Top Three Trump Lies

Every day some news outlet or two publishes a story about lies told by President Trump. It’s funny to me that I never saw, read, or heard any such stories about past presidents or even members of Congress for telling lies.

Virtually every member of the U.S. federal political system has been and will be condemned for lying at some point in their careers. Most of the time the lies they are accused of telling are not really lies but paraphrased statements regarding controversial topics, statistics, and policies that raise the rancors of partisanship among those with opposing views. But one thing is certain: whether not it is true, it appears that President Trump has been accused of telling more lies than any other president in my lifetime.

If you’re looking in today to read which are the top three lies Trump has told, you’re probably going to be disappointed. Why? We didn’t take the time to analyze each of the 6,000 or so he has been accused of telling. We’ll leave that to political pundits. But what we ARE doing here today is looking at the top three lies from various sources ABOUT President Trump. And trust me: there are many more than three.

People may argue about the three we have chosen. There are others in abundance that we could have chosen. But to TruthNewsNetwork, the top three are (in no particular order):

  1. Charlottesville statement that unequivocally proves President Trump is a Racist;
  2. Trump unilaterally separated babies from parents at the southern border;
  3. Trump and/or Trump Campaign members colluded with Russians to change the results of the 2016 election.

Let’s Dive In!

Charlottesville

There is no doubt the horror in Charlottesville, Virginia that occurred during a demonstration in 2017 was a travesty. In the demonstration-turned-riot, one woman was tragically killed.

Certainly, President Trump had nothing to do with the demonstration or subsequent violence. But if you pay attention to the national media, you probably think someone in the Trump Administration was on the phone orchestrating the violence — maybe even Donald Trump himself!

The uproar began when while speaking to the press about the racial-filled tension turned violence the President spoke about those who took an active role in the demonstration sponsored by a white supremacist group. The branding of the President just months into the first political position of his life as a racist began when he made this statement:

“You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

That statement alone lit the racist cries against President Trump. Who was surprised that the media pounced on that sentence. It has only worsened since. But they all either missed something or have chosen to ignore it.

What was missed?

The President by anyone’s description was and is not a polished politician. He often speaks in soundbites as do most businessmen. It is expected for statements of fact to be put in context by listeners. Not so in politics.

The President later put that sentence in the context from which he spoke it. The protest in Charlottesville — at least the one that was legally permitted — was to protest against the recent rush around the country to remove or destroy monuments and/or statues that for many years have been in memory of leaders from the Civil War. The outcry was loudest about those of those leaders who owned slaves. President Trump shared the context later saying this:

“George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? …Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? Do you like him? OK, good. Are we going to take down his statue, because he was a major slave owner? Now we’re going to take down his statue. So you know what? It’s fine. You’re changing history, you’re changing a culture, and you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2017

Is Trump a Racist?

If you listen to Hollywood elitists, Democrats, civil rights leaders, and leftist media members, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” Based on one sentence? Come on! Only in this divisive political environment would anyone make such an allegation. Why? It’s not based on facts.

Do we really want a single sentence taken out of context to determine our racial status in the minds of the entire world? If that was the determinant, there would be no human being deemed to be OK. No, we take decisions, actions, conversations, interactions with a multitude of people and circumstances over a period of years to determine the character of a person.

In his history of owning dozens of companies, employing hundreds of thousands of Americans from multiple races, religions, ethnicities, and sexes, there have been NO allegations of racism against Donald Trump over the past 50 years. I doubt the same can be said for any of those who scream the loudest that this President is a racist.

Southern Border Baby Separation

“President Trump unilaterally took action to separate children from their parents at the southern border! It’s heartless! It’s racist! It’s un-American! It’s against U.S. law!”

We hear that again and again from pretty much everyone who disagrees fundamentally with the Trump Administration. But those statements are absolute lies.

Wait a minute: children have been separated from their parents at the southern border. How do you explain that?

When an adult crossing the border with a child is detained for criminal prosecution, the child is then considered an “unaccompanied minor” by U.S. immigration law. Thus, while the law itself doesn’t require the separation of children, an increase in prosecution of illegal immigrants has that effect. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained: “If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a press briefing at the White House that children are separated from adults attempting to cross the border illegally to protect them from smuggling or trafficking. They’re only separated when there is no documentation of a custodial relationship, Nielsen said.

The real reason for any illegal child being separated from their illegal parent? That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so. If a parent makes a claim seeking asylum, they are going to be in that process far longer than the 20 days that a child can be held. Thus, the children (by that decree) must be handed over to the HHS to find temporary foster care.

Remember that picture that went viral showing the Trump Administration holding young children being held in cages at the southern border? Those pictures were actually taken of children separated from their parents for the exact same reason during the Obama Administration!

Was there a similar uproar from Democrats and the media about those children being held in cages? Nope.

Trump – Russia Collusion During 2016 Election Cycle

More than two years and a reported $50 million later, we have a Special Counsel with a fleet of attorneys investigating around the clock and calendar to find that Russia collusion. None has surfaced.

Robert Mueller accepted the appointed as Special Counsel with specific orders to investigate the Trump Campaign for collusion and any other possible criminal matters that may arise from collusion investigations. Yes, there have been multiple indictments initiated by Mueller’s findings, but none having anything to do with Russian collusion.

Let’s face facts: we all know that there was NO collusion by the Trump Administration with the Russians. “If” there had been any such collusion, WE WOULD ALL KNOW ABOUT IT IN VIVID DETAIL BY NOW! In the “loose lips” and frenzied anti-Trump media turning over every rock to find anything negative about this President, any such wrongdoing would have been trumpeted (pun intended) throughout America, not to mention the world.

No collusion. NO COLLUSION!

But don’t ever think Democrat political elitists are going to do what they instructed the President to do again and again: “Shut up and let Robert Mueller do his job unimpeded. And, Mr. President, don’t you dare think about interfering in any way. The Congressional Boogy Man will get you if you do!”

No Russian collusion has been exposed. But what HAS been exposed is the real intention of the Democrat Party as led by Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) hinted that he would not accept the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller as the end of the investigation into President Donald Trump and Russia. Schiff and other House Democrats have hired new investigative staff and begun to leak to the public their plans to launch their own aggressive investigation in the President even if he is totally exonerated from any wrongdoing. Why is that?

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS NOTHING TO RUN ON IN 2020 EXCEPT AGAINST DONALD TRUMP!

Without even any little tidbit to throw at Donald Trump in the 2020 campaign, they are justifiably horrified that he will serve a second term. And they certainly don’t care about any of the abundant in a number of achievements in the country under this President, many of which are historical achievements expected by very few.

Summary

“Same song, second verse.”

While most Americans watch their bank accounts, 401k’s, IRA’s, other retirement accounts rise like never before in history, they watch the unemployment rate for women, African Americans, Latinos, and young Americans fall to lowest in history levels.

Businesses numbered in dozens and dozens are expanding, raising employee wages, and re-patriating billions of dollars being held offshore for decades. DEMS DON’T CARE! In fact they are horrified at these Trump accomplishments.

Why? This doesn’t fit their Leftist political agenda. This wasn’t supposed to happen!

If Trump wins the White House for another term, the Democrat Party faces massive problems. They are frantic and have no other plan around which they can unify other than “Dump Trump.”

How’s That playing with Americans?  This month the Trump approval number in the non-partisan Rasmussen poll climbed above 50%.

In short, there certainly are things about this president that many would love to see changed. That is probably true about every past president, too. But what is certain to this journalist and more than half the nation is that Leftists in Congress, the Democrat Party, and especially in the Mainstream media are piling on Donald Trump with many allegations that are untrue.

Let’s watch as the frenzy called the Democrat Party unfolds with candidates jumping into the race get more and more radical, all the while sending Democrat voters straight into the Trump column.

The “Walkaway” campaign membership is growing everyday!

 

The National Emergency Act

It’s time to stop kidding ourselves: rank-and-file Democrats in Congress in large part “individually” feel physical barriers are needed across our southern border. It’s Democrat Congressional leaders who have made the decision to in no way allow through Congressional action the funding of a border wall. Why do you think they call it “Donald Trump’s wall?”

In their doing so, they are showing Americans that they really DON’T support border security in any way. Besides the stories documented and shared previously on TruthNewsNetwork, Democrat leaders stoically cling to their unwillingness to protect Americans from foreign intruders. Without real security and commitment to stop the horrors caused by millions of pounds of illegal drugs flooding across the border, the unknown numbers of unwanted criminals from Mexico and Central American countries that have already committed hundreds of thousands of criminal acts against legal Americans, and the hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to support illegals who are draining U.S. infrastructure, all of these atrocities will simply continue. 

Democrat leaders look at this international disaster myopically: they only see it in one way. Allowing the continued flow of illegals into our country perpetuates the life of the Democrat Party by bringing obligated “potential” Democrat voters into the U.S. Secondly, (and likely just as important as getting “new” voters in) keeping wall/barrier funding away from Donald Trump fulfills a campaign promise Dems made to their hard-left “constituents.” Their excuse? Trump wants it only because HE beat the “border wall drum” continuously during HIS presidential campaign. Many say it was the chief reason for which they voted from Trump.

This bi-partisan committee named to sit down and work out a southern border protection policy suitable to both parties has been revealed to be nothing but a sham. Even knowing the February 15th deadline to reach a negotiated agreement, this “Superstar” committee has met just one time. The bottom line: PELOSI AND SCHUMER HAVE NO INTENTION TO PUT EVEN ONE DOLLAR ON THE TABLE FOR SUCH A WALL OR STEEL BARRIER. They are perfectly comfortable to maintain the status quo on the border while untold thousands of innocents are summarily being brutalized at the hand of the criminal element numbered among the illegals. For Dems, this issue is certainly not about the safety of Americans. It is about one thing only: PREVENT PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING ANY BORDER WALL OR FENCING WITH CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING…PERIOD.

Politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — forget about the ability to recall promises made and promises broken: like Pelosi on negotiating with the President if he reopened the government.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she would not negotiate on funding for the southern border wall, going back on her promise to negotiate with President Donald Trump if he agreed to end the partial government shutdown.

“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi told reporters on Jan. 31, reported The Associated Press.

Democrats for decades have cried loudly for the critical nature of and the People’s mandate to stop illegal immigration and Democrats wholehearted support for stopping illegals from getting in. Yet today, those same Dems cry just as loudly that building the same wall/barrier they previously were all-in for is immoral, wasteful, ineffective, unnecessary, and too costly.

