I’m writing this in the middle of the night after a day and one-half of fighting the fallout of the COVID-19 chaos that has now become part of all Americans’ lives.
I have a critical message to share with you today. But it will take me until 12:00 noon Central time to be able to present it. It will be ONLY in podcast audio format. Please come back at 12:00 noon Central today and plan on using your smartphone or computer to listen to a brief, information filled 1-minute podcast: no frills, no music, just frank talk.
One would think that the mega-media newspapers in the nation would have every necessary resource from which to draw to give the public educated and accurate predictions of election outcomes. And if you read or listen to them toot their own horns, you know for certain THEY know it all in this political game! But, once again, the Lamestream Media stepped on their dresses with their pre-Super Tuesday endorsements. And they missed miserably.
“It’s too early to say they missed with their endorsements!” No, it’s not: the candidates they endorsed to win have withdrawn from the contest!
Why do newspapers make endorsements at all?
I’ve always thought it’s kind of weird that newspapers endorse candidates. The rest of the time they report the news and maybe print a few opinion pieces, all the time claiming objectivity and neutrality. Then, every few years, they take up at least a full page to explain why they think you should vote for a particular person. Why does anybody do it?
Some major newspapers have ended the practice. David Haynes of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explained why his paper stopped endorsing candidates: “It really boils down to this notion of independence. We work very hard each day to provide a balance of views on our pages and on our website increasingly and mobile devices as well. And we work hard to be open-minded and approach issues that we’re going to editorialize on independently. We pull good ideas from both major schools of political thought, and we’re pragmatic. We back ideas we think will work. Ideology is really immaterial. So then, we do all that for 364 days of the year and turn around and choose sides in a bitter partisan election? I think that tends to undermine this whole idea of independence, and it really undermines this idea of being an honest broker of opinion. Again, that forum, that’s our real mission. The editorial is a part of that.”
He is on to something; distrust of the media is at an all-time high in the United States. One 2018 study found that many of those surveyed blamed bias. You can’t help but wonder if part of that is because newspapers waste their credibility by endorsing a candidate with one hand and then claiming not to be biased in their reporting with the other.
Newspaper endorsements have been a “big deal” for a long time. That has never interpreted into election success, however.
Remember Gretchen Carlson, former morning co-host of Fox and Friends on the FOX News channel? She piped in on this years ago and her words still ring true:
Maybe Readers Feel Newspapers no Longer Report the News
For the last 100 years or so the opinion and editorial sections of every major newspaper have been completely separate entities. The people who decide who to endorse report to different people than do the journalists who write the news. The journalists often don’t know who is getting endorsed until you do.
However, despite those who adamantly justify endorsements by their papers (on which many of those explainers write opinions and endorsements), many people still fail to grasp this fact. The mass belief by the public of this misunderstanding is why USA Today doesn’t endorse anybody — at least they did not UNTIL 2016 when they endorsed Hillary Clinton. Maybe that endorsement was just of “whoever ran against Donald Trump.”
Rather than speculate at the reasoning for newspaper endorsements, I find it easier to simply analyze those who are the pundits who MAKE these endorsements. Most often they are editors, columnists from the paper, and sometimes even publishers who weigh-in. Americans are not so vapid to the political persuasions of those who opine their politics through editorial endorsements — and ALL endorsements are editorial, opinion-based declarations.
Case in point: The Shreveport TIMES is owned by Gannett — a newspaper mega-conglomerate. Shreveport nestled in the pines of northwest Louisiana is a largely conservative community. Louisiana has for a longtime been a red state — especially the northern parts of the state. One would think that the newspaper of a city and sector of a Southern state that bleeds bright red would make an endorsement based on what the paper knows is the choice of the majority of its subscribers. I do not remember a state or national election in the last decade in which The Shreveport TIMES endorsed a Republican. By the way, not a single editor in the paper is from this area and all in their other writings lean left.
I for decades have tried to understand the reasoning for doing so. Maybe Gannett doesn’t care about the leanings of a majority in the Shreveport market. Or maybe they don’t know the leanings in the market! One would think it would be certain suicide for a newspaper to do such over and over with no concern for the newspaper’s subscribers’ opinions regarding any endorsement.
Maybe that’s why the paid circulation of the paper has reportedly dwindled to 50% of its former self. Of course, they maintain it’s because of online instant news access.
Do you want a look at the newspaper endorsements for 2020 presidential candidates before Super Tuesday?
Did you notice the New York Times endorsements? They endorsed two candidates, which has never been done before. Those two, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, certainly knew that endorsement was probably the kiss of death.
