President Trump down for his wrongdoing. Mueller screwed up. How? He did not provide House Democrats the ammunition they needed to draft Articles of Impeachment to throw Trump out of the White House. The “spend-o-meter” began spinning as U.S. tax dollars are being spent in the millions as Democrats have launched their “payback” prosecution of anyone who has ever even smiled at President Trump. American taxpayers are paying these millions not because of any wrongdoing. We are paying it because of one thing and one thing only: Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election an Hillary is not President.

What’s going on folks is NOT the power of the Congress. I suggest all of those subpoenaed so far and any who are subpoenaed going forward in unison send Congress packing.

The Rule of Law in America works this way: everyone — including private citizens as well as public servants — are innocent until PROVEN guilty, not just charged. Why should any of these people be forced to pay one dime for defense from any of these sham investigations? They shouldn’t.

Let’s make a deal: if I was one of these people, I would get a group of those others who have received these subpoenas together for a press conference. In it, I would publicly call out Adam Schiff, Jerold Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, and tell them all not until they provide actual evidence of wrongdoing will any of these appear before Congress or provide any answers to their subpoenas. Doing so would be unnecessary and illegal according to findings in previous cases of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Further, I would publicly call them out for not pursuing actual investigations of the wrongdoers who have already been exposed during the Mueller investigation of felony violations of misuse of classified information and other federal crimes.

It’s time for every American to abide by the Rule of Law. And members of Congress are simply Americans. None of them — especially Democrat Party House committee leaders — are NOT above the law, no matter what they think.

Tell them all to pound sand.