 

Look and listen for yourself:

What Do We Do: Declare a National Emergency?

Some scholars of presidential emergency powers say there is next to nothing, at least procedurally, that Capitol Hill could do to stop Trump from exercising what lawmakers of all stripes agree is his right to declare a national emergency.

“Congress chose not to put any substantial — or really any — barriers on the president’s ability to declare a national emergency,” says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.

“So if he can really just sign his name to a piece of paper, whether it is a real emergency or not,” she adds, “that creates a state of emergency that gives him access to these special powers that are contained in more than 100 different provisions of law that Congress has passed over the years.”

Trump has already invoked national emergency powers on three occasions, adding to the 28 earlier national emergency measures that remain in effect.

Almost all of them, including those signed by Trump, was invoked to freeze foreign nationals’ assets in the U.S. The longest-standing decree dates to November 1979, when President Jimmy Carter froze Iran’s U.S.-held assets.

It requires not only that the president formally declares a national emergency but also that he or she cite the specific statutory authority the president sought to use. An emergency declaration would lapse after one year unless formally renewed by the president.

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

“The way that Congress set it up,” says Vladeck, “was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president’s approval.”

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress’ response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

“Congress has never voted once in the last 40 years — since the National Emergencies Act has been in effect — to terminate a state of emergency,” says Goitein. “At no point either before the court’s decision or after has Congress ever attempted to exercise this check.”

That may be, at least in part, because lawmakers trusted the National Emergencies Act was being invoked in good faith. “The assumption is that presidents are going to be relatively responsible in using those authorities and resources,” says UT’s Vladeck, “and are not going to just create some kind of pretext to allow them to go through a back door when Congress is denying them the front door.”

Summary

Is it any wonder that the favorability rating by Americans of members of Congress for years has hovered around high single digits? One would think that if our elected representatives really cared about the public’s collective and individual opinions about their job performance, we’d do something about it. We really DO care, and we have only sparingly done something about it at the voting booth. Yet term after term, Americans send those U.S. Senators and House Representatives back to D.C. to keep on doing the same old things. In a way, this mess in D.C. (and their 7-10% favorability rating) is OUR fault: we keep voting them back into office!

They are not stupid: they read voter support and re-election of Congressional representatives and approval for what they do while there. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Here is the truth of the matter: Americans have become too busy, too preoccupied, too caught-up in “instant everything” to even notice. The internet, social media, instant this and instant that have created a generation of “Instant-everything” Americans.

The current generation literally wants NO responsibility, NO accountability, and NO commitments. Those apply to home and auto ownership, job titles and management slots because of personal and employee accountability and pressure required to be successful. And personal and social relationship commitments are long ago out the window.

“I want a great job with great pay, lots of paid-time-off, all-in job retirement benefits paid 100% by the employer, and nothing more than 9-5 work hours Monday through Friday, and certainly NO weekend commitments.”

How about “knowledge?”

They’re not interested in reading, investigating, time obligations and financial commitments are necessary to obtain knowledge. And if it’s not on the front page of their favorite internet news channel, Twitter, Instagram, or Snap Chat, forget about it! It ain’t happening.

All that is scary. But here’s the tragedy: Washington D.C. and its minions KNOW all this. It’s what perpetuates their consuming power for their own personal benefit at American taxpayer expense that comes with NO ACCOUNTABILITY! Voters just keep sending them back to D.C. to do the same selfish acts again and again — WITH NO PRICE TO PAY FOR THEIR SELFISH ACTS.

The irony of this is the “new” leftists in the Democrat Party have beat the Socialist drum louder and louder. “We want to make American government Socialist. Capitalism is evil. Capitalists are tools of Satan. We want to be like European and South American nations!”

And not one can tell you anything about the horrors Socialism wreaked on every one of those nations. Venezuela — once one of the richest countries on Earth because of its oil holdings — cannot even provide toilet paper to their citizens who have on average lost 30 pounds during the last year because of the unavailability to basic food.

The Democrat leftists want open borders, “Just like Europe.” They don’t read and their favorite leftist media site does not carry the true stories of immigrant horrors in those European countries — countries who all are currently desperately trying to find ways to not just stop further immigration, but to RETURN THOSE IMMIGRANTS TO THE COUNTRIES FROM WHICH THEY CAME! Rape, break-ins, murders, theft, armed robberies, assault of every type, are saturating European countries like The Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland.

In the cases of these Leftists in America: “Ignorance is Bliss.” At least that’s what Democrat Party leaders promote so as to maintain their political might and power over these mind-numbed robots that refuse to find and embrace real truths.

I’ll close with this: the current U.S. President is terrifying to Democrat Party leaders and Establishment Republicans alike. Why? Because he refuses to play the political games as planned by those in both parties. He is unpredictable, totally driven by his commitments to Americans, and, most scary, he is undeterred by the constant threats from the left. They are not accustomed to someone in power from the opposite power not caving and not afraid. They have met their match in Donald Trump.

Let me put it simply and cut to the chase: Regardless of how dishonest, uncaring, politically deliberate and mean Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are, they have met their match.

With or without a declaration of a National Emergency, Donald Trump WILL build a southern border wall. It may be steel, it may be concrete, but probably both together. But you know what the REAL victory will be? Not that in doing so he wins a battle with the opposition. The only victory that matters is that for the American people: stopping illegal immigration and all that comes with it.

Isn’t that what we vote for and send people to Washington to do? Why should anyone be surprised when someone in D.C. actually does what they promised to do?

 

Play

Let’s Make a Deal

Donald Trump as an entrepreneur was famous as a great negotiator of business deals. Obviously, he has many wins in his long career. Yes, he had some losses as do ALL entrepreneurs. But his wins far outnumbered his losses.

Donald Trump as U.S. President has in just two years put together an impressive list of deals he has negotiated that far exceed most if not every one of his predecessor. The difference is that the current media seldom give him credit for those negotiated deals: tax cuts, unemployment numbers, GDP numbers, massive increase in federal revenue, historical achievements in success in keeping businesses from leaving the U.S. and attracting those who left to return, etc. I saw not a single mention of his signing a bill yesterday that because of his efforts reduced the cost of prescription medications for Americans.

To that end, there is a question in the air about the current partial shutdown of the federal government. Could Donald Trump — the “President” and “Deal-Maker-in-Chief” — have instigated the shutdown for a specific reason other than the obvious one and the one so necessary: to fund a southern border wall and the enhancement of border security? 

A “Theory”

Has President Trump suckered Democrats and the Deep State into a trap that will enable a radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy?  In only five more days of the already “longest government shutdown in history” (25 days and counting, as of today), an obscure threshold will be reached, enabling permanent layoffs of bureaucrats furloughed 30 days or more.

Don’t believe me that federal bureaucrats can be laid off?  Well, in bureaucratese, a layoff is called a RIF – a Reduction in Force – and of course, it comes with a slew of civil service protections.  But, if the guidelines are followed, bureaucrats can be laid off – as in no more job.

A reduction in force is a thoughtful and systematic elimination of positions.  For all practical purposes, a government RIF is the same thing as a layoff. Organizations must stick to predetermined criteria when sorting out what happens to each employee. They must communicate with employees how and why decisions are made.

In deciding who stays and who goes, federal agencies must take four factors into account:

  1. Tenure
  2. Veteran status
  3. Total federal civilian and military service
  4. Performance

Agencies cannot use RIF procedures to fire bad employees.  A lot of procedures must be followed, and merit (“performance”) is the last consideration, but based on the criteria above, employees already furloughed can be laid off (“RIFed”) once they have been furloughed for 30 days or 22 work days:

  • When agencies furlough employees for more than 30 calendar days or 22 discontinuous work days, they must use RIF procedures.
  • An employee can be terminated or moved into an available position.

This seems to be what was referenced in this remarkable essay written by an “unidentified senior Trump official” published in the Daily Caller, which vouches for the authenticity of the author and explains that it is protecting him from adverse career consequences should the name become known. The purported senior official makes the case that devotion to “process” eats up most of the time of federal bureaucrats and is also used by enemies of President Trump’s initiatives to stymie the legitimate orders issued by his senior officials:

“On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country.  I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else.  But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results.  If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.

Why would they?  We can’t fire them.  They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position – some do this in the same position for more than a decade.

They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value.  That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands – administering, refining, following and collaborating on process.  “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves.  Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.”

Then the senior official notes what I have just called the “trap:”

Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda.  This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them.  Until the shutdown.

Those officials who waste time and stymie the president’s initiatives now are not present because they are not categorized as “essential.” Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. …

President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them.

Keep in mind that saboteurs cannot be individually identified and RIFed, but they can be included in the layoffs if they meet the criteria above in terms of seniority and service, and they must be given 60 days’ notice. But once they are gone, they are no longer free to obstruct using the “process” as their friend, because they are gone.

You can expect lawsuits on every conceivable point, and I suspect that the definition of “furlough” will be one matter of dispute.

If this was the plan all along, it would explain why President Trump goaded Chuck and Nancy in his televised meeting with them last year, boasting that he would claim credit for the shutdown.  How could they resist a prolonged shutdown when he made it so easy to blame him? President Trump has proven that he is a “disruptor” who changes the framework of thinking on major issues by refusing to accept the “givens” – the assumptions of how things always have been done and therefore always must be done.

So who is the “senior official?”  I don’t know, but I think Stephen Miller is the sort of bold thinker who might volunteer to telegraph the strategy just five days before the deadline.  Give Chuck and Nancy something to think about and probably reject as unthinkable.  Then they can’t complain that they weren’t warned once the trap is sprung.

Such a mass RIF would be the Trump version of Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers when they went on an illegal strike in 1981.  That was completely unexpected by his enemies, vehemently criticized, and successful.

Among other benefits, it taught the leaders of the USSR that Ronald Reagan was a man whose threats cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric.  If you think that Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel, and any other foreign leaders would not draw the same conclusion from a massive RIF, then you are kidding yourself.

Summary

There is no doubt that this shut-down negatively impacts millions in the nation, including the 800,000 workers that have been forced to the sidelines. But the question remains: how many of those 800,000 really need to be employed by the People? No one knows yet the correct answer to that question. There are certainly many opinions on the matter just as on all other political issues. But many of those opinions are based not on any factual justification other than their being filled by working Americans. And the dilemma created “if” those positions were eliminated as illustrated above is simply the creation of unemployed workers.

The economics of that hypothetical is far-reaching and uncertain. As the examples above disclose, it was made it clear that far too many federal workers are not really workers, but have cush jobs with little necessity for existing other than to find ways to perpetuate their jobs and retirements at taxpayer expense. What would those people do if “RIF’d?”

There’s no real all-in-one solution that immediately comes to mind. We have seen in the past the chaos for workers that have been kicked to the curb when large companies close-up shop in the U.S. headed for tax-friendly, employer-friendly foreign countries. The fix would not be an easy one. And we far too often have watched the devastating impact rising unemployment numbers have made in this country. And that’s not even considering the horrors for those out-of-work employees and their families.

But wait a minute: didn’t the U.S. Department of Labor issue a report several weeks ago that stated there are far more jobs available across the nation than there are people to fill them? 6.9 million, to  be exact, as of January 9, 2019. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to say “None of those furloughed federal workers will have trouble finding a job: there are 6.9 million to choose from!” Considerations like job type and location of those empty jobs, employee qualifications, compensation packages, etc., would certainly prevent a simple “walkover” for these former 800,000 federal employees. But this highlights a systemic problem that has epidemically grown the federal government into what it is today: a giant bureaucratic monster that devours everything in site — especially taxpayer dollars!

These numbers further illustrate the picture that entrepreneurs “see” and use in their pursuit of building new businesses or finding existing businesses they turn into profitable enterprises. The fruit of those enterprises is more revenue than the costs to operate those businesses.

While in this conversation we need to be certain to not lose sight of the specific and stated reason for this partial shut-down: the refusal of Democrat members of the House of Representatives to consider and provide funding for the same enhanced border security measures that these same Democrat House members voted for multiple times under previous presidents.

To that end and in closing: why has no member of this “great” American media interviewed Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to ask this question: “Ms. Speaker and Mr. Minority Leader, why do you not support a southern border wall or barrier today when in previous Congressional sessions you each vocally supported and voted for bills that would have taken the exact same measures? Ms. Pelosi, why is the currently proposed border wall immoral when the border walls you previously voted for were mandatory for the safety of Americans?”

It’s sad enough that they have taken this position solely to prevent this President from achieving another objective to move the country forward in total disregard of the safety of Americans. To totally ignore the lives of the Americans they each swore an oath to protect is a blight on the Democrat Party and other Democrats in Congress. The statistics that show the hundreds of thousands of serious crimes at the hands of illegals and Democrat leadership refusing to implement safety measures to sto it solely for political purposes is reprehensible.

I wonder why the national media ignores their flip-flops and will not question Pelosi or Schumer in a national forum? CNN might gain enough viewers to sneak back on top of MSNBC. It would take at least a few hundred more!

 

Many thanks to Robert Lifton

 

Play

Impeachment Acts: President is Caught Red-Handed

In the impeachment noise in D.C., many thought the President was bulletproof and would never face impeachment. But facts have finally surfaced that prove that the President committed treasonous acts and definite obstruction of justice. For such acts, impeachment is a certainty. What you are about to read and hear are facts as verified by multiple sources, including government agency operatives and media insiders. This will certainly answer any questions you have. It will certainly anger some and give others a sense of relief.

What did he Do: The Facts

The President’s administration covertly derailed a campaign by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that targeted the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist group in order to quietly protect the Iran nuclear accord, according to an investigative report.

According to the report, the campaign, called Project Cassandra, was launched after the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities. Their terrorist activities long suspected by previous administrations have been exposed and they are real.

Government agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations, and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies.

Hezbollah conducted hundreds of terror attacks against Israeli forces during the 1980s and 1990s and was responsible for the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut which left 305 people dead, including 241 American servicemen.

In 2006 Hezbollah carried out an unprovoked attack on IDF forces inside Israeli territory, killing three soldiers, and taking two captives. The attack sparked a month-long war between Israel and the terror group, which pounded northern Israel with missiles, rockets and mortar fire.

Hezbollah has also demonstrated a global reach, aiding the perpetrators of the 1992 suicide bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina which killed 29 people, and is widely suspected of carrying out the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people.

Hezbollah also funneled weapons to Muslim militias in the Balkans during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and killed six people, including five Israelis, in a bombing attack in Bulgaria in 2012.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Hezbollah has also operated inside Syria to strengthen the Assad regime, an ally of Iran.

After investigators amassed substantial evidence and sought approval for prosecution from the Justice Department and Treasury Department, those two agencies were unresponsive, the report said.

The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.

“This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision,” said David Asher, an analyst for the Department of Defense specializing in illicit finance who helped set up and run Project Cassandra. “They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”

Asher added that officials obstructed efforts to apprehend top Hezbollah operatives, including one of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s foremost weapons suppliers.

The President entered office promising to take and maintain stiff positions against Iran, saying his policies would inevitably improve relations with Muslim countries as part of a broader and “new” relationship.

One top counterintelligence official recommended that “the next president will have the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries” through not only a direct dialogue but “greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system.”

Ex-Obama officials said they sought to improve relations with Iran as part of a broad strategy to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Their efforts included the Iran nuclear accords.

“The world is a lot more complicated than viewed through the narrow lens of drug trafficking,” one former national security official said. “You’re not going to let CIA rule the roost, but you’re also certainly not going to let DEA do it either. Your approach to anything as complicated as Hezbollah is going to have to involve the interagency [process], because the State Department has a piece of the pie, the intelligence community does, Treasury does, DOD does.”

In a report, sources independent of Project Cassandra confirmed the allegations made by its team members.

In essence, this administration’s willingness to envision a new role for Hezbollah in the Middle East, combined with its desire for a negotiated settlement to Iran’s nuclear program, turned into a reluctance to move aggressively against the top Hezbollah operatives, according to Project Cassandra members and others.

A Treasury official in the administration, Katherine Bauer, who submitted classified testimony presented last February to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs acknowledging that “under the administration … these [Hezbollah-related] investigations were tamped down for fear of increasing the distrust Iran holds for the U.S.”

As a consequence, the report said that the U.S. government “lost insight” into not only Hezbollah’s drug trafficking operation, but other aspects of its vast criminal operations worldwide.

Project Cassandra had its origins in a series of investigations launched in the years after the 9/11 attacks (yes, that long ago) which all led, via their own twisted paths, to Hezbollah as a suspected global criminal enterprise.

As they pursued their investigations, the DEA agents found that Hezbollah was working urgently to raise cash, and lots of it, to rebuild its south Lebanon stronghold after a 2006 war against Israel had reduced it to rubble.

White House spokesman Kevin Lewis denied the allegations by officials from Project Cassandra.

“There has been a consistent pattern of actions taken against Hezbollah, both through tough sanctions and law enforcement actions before and after the Iran deal. This administration terminated the Iran deal.”

Summary

I know this is hard for most to believe. How could this exist so quietly?  Where has the media been in all this? With the current atmosphere of non-stop leaks everywhere in Washington, how could this horrific information about such corrupt acts committed by any administration not be trumpeted from the rooftops in every city in America?

Does this not blow the cover on the corruption that obviously permeates our government? Members of the Administration — the Department of Justice, the State Department, the CIA, and DEA — were all put on task for this job of breaking this $1 billion operation that trafficked weapons, drugs, and money laundering around the Globe, including in the U.S.!

Our president has spent much tv time promoting the horrors of the opioid crisis in the nation, how pervasive are drug deaths every week, and how he was aggressively tackling the drug prescription industry’s egregious practice of gouging the American public with their staggering drug prices. Apparently, his words have been a smokescreen.

Why would this multi-agency, well-coordinated operation be shut down exactly at the point where the indictments of seventeen high-ranking government officials from Iran, several countries in South America, and even some U.S. citizens were about to be issued? Answer: it has to be about dollars.

Most would say: “Presidents are all millionaires. Why would any U.S. President need more?” With the knowledge of the life “after” any presidency will live for life at the expense of U.S. taxpayers makes most Americans shocked that any president would instigate any such actions or allow them to happen on his/her watch. But it did happen. And apparently killing Project Cassandra at the time it was shut down made many in the administration — and apparently the President himself — a pocketful of money.

What could be left but impeachment? Certainly the President’s taking action to thwart a multi-million dollar investigation is an actual defining example of “high crimes and misdemeanors” — which is necessary Constitutionally to file articles of impeachment against a President in the House of Representatives and an impeachment trial of the President in the Senate.

That’s all that’s left here.

Now the “Real” Summary

Folks, this whole story really DID happen. Project Cassandra IS real. And Project Cassandra WAS terminated. And it WAS terminated with the intervention of the President and leaders in the Department of Justice. Dozens and dozens of those who were part of Cassandra for multiple federal agencies have come forward — some confidentially, some openly — and shared the details of the operations and how it was terminated by the Administration with no warning and no explanation other than that explanation given above.

There has been a concerted and presidential administration coordinated effort to keep this all quiet. It is obvious why: impeachment for this is inevitable.

To put the icing on this entire story, go back and read it or listen to the podcast from the top. Why?

None of this happened under President Trump. It all DID happen. But it happened under President Obama!

That’s correct. We did NOT hear or see anything about it. We didn’t hear or read anything about it from MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post or New York Times. We didn’t even hear about it from FOX News.

POLITICO did an amazing story chronicling the details. But even POLITICO doesn’t reach everyone. And apparently, no one picked up the story.

Think about this: our current Mainstream Media have a frequent practice of the way they give us “anonymous” source allegations against Trump and those from his administration and family. Their original version of a story NEVER gives sources, other than saying their sources were“anonymous and credible.” Then the other outlets pick up the story, beginning it by saying “We have credible sources that we have confirmed…..” You know who are those “credible” sources that confirmed the stories? THE OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS THAT REPORTED THEM! There are NO sources at all. The sources are made up and called “Anonymous!”

Know where we found our initial research details? In a small Israeli news outlet that credited POLITICO for the investigation and reporting. (At the end of this story, you will see the link to the POLITICO three-part revelation that when you have 30 minutes or so you need to read. It’s like a spy novel.)

Here’s the travesty in all this:

  1.  This all happened while President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were giving $100+ Billion to Iran.
  2. No criminal actions have been initiated against any of those implicated by the sworn testimony of many regarding the multiple illegal actions taken by many in our government.
  3. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions DID authorize the Trump DOJ to “take a look at Project Cassandra.” But to my knowledge, nothing resulted from that “look.”

I’ll close with this: what would be happening right now if Donald Trump or anyone in his administration had initiated, participated in, or allowed anything like this to happen? Realize this: thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries died because of the trafficked drugs and weapons that came out of shutdown of the Cassandra Project. Imagine where we’d be if this happened in the Trump Administration.

Sadly, everyone so far from the Obama Administration that committed illegal acts in this has not seen any retribution. And no one involved in Project Cassandra will likely pay any price for their actions.

Many if not all of Obama’s cabinet members and intelligence department heads knew about Cassandra, its details, and who was involved. Yet nothing was said or done. And, sadly, if anything ever comes of this regarding their prosecutions, I doubt any will say anything because of deals they have cut.

One more thing: Do you think we’d have heard about Project Cassandra if Hillary Clinton was our president today?

Sad narrative on the state of America, isn’t it?

 

Here’s the Link to the POLITICO three-part story:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

 

Play

No Border Wall Mean The End of Trump?

It’s Dead! No money for the border wall and the government is shut down. Trump promised Americans if he was elected, he’d build the wall. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. And to make matters worse, funding for the federal Government — at least part of it — ended at midnight Friday night.

Trump has been a “promise machine.” He’s made numerous commitments to Americans before and since the 2016 election. The Left shudder everytime one of those promises leaves his lips. Why? Because most of his promises have been fulfilled — something Leftist politicians and media are not familiar with. They honestly do not quite know how to process it.

But they have ammunition, thanks to the Democrats in the Senate who refused once again to do the job of debate, negotiations, and finding common ground through compromise to get the job done.

Very little media will put the responsibility for this shutdown on Democrats. Trump will bear the blame. But with only 50 Senate votes and that rule that requires 60 votes in the Senate for passage, passing any legislation from the conservative side is virtually impossible. Chuck Schumer and his Senate minions know that. They refuse to negotiate and show zero willingness for compromise. Never mind that 80% of Americans want border security — whatever types of security it takes for that. Schumer and Pelosi live to do one thing and one thing only: thwart anything in the Trump agenda, regardless if it is good for the country.

I’ve said it here often, “The difference between Conservatives and Democrats is this: Conservatives hate liberal policies of Democrats. Democrats hate Conservatives.” We saw that play out in this legislative war the last two weeks.

Here’s the “Trump stuff” that frosts Democrat leadership in Congress:

First, it was Obamacare: “If elected President, we will repeal and replace Obamacare.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then it was government spending: “If elected President, we will cut wasteful spending that under Obama has doubled the federal debt in 8 years.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then it was taxes: “If elected President, we will pass a massive income tax cut for the middle class in America.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then, a border wall: “If elected President, we will build a really BIG wall at our southern border and Mexico will pay for it.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Is One out of Four Good Enough? Can Trump survive without providing that southern wall?
  • We all know the history of the Trump Congress pushing to get Obamacare to the floor of the Senate for debate before a Senate vote to repeal Obama’s premier legislative achievement. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) famously cast the deciding vote to kill the motion to even debate the pros and cons of Obamacare. On that one, President Trump has the luxury of being able to blame Establishment Republicans like McCain who voted with Democrats. That was “Strike One” against the President regarding his campaign promises. But it also was “Strike One” against Republican members of Congress who actually campaigned for re-election promising voters the repeal/replacement of the healthcare finance plan called Obamacare.
  • The U.S. government is a spending monster. Everyone knows that. The government waste is in the tens of billions of dollars each fiscal year. All of that money comes directly from U.S. taxpayers. And taxpayers are growing tired of carrying the water for Congressional runaway spending with runaway successful income tax revenues. Trump promised to cut government waste, therefore, cutting needless spending. The 2017 Omnibus Bill being signed into law by the President was “Strike Two.” It was the biggest budget spending bill in U.S. history that Trump said over and over again during his 2016 campaign and the early months of his presidency he would NOT sign into law WITHOUT the inclusion of funding for the border wall. In announcing his acceptance of the bloated spending bill that was passed in both Houses without border security funding, his reason for signing was because, in exchange for massive social spending increases demanded by Democrats, the Omnibus included an agreement for large military budget increases which had been stripped from Obama budgets during his 8 years in office. And Trump had promised to rebuild the American military for which he had to have previous military budget amounts restored.
  • No doubt the American taxpayer — especially the Middle Class — have been carrying a large, disproportionate share of income tax responsibility. Trump promised tax relief to those Americans. He was able to give that relief with significant tax cuts for almost every level of taxpayer. With the passing of these tax cuts, a surprising response was received from the private business community in the U.S. Hundreds of companies passed out significant cash bonuses to their workers. Additionally, many pay increases were given. And as the President promised, with those tax cuts that included cuts for corporations, billions of corporate dollars being held offshore flooded the U.S. as these corporations saw a switch in the view held by this Administration from that of Obama. Companies not only felt like changes were coming that would help them, they saw the President make such changes that immediately impacted corporate bottom lines. Individual and corporate tax cuts together gave the U.S. economy a shot in the arm not seen since Ronald Reagan.
  • Building a border wall with numerous other border security systems was key in Trump’s 2016 campaign. But since his inauguration, he has struggled to get funding from Congress — even with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate. The anticipated cost? $15 billion, initially. But with constant push-back from Democrats and even moderate Republicans, it became apparent that $15 billion was a non-starter. The President began negotiations to include a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, the cleanup of the dysfunctional legal immigration system, and other goodies in exchange for $5 billion to begin his border security projects, which include the wall. Congress stone-walled the President again. Experts will agree that the border wall was certainly the biggest reason Americans voted for him in 2016. Most Americans (as reported in numerous polls) want the government to enforce existing immigration laws, stop illegal migration, and to build a wall to slow or stop the flow of illegals across the southern border. So far, President Trump has failed to get the wall funded.

Will Trump’s Wall Failure Doom his Presidency?

That’s the big one.

Kellyanne Conway — senior advisor to the President — Wednesday morning appeared on “Fox and Friends” to respond to the suggestions that President Trump has caved on his demands for border control security funding to include the wall and was leaning towards walking away from his famous promise on live television from the Oval Office a week. The President warned Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer that he would NOT sign any bill to fund the government past December 22nd unless it included border security funding.

The big question from Americans until Thursday was: Will the President Cave?

That was the million dollar question. Leadership from both parties in the House and the Senate thought he would and presented a Continuing Resolution to the Senate which was unanimously approved. Before the House took it up, Trump notified Leadership he would NOT sign that bill into law WITHOUT $5 billion for the border wall! Everyone was shocked — especially the Media and Congressional leadership.

But consider this:

We have seen the President negotiate in many ways for many agenda items since taking office. But one thing is certain: he’s a negotiator. I found it difficult to believe that he would so abruptly make a 180 degree turn away from the thing that he has been so adamant about since he was pressured into signing that Omnibus bill in 2017: funding for the border wall. Who can forget that contentious televised Oval Office meeting with Schumer and Pelosi and how demonstrative Trump was in making it clear: no border wall funding, no spending bill signed. What caused the change of heart?

Honestly, I was certain he HAD NOT had a change of heart! I asked those questions:

  • Why would he after that very public meeting where he made very public demands suddenly walk away from those demands?
  • Why would he turn against American voters who many of which voted for him for President primarily because he was so adamant about border security and building the southern wall?
  • Why would he in the follow-up of his non-stop tweets with his demands for funding for the wall to prevent a government shutdown walk away and cave?

Answer: He must have not changed his mind!

Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take action on Friday evening to pass that measure passed from the House that included border wall funding. The government shutdown began Friday night at midnight.

We won’t go into the false premise that has been shouted from the Leftist media rooftops that “The Sky is Falling,” because it’s nothing but empty rhetoric. But you can rest assured President Trump has something in mind to “get er’ done!”

So what could be going on?

The U.S. Pledges $10.6 Billion For Central America and Southern Mexico…

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The United States pledged $5.8 billion in aid and investment Tuesday for strengthening government and economic development in Central America, and another $4.8 billion in development aid for southern Mexico. The U.S aid aims to promote better security conditions and job opportunities as part of a regional plan to allow Central Americans and Mexicans to remain in their countries and not have to emigrate. The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital.  “In sum I think this is good news, very good news for Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Newly inaugurated President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador waxed poetic about the plan to provide jobs so people won’t have to emigrate. “I have a dream that I want to see become a reality … that nobody will want to go work in the United States anymore,” Lopez Obrador said at a morning news conference before the announcement. The combination of public and private investment for the stay-at-home effort doesn’t require congressional approval, unlike Trump’s signature project to stem illegal immigration — a border wall.

Summary

What I see here is President Trump deploying a root-cause workaround for the current border argument, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo carrying it out.

I strongly suspect there was an agreement of this sort long before the USMCA was finalized and made public.  As part of an agreement with President Lopez-Obrador, these funds will be used to secure Mexico’s border effectively cutting-off the Central American migration flow before it can reach the Southern U.S. This approach is entirely in line with nationalist AMLO’s objectives for a larger and more stable economy within Mexico specifically by partnering with nationalist U.S. President Trump toward that common goal.

If Trump can’t get Congress to agree to defend the U.S. border, he can sure leverage and entice Lopez-Obrador to do it a few miles south.  This approach is President Trump working on optimal solutions while encountering domestic political roadblocks. This is exactly what President Trump does…. find solutions.

President Trump can sit around righteously fighting with the swamp over the security issues — the “historical and politically correct thing to do” — or he can fight the swamp while simultaneously deploying a solution that mitigates the issue at its root cause, thinking outside the box.

What else would a businessman president do?

“Everyone is Smart, Except Donald Trump”

Friends and followers. This is well worth the read, which is why I am posting it here today. Rabbi Dov Fischer makes good sense. Who is Rabbi Dov Fischer? Rabbi Dov Fischer is an attorney and adjunct professor of law, a Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, congregational rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California, and holds prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He has been Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. His writings have appeared in the Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, and Israel National News. READ ON!

Everyone Is Smart, Except Trump

By Rabbi Dov Fischer

It really is quite simple. Everyone is smart except Donald J. Trump. That’s why they all are billionaires, and all got elected President. Only Trump does not know what he is doing. Only Trump does not know how to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Anderson Cooper knows how to stand up to Putin. The whole crowd at MSNBC does. All the journalists do.

They could not stand up to Matt Lauer at NBC. They could not stand up to Charlie Rose at CBS. They could not stand up to Mark Halperin at NBC Nor up to Leon Wieseltier at the New Republic, nor Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone, nor Michael Oreskes at NPR, at the New York Times, or at the Associated Press. But — oh, wow! — Can they ever stand up to Putin! Only Trump is incapable of negotiating with the Russian tyrant.

Remember the four years when Anderson Cooper was President of the United States? And before that — when the entire Washington Post editorial staff jointly were elected to be President? Remember? Neither do I.

The Seedier Media have never negotiated life and death, not corporate life and death, and not human life and death. They think they know how to negotiate, but they do not know how. They go to a college, are told by peers that they are smart, get some good grades, proceed to a graduate degree in journalism, and get hired as analysts. Now they are experts, ready to take on Putin and the Iranian Ayatollahs at age 30.

That is not the road to expertise in tough dealing. The alternate path is that, along the way, maybe you get forced into some street fights. Sometimes the other guy wins, and sometimes you beat the intestines out of him. Then you deal with grown-ups as you mature, and you learn that people can be nasty, often after they smile and speak softly. You get cheated a few times, played. And you learn. Maybe you become an attorney litigating multi-million-dollar case matters. Say what you will about attorneys, but those years — not the years in law school, not the years drafting legal memoranda, but the years of meeting face-to-face and confronting opposing counsel — those years can teach a great deal. They can explain how to transition from sweet, gentle, diplomatic negotiating to tough negotiating. At some point, with enough tough-nosed experience, you figure out Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” yourself.

Trump’s voters get him because not only is he we, but we are he. We were not snowed flaked-for-life by effete professors who themselves had never negotiated tough life-or-death serious deals. Instead, we live in the real world, and we know how that works. Not based on social science theories, not based on “conceptual negotiating models.” But based on the people we have met over life and always will hate. That worst boss we ever had. The coworker who tried to sabotage us. We know the sons of bums whom we survived, the dastardly types who are out there, and we learned from those experiences how to deal with them. We won’t have John Kerry soothe us by having James Taylor sing “You’ve Got a Friend” carols.

The Bushes got us into all kinds of messes. The first one killed the economic miracle that Reagan had fashioned. The second one screwed up the Middle East, where Iraq and Iran beautifully were engaged in killing each other for years, and he got us mired into the middle of the muddle. Clinton was too busy with Monica Lewinsky to protect us from Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights. Hillary gave us Benghazi and more. And Obama and Kerry gave us the Iran Deal, ISIS run amok, America in retreat. All to the daily praise of a media who now attack Trump every minute of every day.
So let us understand a few things:

NEGOTIATING WITH NATO

NATO is our friend. They also rip off America. They have been ripping us off forever. We saved their butts — before there even was a NATO — in World War I. They messed up, and 116,456 Americans had to die to save their butts.

Then they messed up again for the next two decades because West Europeans are effete and so obsessed with their class manners and their rules of savoir-faire and their socialist welfare states and their early retirements that they did not have the character to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s. Peace in our time. So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent. So, hey, we love those guys. We love NATO.

Nato Leaders. Who is paying their fair share?

 

And yet they still rip us off. We pay 4% of our gigantic gross domestic product to protect them, and they will not pay a lousy 2% of their GDP towards their own defense. Is there a culture more penny-pinching-cheap-and-stingy than the delicate constituents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? These cheap baseborn prigs will not pay their fare. They are too cheap. They expect America to send boys to die for them in one world war, then another — hundreds of thousands — and then to pay for their NATO defense even a century later. And then they have the temerity to cheat us further in trade

Long before Trump, they set up tariffs against us for so many things If the average American knew how badly Europe has been ripping us off for decades with their duties, no one in this country would buy anything European again. We would say, as a matter of self-respect and personal pride, “I no longer will buy anything but American, no matter what it costs.”

Every American President has complained about the cheating and imbalance — the NATO penny-pinching-cheapness, the tariff and trade imbalances. In more recent years, the various Bushes complained about it. Even Obama complained about it. But they all did it so gently, so diplomatically. They would deliver the sermon, just as the pastor predictably tells the church-goers on Sunday morning that he is against sin, and the Europeans would sit quietly and nod their heads — nodding from sleeping, not from agreeing — and then they would go back out and sin some more. Another four years of America being suckered and snookered. All they had to do was give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize his ninth month in office and let Kerry ride his bike around Paris.

So Trump did what any effective negotiator would do: he took note of past approaches to NATO and their failures, and correctly determined that the only way to get these penny-pinching-cheap baseborn prigs to pay their freight would be to bulldoze right into their faces, stare them right in their glazed eyes with cameras rolling, and tell them point-blank the equivalent of:

The Nations of Nato

“You are the cheapest penny-pinching, miserly, stingy, tight wadded skinflints ever. And it is going to stop on my watch. Whatever it takes from my end, you selfish, curmudgeonly cheap prigs, you are going to pay your fair share. I am not being diplomatic. I am being All-Business: either you start to pay or, wow, are you in for some surprises! And you know what you read in the Fake News: I am crazy! I am out of control! So, lemme see. I know: We will go to a trade war! How do you like that? Maybe we even will pull all our troops out of Europe. Hmmm. Yeah, maybe. Why not? Sounds good. Well, let’s see.”

So Trump stuffed it into their quiche-and-schnitzel ingesting faces. And he convinced them — thanks to America’s Seedier Media who are the real secret to the “Legend That is Trump” — that he just might be crazy enough to go to a trade war and to pull American boys home. They knew that Clinton and Bush x 2 and Kerry and Hillary and Nobel Laureate Obama never would do it. But they also know that Trump just might. And if they think they are going to find comfort and moderating in his new advisers, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, alongside him. Nuh-uh.

So CNN and the Washington Post and all the Seedier Media attacked Trump for days: He is destroying the alliance! He attacks our friends!

Baloney. Obama was the one whom the Left Echo Chamber… Chamber… Chamber — never called out for attacking our friends — Israel, Britain, so many others — while cozying up to Hugo Chavez, bowing to dictators, and dancing the tango for Raul Castro. Trump is just the opposite: He knows who the friends are, and he wants to maintain and strengthen those friendships.

It is no different from a parent telling a 35-year-old son: “I have been supporting you for thirty-five years I put you through college by signing four years and $100,000 PLUS in Loans. You graduated college fifteen years ago. For fifteen years I have been asking you nicely to look for a job and to start contributing. Instead, you sit home all day playing video games, texting your friends on a smartphone I pay for, and picking little fuzz balls out of your navel. So, look, I love you. You are my flesh and blood. But if you are not employed and earning a paycheck — and contributing to the cost of this household — in six months, we are throwing you out of the house.” That boy is NATO. Trump is Dad. And all of us have been signing for the PLUS Loans.

NEGOTIATING WITH PUTIN.

Putin is a bad guy. A really bad guy. He is better than Lenin. Better than Stalin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Mao. But he is a really bad guy.

Here’s the thing: Putin is a dictator. He answers to no one. He does whatever he wants. If there arises an opponent, that guy dies. Maybe the opponent gets poked with a poisoned umbrella. Maybe he gets shot on the street. Maybe the opponent is forced to watch Susan Rice interviews telling the world that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video seen by nine derelicts in Berkeley and that Bowe Berghdal served with honor and distinction. But, one way or another, the opponent dies.

Trump knows this about Putin. And here is what that means: If you insult Putin in public, like by telling the news media just before or after meeting with him that he is the Butcher of Crimea, and he messed with our elections and is an overall jerk — then you will get nothing behind closed doors from Putin. Putin will decide “To heck with you, and to heck with the relationship we just forged.” Putin will get even, will take intense personal revenge, even if it is bad for Russia — even if it is bad for Putin. Because there are no institutional reins on him.

But if you go in public and tell everyone that Putin is a nice guy (y’know, just like Kim Jong Un) and that Putin intensely maintains that he did not mess with elections — not sweet little Putey Wutey (even though he apparently did) — then you next can maintain the momentum established beforehand in the private room. You can proceed to remind Putin what you told him privately: that this garbage has to stop —or else. That if he messes in Syria, we will do “X.” If he messes with our Iran boycott, we will do “Y.” We will generate so much oil from hydraulic fracturing and from ANWR and from all our sources that we will glut the market — if not tomorrow, then a year from now. We will send even more lethal offensive military weapons to Ukraine. We can restore the promised shield to Eastern Europe that Obama withdrew. And even if we cannot mess with Russian elections (because they have no elections), they do have computers — and, so help us, we will mess with their technology in a way they cannot imagine.

Tump knows from his advisers what we can do. If he sweet-talks Putin in public — just Putin on the Ritz — then everything that Trump has told Putin privately can be reinforced with action, and he even can wedge concessions because, against that background, Putin knows that no one will believe that he made any concessions. Everyone is set to believe that Putin is getting whatever he wants, that Trump understands nothing. In that setting, Putin can make concessions and still save face.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

That is why Trump talks about him that way. And that is the only possible way to do it when negotiating with a tyrant who has no checks and balances on him. If you embarrass the tyrant publicly, then the tyrant never will make concessions because he will fear that people will say he was intimidated and backed down. And that he never will do. Meanwhile, Trump has expelled 60 Russians from America, reversed Obama policy and sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, and is pressing Germany severely on its pipeline project with Russia.

THE BOTTOM LINE

At the end of the day, Donald Trump is over seventy years old. He has made many mistakes in his life. He still makes some He is human. But Trump likewise has spent three score and a dozen years learning. He has seen some of his businesses go bankrupt, and he has learned from those experiences to be a billionaire and not let it happen again. No doubt that he has been fooled, outsmarted in years past. And he has learned from life.

Trump is a tough and smart negotiator. He sizes up his opponent, and he knows that the approach that works best for one is not the same as for another. It does not matter what he says publicly about his negotiating opponent. What matters is what results months later.

In his first eighteen months in Washington, this man has turned around the American economy, brought us near full employment, reduced the welfare and food stamp lines, wiped out ISIS in Raqqa, moved America’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem, successfully has launched massive deregulation of the economy, has opened oil exploration in ANWR, is rebuilding the military massively, has walked out of the useless Paris Climate Accords that were negotiated by America’s amateurs who always get snookered, canned the disastrous Iran Deal, exited the bogus United Nations Human Rights Council. He convinced Canada and Mexico that he would walk out of NAFTA if they didn’t negotiate a new and fair trade agreement (they did), and he has the Europeans convinced he would walk out of NATO if they don’t stop being the cheap and lazy parasitic penny-pinchers they are.

He has slashed income taxes, expanded legal protections for college students falsely accused of crimes, has taken real steps to protect religious freedoms and liberties promised in the First Amendment, boldly has taken on the Lyme-disease-quality of a legislative mess that he inherited from Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama on immigration, and has appointed a steady line of remarkably brilliant conservative federal judges to sit on the district courts, the circuit appellate courts, and the Supreme Court.

What has Anderson Cooper achieved during that period? Jim Acosta or the editorial staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post? They have not even found the courage and strength to stand up to the coworkers and celebrities within their orbits who abuse sexually or psychologically or emotionally. They have no accomplishments to compare to his. Just their effete opinions, all echoing each other, all echoing, echoing, echoing. They gave us eight years of Nobel Peace Laureate Obama negotiating with the ISIS JV team, calming the rise of the oceans, and healing the planet.

We will take Trump negotiating with Putin any day.

To Whom does Robert Mueller Answer?

Outgoing Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is fulfilling his promise to stop (or slow down) Senate confirmations of Trump nominated judges IF the Senate does not pass a bill Flake has introduced to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired IF President Trump so chooses. Following the objection to Flake’s motion for unanimous consent to consider the bill, Flake joined Senate Democrats in voting against the confirmation of Thomas Farr to serve on the federal bench for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Flake’s move forced Vice President Pence (as President of the Senate) to break the 50-50 tie for Farr’s confirmation as federal judge.

Flake’s action ignited a firestorm surrounding Robert Mueller: who does the Special Counsel work for?  Who has the authority to hold a Special Counsel — ANY Special Counsel — accountable for his/her job performance and adherence to the rules in the law that established that position? Let’s look how all this pertains to Mueller’s current position.

The History of Special Counsels

A Special Counsel is different from Independent Counsels who investigated high-profile matters in the past.

In the Watergate investigation, the Justice Department appointed Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was eventually dismissed by President Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre. In the aftermath, President Nixon appointed Leon Jaworski to replace Cox with the protection that Jaworski could only be fired with the consent of a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

◊In 1978, as part of the Ethics in Government Act, the Attorney General was authorized to seek a special independent prosecutor to investigate executive branch officials, and assigned a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia the authority to appoint and monitor the independent counsel’s activities. From 1978 to 1982, three special prosecutors were assigned under the Ethics in Government law.

◊The law was authorized for a period of five years and expired in 1983. Congress modified the law in 1983 to address concerns as to the broad coverage of the law. Despite opposition from the Reagan Administration, the law was reauthorized for five more years. Seven independent counsel investigations occurred during the Reagan Administration, including the massive Iran-Contra investigation conducted by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh.

◊In 1988, after the law was reauthorized again, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. Justice Scalia was the sole negative vote arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

◊In 1992, the independent counsel law expired. President Clinton reauthorized the law in 1994. By mid-1998 — and to Clinton’s dismay — seven separate investigations of the Clinton Administration were underway, including the infamous investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr. The law expired again in 1999.

◊In its place, the Justice Department crafted Special Counsel procedures and regulations. The Justice Department appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald during the Bush Administration to investigate the Valerie Plame affair that resulted in the conviction of Scooter Libby.

Special Counsel Mueller

Under the Deputy Attorney General’s Order, Special Counsel Mueller is:

  • Authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. The reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 600.4(a) authorizes Special Counsel Mueller to investigate and prosecute “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”
  • Required to comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices, and policies of the Department of Justice, but he/she shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. 28 C.F.R. Section 600.7(a) and (b). The Attorney General, then Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein when Attorney General Session was recused, and now Acting Attorney General Michael Whitaker, “may conclude that [a Special Counsel] action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Department practices that it should not be pursued.”  If the Acting Attorney General conducts such a review, he shall give the Special Counsel’s view great weight, and shall notify Congress if he reaches such a determination. 28 C.F.R. Section 600.7(b).
  • Answer to the Acting Attorney General, who retains authority to remove the Special Counsel for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.” 28 C.F.R. Section 600.7 (d).
  • Required to comply with the fact that under the Special Counsel regulations, the Attorney General has the theoretical authority to restrict the Special Counsel’s activities, and in the end, can even dismiss the Special Counsel.  Given the surrounding controversy and need for independence, it would be a rare situation for the president to order the Attorney General to terminate the Special Counsel, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.  However, as history has shown, such unforeseen events can occur.

The very appointment by President Trump of Michael Whitaker to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been under fire from Democrats since it occurred. Their reasoning is based on the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.

The Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. However, it often happens that cabinet members leave and their replacement’s confirmation delay can leave cabinet positions vacant for an extended period of time.

Many Democrats emphatically hold to the belief that President Trump violated Article II of the Constitution by appointing Whitaker to fill the seat of Jeff Sessions as AG without the consent of the Senate. For the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, in 1998, Congress resolved this problem by passing The Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which states the president can appoint a temporary, high-ranking official until a permanent official is vetted by the Senate and put in place. Trump appointed Whitaker under this act, as Whitaker was Sessions’ chief of staff. However, Democrats state flatly the job should have fallen to Sessions’ number 2  — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But the circumstances surrounding Rosenstein’s ascent to the Attorney General spot along with his several alleged conflicts of interest in the Mueller probe prompted the President to appoint Whitaker instead.

What Happened in the Senate?

In a discussion on the floor about Senator Flake’s motion for unanimous consent, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) stood in opposition and gave an amazing explanation of the danger such action would initiate in the United States. Lee cited the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s minority opinion in Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court case that upheld the process of appointing an independent counsel under a bill passed forty years ago. (That law’s authority has expired)

“As Justice Scalia explains, we cannot convert an office like this one, an office like the previously existing office of independent counsel, without creating a de facto fourth branch of government fundamentally undermining the principles of the separation of powers that is so core to our liberty,” Lee said.

A concise and specific question to ask in light of Lee’s statement is this: Flake and others want a law passed to prevent President Trump from firing Robert Mueller. Doing so, according to Lee, would literally create a fourth branch of government, making members of that fourth branch (in this case Robert Mueller as Special Counsel) immune to accountability for any actions — regardless of how egregious they might be. In the current structure, Mueller is a de facto member of the Department of Justice and works for the Attorney General. Democrat’s beef is that with Michael Whitaker as “Acting AG,” the President could require Whitaker to terminate Mueller for any reason. Trump opponents want to prevent that situation from even being possibility.

But if such a bill passed and was signed into law, who would the Special Counsel answer to? The answer is simple: No One In Government! In fact, doing so would require amending the U.S. Constitution.

Mitigating Factors

There are applicable considerations that in large are being ignored by those screaming for Mueller’s protection from termination by the President:

  • President Trump has for 18 months stated over and over he has NO intent to fire Mueller, that he wants the Mueller probe to be completed, be thorough, and be finalized;
  • The President literally screams at reporters when he is questioned about Mueller’s “pending” firing that he will NOT fire Mueller because there was no Trump Campaign collusion with Russia;
  • The White House has provided the dozens of witnesses requested by the Mueller team to testify along with several million requested documents, and President Trump submitted answers in writing to Mueller’s questions of him: compliance with Mueller in every way;
  • Frankly, there is absolutely NO legal basis for a law that could guarantee such protection to Mueller’s position WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. And that is NOT going to happen.

What do Americans think about the Mueller probe?

While 58% of Americans believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia is harming the country, 35% say it should continue “indefinitely,” a new Harvard-Harris poll finds:

  • Helping the country: 42%
  • Hurting the country: 58%
  • He should stop immediately: 31%
  • Another month: 9%
  • 2 to 3 months: 12%
  • 3 to 6 months: 6%
  • 6 months to a year: 7%
  • Indefinitely: 35%

Only 37% believe Mueller has uncovered any “actual evidence” of collusion with Russia:

  • Found: 37%
  • Not found: 40%
  • Don’t know: 23%

More than half of Americans say anti-Trump bias “played a role in launching” the probe:

  • Bias played a role: 54%
  • Bias did not play a role: 46%

Two-thirds of Americans think the public should see the evidence the FBI and Justice Department have “to clear the air about any potential wrongdoings in starting the investigation:”

  • It’s important to publicly release the evidence used by the FBI and the Justice Department to clear the air about any possible wrongdoing in starting the Trump-Russia investigation: 67%
  • The administration should not publicly release the evidence to avoid interfering with sources and methods of interviewing: 33%

And, nearly two-thirds of Americans want a special counsel to look into the way the investigation was initiated and how it has been handled:

  • Favor: 62%
  • Oppose: 38%

But, two-thirds of Americans say Special Counsel Mueller should not be fired:

  • Fired: 32%
  • Not fired: 68%

Summary

Prediction: Robert Mueller continues the probe to its completion. Mueller’s staff attorneys — especially Andrew Weismann — push harder and harder, continuing to make offers to witnesses of “deals that cannot be refused” to confirm negative allegations made against members of the Trump team and the President himself. Several Mueller targets have refused to comply with these Mueller terms and have actually initiated legal action against Mueller for taking these steps, in some cases charging Mueller with criminality in doing so.

The bottom line in the Mueller probe is simple: Mueller is obviously diligently trying to uncover wrongdoing by members of the Trump Campaign and by the President himself. It is obvious that so far Mueller has come up empty. Every indictment in the probe so far alleges NO wrongdoing tied to the Campaign or the President. That lack of discovered wrongdoing seems to be pushing Mueller to find things and people he can use to “get” the President.

It is apparent that Mueller desperately wants to attack with substance President Trump. But It is apparent that Mueller has been able to find nothing of substance to use against Mr. Trump.

Is Mueller so desperate in his quest to “get” Trump that he is doing exactly what Mueller’s target, Jerome Cosi, alleges the Special Counsel is doing: offering witnesses a plea to plead guilty to lying? All they are doing is refusing to lie to confirm claims against the Trump team. And Cosi is ready to present evidence of that to a court. And hopefully, that practice being exposed will jolt Mueller into abandoning those attempts to thwart the spirit of the Law.

Most think the Special Counsel should take whatever legal actions are necessary to get the truth, but SHOULD NOT manufacture any evidence or extort witnesses into making specific testimony.

I doubt it will be much longer until all the good and bad of the Robert Mueller probe will be revealed to all. Not until that happens will Americans’ suspicions about President Trump, the Trump Campaign, and Robert Mueller be resolved.

Oh, this too: if Mueller or any of his prosecutors’ are found to have acted illegally in any way, they should each be prosecuted for THEIR wrongdoing.

And, Mueller will NOT be fired!

 

Play

DOJ Earthquake

Jeff Sessions is out at the Department of Justice. And Democrats are incensed. How could Donald Trump even think about asking for the Sessions resignation? Doesn’t POTUS know that Congress controls the Department of Justice, who runs it, and who is allowed to do certain things in the DOJ? Isn’t he afraid of what Congress can and will do — especially now that Democrats will control the House and therefore wield unfettered power over the White House — to punish the President for kicking Sessions to the curb? Certainly firing Sessions is to impact the Mueller Investigation, maybe even to fire Mueller to end the Russian collusion investigation. However, Trump doesn’t care what Democrats think!

Democrats think American voters have forgotten the frustration of this President when Jeff Sessions — immediately after his confirmation as Atttorney General — announced his recusal from all 2016 election investigative matters, which include Trump Campaign alleged collusion with Russians to impact the election. Do they not remember that the recusal included any revisiting of the Hillary Clinton FBI investigation?

Have they forgotten the dozens of times in press conferences and conversations on the record President Trump’s desire for Sessions to leave the DOJ so that he could appoint a replacement without any conflicts that could perform every one of the AG duties?

Oh, by the way, in a White House nationally televised press conference today, President Trump when asked what his intentions are about Robert Mueller, he demonstratively declared he has no intention to fire Mueller, he wants the Mueller investigation to conclude but will not stop it, and that he has no concerns regarding the investigation because there’s no wrongdoing to be uncovered.

Then what is the basis for the Democrat outcry about the firing of Jeff Sessions? Congressional members should be ecstatic at the firing. Sessions resisted Congressional requests for documents over and over again — even after they were subpoenaed. Both Democrats and Republicans have complained again and again about the resistance of the Sessions DOJ in compliance with Congressional oversight.

Why the hoopla?

SImple: IT’S ALL ABOUT DONALD TRUMP! Bottom line is that Democrats — including their “2nd arm,” the Media — hate Trump simply because he does NOT comply with their mandate or their agenda. None understand his commitment to the American people to whom he promised to “Drain the Swamp.” The Swamp includes all of them!

The Process of DOJ “Trump Hate”

We first saw that hate immediately following the firing of James Comey and the appointment of Robert Mueller. But it evidenced its existence in a great way after the termination of Deputy A.G. Sally Yates. She was an Obama holdover who from the announcement of the election results joined the leftist plot to foil his administration.

Here’s an Op-Ed she penned July 28, 2017, explaining her angst for all things Trump: (edited for length)

“The spectacle of President Trump’s efforts to humiliate the attorney general into resigning has transfixed the country. But while we are busy staring at the wreckage of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ relationship with the man he supported for the presidency, there is something more insidious happening.

The president is attempting to dismantle the rule of law, destroy the time-honored independence of the Justice Department, and undermine the career men and women who are devoted to seeking justice day in and day out, regardless of which political party is in power.

If we are not careful, when we wake up from the Trump presidency, our justice system may be broken beyond recognition.

Over the past few days, many people from both parties have rightly expressed their dismay at how President Trump has publicly lambasted the attorney general, noting the president’s lack of loyalty to a man who has been consistently loyal to him.

Former Deputy AG Sally Yates

And while this is indeed true, it misses the larger and more dangerous consequences of the president’s actions.

President Trump claims that it is very “unfair” that Mr. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, a recusal indisputably necessary given Mr. Sessions’ role in the campaign that is now under investigation. At its core, the president’s complaint is that he doesn’t have a political ally at the Justice Department to protect him from the Russia investigation. And he is apparently trying to bully Mr. Sessions into resigning so that he can put someone in place who will.

President Trump’s actions appear aimed at destroying the fundamental independence of the Justice Department. All the while, he’s ripping the blindfold off Lady Justice and attempting to turn the department into a sword to seek vengeance against his perceived enemies and a shield to protect himself and his allies.

The Justice Department is not just another federal agency. It is charged with fulfilling our country’s promise of equal and impartial justice for all. As an agency with the authority to deprive citizens of their liberty, its investigations and prosecutions must be conducted free from any political interference or influence, and decisions must be made based solely on the facts and the law.

And the outcome of that analysis does not vary based on who occupies the White House. While some in the public may disagree with particular decisions, the Justice Department prosecutors and agents must have the independence to call it like they see it.

The strict separation between the Justice Department and the White House applies to even the most mundane of criminal investigations, and nowhere does it matter more than when the investigation reaches into the White House itself. In short, no one at the White House should have anything to do with any decisions about whom or what to investigate or prosecute. Period.”

Sally Q. Yates was a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration.
Ms. Yates’ writing eerily echoes some claims from fired FBI Director James Comey. It is personally difficult for me to reconcile the grossly erroneous claims made by Yates just as those from Comey. Their basis comes from one place common in Deep State matters: Elitism. Yates, Comey, and Democrat Party leaders falsely maintain the Department of Justice and its investigative arm — the FBI — are legally to act as an independent arm of the Federal Government. Unless the Constitution has been amended without my knowledge, these folks are absolutely incorrect. The Department of Justice/FBI are part of the Executive Branch, headed by the President of the United States.
That means that Donald Trump has total authority over the hiring and firing of every member of the DOJ: they all work “at the pleasure of the President.” The ruse that by firing James Comey and now Jeff Sessions is somehow obstruction of justice is not only untrue, It is laughable. The elitist purpose can only be to trick Americans into thinking that lie and creating further animus in the Executive Branch — specifically the Trump White House. How could firing Comey (who leaked classified information to the press) and Jeff Sessions (who numerous times has ignored legal subpoenas for Congressional appearances and multiple classified document production) be obstruction? They each brought to their firings a trail of actions that violated the responsibilities of their jobs.
But the silliest charge in all this is the instant cries from the Left for the Interim Attorney General to recuse himself from having anything to do regarding Robert Mueller, the Mueller Investigation, or anything to do with “other” investigations of the President. What basis is there for their demands? “Conflict of Interest.” What’s Whitaker’s conflict? In 2017, Whitaker as a guest commentator on CNN in a discussion about the possible firing of Robert Mueller, stated that one way Trump could terminate Mueller (other than his firing) was to fire Sessions, then have his replacement cut Mueller’s funding to operate the investigation, therefore ending it. That’s the conflict of interest they all are screaming about. They all demand that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein be allowed to continue as the person at DOJ who Mueller answers to.
Think about that: Whitaker in that interview purportedly showed conflict of interest in that statement on CNN. They demand Rosenstein stays on the case. ROSENSTEIN IS RIDDLED WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING ROBERT MUELLER!
  • Rosenstein worked previously directly for Mueller;
  • Rosenstein’s wife worked with Mueller;
  • Rosenstein (with corroboration) discussed going to a meeting with the President wearing a wire, and even discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office.

Do you think Rosenstein has a conflict of interest? Do you think that conflict should prompt Rosenstein to recuse himself? Many think he should (because of all of the above) even resign his post as Deputy Attorney General.

Summary

I have a unique suggestion: President Trump (as the defacto head of the DOJ) should relinquish the control of to whom at DOJ Mueller answers TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Congress is Constitutionally charged to oversee the DOJ anyway. It makes sense for them to temporarily assume that responsibility, and make sure everyone part of the Mueller probe complies with all laws and are accountable for compliance with subpoenas for production of documents and committee appearances.

61% of Americans polled are ready for the Mueller probe to end. About the same number now believe there was no collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump Campaign. They also believe every day the Mueller investigation is allowed to stretch its mandate, doing so is strictly for political purposes. The primary purpose: GET RID OF DONALD TRUMP!

Most Americans — even those who don’t personally like President Trump — feel he should be allowed to do the job for which he was elected.

I agree.

“Trump Wins…Trump Wins!”

Seldom do we post stories from those other than our writers. However, my college Journalism advisor, Ron White, shared an extremely stirring and timely perspective written by Gerald F. Seib for the Wall Street Journal. We are sharing it with our extensive group of partners today. Enjoy!

Battle for the GOP’s Soul? Trump Has Won

Conservatives who disdained Trump and considered many of his views heretical are increasingly drifting toward him

In an indication that conservatives are adapting to Trump policies, 74% say Republicans are better than are Democrats at handling trade, and 70% say the same about immigration.

Regardless of the outcome of the midterm election, this much already has become clear: The battle for the soul of the Republican party is over, and President Trump has won.

Now, as the second anniversary of his election approaches, both of those opposition fronts have crumbled. For Republicans, for better or for worse, it’s Mr. Trump’s more-populist party now.

At the grass roots, Republicans have united behind Mr. Trump with surprising solidarity. In this campaign season, establishment GOP candidates have accepted his help and endorsement and, in many cases, mimicked his style and themes.

The furious Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has galvanized even many Republicans dubious about Mr. Trump. They see him as a flawed but preferable alternative to a Democratic Party they dislike and fear, and appear to regard him as a useful shield against it.

Perhaps most surprising, conservatives who disdained Mr. Trump and considered his views on trade, immigration and national security to be heretical are increasingly drifting toward him. In one leading indicator, two conservative writers critical of Mr. Trump—Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin—have in recent days been attacked by other conservatives for their views.

“I do think Trump right now is winning,” says Peter Wehner, a conservative leader and former political aide in the George W. Bush White House who is a critic of the president. “He is consolidating. People are acclimating themselves to him.… The Kavanaugh hearing made it visceral.”

Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who conducts frequent focus groups with voters around the country, says he also has been observing conservatives coalescing behind Mr. Trump—and bending to his policies.

“He’s redefined what conservatism means,” says Mr. Luntz. “I’m shocked at how many now support his trade policies. They support tariffs. On immigration, they were never for a wall. But now they are for a physical separation.”

Signs of this Trump dominance and conservative acquiescence are woven throughout a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Among Republican voters overall, Mr. Trump has an 87% job approval rating. Among voters who describe themselves as conservatives, his job approval rating is virtually identical at 85%.

Eight in 10 conservatives have positive feelings toward the president; by contrast, only 42% have positive views of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, largely responsible for placing dozens of new conservative judges on the federal bench.

In an indication that conservatives are adapting to Trump policies, 74% say Republicans are better than are Democrats at handling trade, and 70% say the same about immigration.

The question is how Mr. Trump, who as a candidate was openly critical of party leaders and conservative activists, has managed to establish this grip.

It isn’t necessarily because Republicans like his demeanor. In fact, many still are offended by that style. A third of Republicans say they don’t like Mr. Trump personally but approve of most of his policies.

Part of the embrace of Mr. Trump undoubtedly comes because the economy is humming along so well; Republicans are inclined to give him credit for that, and they want to be part of the trend.

Mr. Luntz says the Kavanaugh fight in particular made Republicans who had been put off by the president’s anger and insulting style begin to embrace those characteristics. “They have bought into Trump’s claim that nothing else works,” he says.

Among conservatives, Mr. Wehner says, the move back toward Mr. Trump has come at least in part because the price of fighting him has been high. “There were people willing early on to take him on and they got smashed and hammered at the base of the party and they shut up,” he says.

The party’s embrace of Mr. Trump is risky. The president isn’t just disliked but disliked intensely by a wide swath of Americans, who may be repelled by a party so closely linked to him. Mr. Trump also is pushing the GOP away from some positions that have defined Republicanism for decades, particularly on trade and internationalism. That will sow doubts among some past party members, including some in the business community, and compel a re-examination of what it means to be a Republican.

It’s also possible, of course, that this embrace is temporary, and will evaporate if the economy goes south and the party’s fortunes suffer.

Still, Mr. Wehner notes that Mr. Trump is changing the identity of the party in ways that could have lasting effects: “What happens is, Trump is changing the core base of the party, and that will eventually filter up to officeholders.”

Tamp it Down, Mr. President!

We heard it during his campaign. We hear it everyday on pretty much every talk show, every newscast, from every commentator: “President Trump is crass, he’s arrogant, he’s haughty, he’s self-absorbed, and he needs to stop using Twitter and attacking news media!”

With the arrest of the apparent bomb-maker of those bombs sent to 13 Democrat current and former politicians and to actor Robert DeNiro, the “speech police” immediately turned up the volume on their attacks of “Trump-Speech.” Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) actually demanded that the President accept personal blame for the bombs, stating the bombs being mailed was a direct result of the President’s rhetoric.

The default thinking by many in America is that the President denigrates himself and his supporters with his constant attacks against those who oppose him. On “Fox and Friends” Saturday show, Ed Henry and Pete Hegseth actually got into an argument on air about it: Ed declared the President should “act more Presidential,” taking the tone and volume of his attacks against his opponents down a notch. Pete, on the other hand, maintained “He does it different, and that’s why voters elected him. He’s NOT traditional and he takes no personal attack without responding in kind.”

I, for one, have written numerous times and included in our podcasts that I would like for him to soften his rhetoric. I’ve stated that I do not like his messaging, but on the most part I like his messages.

Thankfully no one was killed, maimed, or injured from the mail bombs. In the aftermath of this terrorist scare, I think it’s fair for all to rethink our conversational methods and messaging regarding ALL things political. Let’s think this through together:

Messaging

  • It is easy for most people to speak directly from their emotions — positive or negative. The converse is true as well: It is hard for people to NOT react verbally directly from their emotions. Regarding political matters, the emotions seem to ratchet up almost naturally, often beyond levels tolerable to others;
  • Politics don’t create differences in people — politics exposes differences in people;
  • The political environment in the U.S. has morphed dramatically during the last decade. So has messaging methodology in the U.S. and around the world. Social Media has given everyone an easy outlet in which to share thoughts — often without restraint. Years ago on a college sports bulletin board, I labeled those that anonymously posted (no real names were required to post) who wrote nothing but non-stop attacks against that college’s sports teams as “drive-by shooters.” My doing so created quite a stir. How dare I label someone who was simply expressing their opinions? Think about this: having the ability to say anything with no restraint, no measure of truth or accuracy, and with no accountability opens Pandora’s box to unimaginable possibilities to fuel chaos. Anyone can say anything — and usually do.

What about Trump?

What about him? Everyone knows he’s from Queens, which is a pretty rough borough to live in. Folks there are known to be a little cruder than Manhattan-ers who call th Upper East Side home. It’s a very blue collar part of the Big Apple.

Trump grew up in that environment, but was a little different. His father was a fairly successful real estate developer. As real estate developers do, Trump’s father made some bad business decisions along with some pretty good ones. Trump learned his profession while watching the good and bad of the NYC real estate market by watching home runs but also the strikeouts of his father. In New York, real estate development is more prone to failure than to hitting the “big” one.

Professionally, Trump learned early how to maneuver through complicated business circles in NYC and used his upbringing as a major contributor to the way he operated in commercial real estate. That upbringing brought him abrasiveness, sometimes caustic rhetoric, and an intense commitment to entrepreneurship in one of the toughest industries in American in the toughest commercial real estate market in the U.S.

Trump has only been in politics for about 3 years. It should have come as no surprise to anyone that he brought all of that Queens “business” education with him.

Many in America  simply do not understand Mr. Trump. They dismiss all that “Queens” stuff, demanding that Trump act “presidential.” The problem is, acting presidential is what most previous presidents did — especially the last 4 of them. Doing so, Donald knew that while making many Americans feel warm and fuzzy, the only way Americans would elect him was if he continuously acted himself during the run up to the election. That meant the rough edges, crassness, boldness and lack of tact that had been his “partners” during his very successful business career would have to sit next to him flying in his personal Boeing 757 between campaign events. They’d have to be on stage with him and speak through him to his fellow Americans.

Donald Trump recognized that those Bi-Coastal, Potomac political elitists would in NO way support him. But he knew one more thing: the middle-class, fly-over Americans who had not had a president that supported them, understood their lives and their businesses, and had never pushed for things middle American voters had been crying for for years would understand him. His hope was as he spoke to them at these unconventional campaign rallies, they would see his heart, relate to his rough exterior, understand his Queens way of speaking, and would listen to what he promised he would do if elected.

They related to him…they believed his promises…they voted for him…and he won.

Why?

Why when elected did Trump NOT  move away from all the things that the media, political professionals, Hollywood darlings, and Globalists wanted to see replaced by the “traditional” personality of pretty much every other past president? After all, there’s plenty of historical evidence that shows how it works. It’s simple:

Trump knew that if he DID walk away from all those characteristics Americans saw in him, his speech delivery, his resistance to “traditional” politics and politicians and their elitism, those middle class Americans who live in fly-over country would abandon him. He desperately believed in the America of his youth, and he believed Americans deserved much more from their government than what they were receiving. He knew he must stick to who he really was. And he’s done so. That’s a big reason why his approval ratings among the public are higher than those of Obama at either of HIS two midterm election marks.

His Results

I’m certain he could change his messaging, could cancel his Twitter account, could go lighter on the press and the Hollywood elites, on mainstream politicians, and Democrats. He certainly could tamp it down. So why doesn’t he?

That answer is really simple and REALLY important. More important than the opinions of the political elitists in D.C., New York, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles are the opinions of 60+ million Americans who voted for him in 2016 because of one thing and one thing only: Donald Trump says publicly the exact things that the large majority of those voters wish they were saying. They feel exactly the same ways his tweets, interviews, and rally speeches portray his feelings! And one more thing: THEY TRUST HIM!

SUMMARY

Here’s the most important understanding of how Donald Trump is governing: his fundamental operating foundation is trust — trust from those who he works with, and his trust of all those he works with and works for. In this case, the trust he must have is that of American voters.

How can any politician gain that trust of his supporters? By fulfilling his promises — every one of them.

Trump made quite a few promises that many felt were outlandish while campaigning. Some of them indeed were outlandish, in my opinion. But in the opinions of fly-over Americans, their desperation at the hand of the 3 previous two-term presidents, and Trump’s matter-of-fact messaging struck a tone that they had never heard before. Every presidential candidate makes many promises. Few deliver after their inauguration. Voters were hopeful Trump would be different. And he has confirmed their hopes and has earned their trust by doing those exact things he promised to do.

Folks, his messaging methodology is pre-meditated and elaborately planned! Understand this: at 5:00 AM every day, newspaper writers, editors, television producers and political reporters all are awakened by their alarm clocks. They must get going, turn on the television or radio, and open their Twitter accounts. Why? THE PRESIDENT WITH HIS FIRST TWEETS SETS THE NEWS-TONE FOR EACH DAY…HE DIRECTS THAT DAY’S STORYLINE FROM HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT!

The most dangerous and deadly thing President Trump could do is change his messaging, the way he speaks to people (especially those in his base), and edits in any way the way he speaks about and to the numerous political opponents he has. 

He has in just two short years compiled MORE support amount his base and has expanded his base wider than Obama or Bush 43 were able to do. How so? HE PROVIDES RESULTS!

Prediction

November 6, 2018, is approaching. What is going to happen? Will the Republicans succeed in holding the House and Senate? Will Democrats take control of the House or maybe the Senate, too? Will Republicans add more House seats than they lose?

We’re not prone to make election predictions. But today we do: Republicans will either maintain their majority in the House or increase it, and they will expand their majority in the Senate.

I know, that’s bold. But TruthNewsNetwork is taking a page from Donald Trump’s operating manual and bucking the traditional: “the president’s party always loses House seats in his first mid-term election” — and predicting Americans who have watched all the good things that this President has accomplished in just two years will give him the things he’s asked for to enable him to complete his promises to them: a greater Senate majority and maintain House control for Republicans.

Sure, this could be a miscalculation. Sure, Dems could win control in one or both of the houses of Congress. But D.C. is a different place with different rules now. There’s a new sheriff in town. And he’s broken tradition, tried some different things, and they have worked and are working — FOR AMERICAN VOTERS.

That’s what will win: not the empty promises and untruths from the previous president.

Americans are not stupid. Americans know what empty promises sound like, especially when compared to fulfilled promises.

Keep America Great!