But it’s not just the Big Apple paper. Look at those from other major markets that jumped out picking winners and losers: The Charlotte Post and Boston Herald endorsed Michael Bloomberg. The Boston Globe endorsed hometown Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Klobuchar wiped up on endorsements. In addition to the co-endorsement from the New York Times with Elizabeth Warren, She knocked home runs with the nod from the Las Vegas Sun, Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, and Seattle Times. Mayor Pete racked up the endorsements of El Paso Times and Orlando Sentinel.
It may have been because of his extreme socialistic views, but Bernie Sanders received an endorsement from just one large newspaper, The San Francisco Bay Guardian.
None of these endorsements made a difference — at least not in the Super Tuesday primaries.
So why do you think voters ditched the ideas and choices of the nation’s leading newspapers and voted for the only real moderate in the field while spurning the nomination of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist? I can certainly answer that question, and I will. But, understand, what I’m about to say is pure speculation. Granted I have significant data to prove it. But of late, data and evidence in America don’t seem to be very valuable.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out to you that in the 2016 election, of the top 25 polling news sources, only one — just one — correctly predicted Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election. And it was NOT a bastion of big time news organizations. It does not have correspondents covering the international major cities or even U.S. major cities. In fact, it’s not even a newspaper. It’s a university journalism department: that of University of Southern California — the only one who predicted a Trump 2016 victory.
Here’s the problem that newspapers today face regarding whether or not to make endorsements for presidential candidates. Even though most editorial page editors insist an endorsement is NOT a recommendation for readers to vote for that candidate, most readers don’t believe that. Most of those readers feel that’s exactly what the paper is doing! If that’s not the purpose, what could their purpose be?
In my humble opinion, there’s only one other option: newspaper editors are a dying breed — leftovers from a news era in which newspapers really did reflect the senses of those in their respective communities. There was no internet, no social media, no news but theirs and that from the three television broadcast networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC.
I remember a day not too long ago when every morning, my Jack Russell couldn’t wait for me to open the front door and run to the street with me to fetch our daily newspaper. That was less than a decade ago. By the same time each day that my dog and I formerly made the paper trek, today I’ve already read the morning news from about 20 different online news sources, including that from the three local network television stations and our local news radio station, all online. And I can say I have NO clue who our newspaper endorsed in our November governor’s race nor the mayoral race either. I really don’t care. I’m not one who has ever put much stock in the opinions of editors. I’ve always felt my opinion was just about as valid as theirs. But I had one thing they never had and never will: my perspective.
After the Super Tuesday endorsement gaffes made by so many newspapers around the nation, I wonder if they’ll back out of the endorsement game for November? Surely they’ve learned they’re going to be wrong at least half the time and hack-off the readers they still have half the time by endorsing. Why not just let their readers (who all have high-speed internet and social media accounts) make their voting decisions based on the facts their paper publishes regarding each candidate in each important race?
They can’t do that. After all, Americans are generally too lazy to find out on their own who the best candidates are for specific offices. That’s why we have CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Whoopi Goldberg. We need somebody — ANYBODY — to tell us what to think!
You can have stark differences with the President. That’s easy for many to do. But one thing that cannot be said about him is that he runs from a fight. No one in my life in any White House has worked so diligently to expose the corruption among Washington elites. Yes, they exist. Yes, there is a Deep State. Yes, Their justice under federal law is different from mine. If you want to argue that point, pull up a chair. There are far too many specific examples for me to share with you than you think exist. We’re going to be here a while.
Americans believe that the two-tiered justice system has existed for a long time. But no one has been able to nail it down. Or maybe we haven’t seen proof of it because no one WANTED to nail it down. (The latter is probably correct) Want some recent examples?
Attorney General Eric Holder. When Obama took office, the DOJ had already launched a very public investigation into the racial election intimidation by two Black Panthers in a wealthy, mostly white suburb of Philadelphia. The two on election day stood in front of the door to the polling precinct in full militant garb. Voters were petrified. The Bush DOJ ramped up that investigation. Holder, on orders from the NEW president, terminated the case. Was it racial? You be the judge. But it certainly was an example of two-tiered justice.
FBI Director James Comey. The fact that he lied several times while under oath is uncontroverted. Additionally, he leaked classified information purposely to a “friend” for the express purpose of leaking it to the press. His doing that was a felony. Comey was severely chastised in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report for numerous offenses while in office. He committed federal crimes — no charges made, no investigation, no charges pending.
Hillary Clinton. She transmitted for several years classified emails to and from numerous government officials using an illegal personal server that had not been registered with the State Department, had not been examined by State Department IT officials, and was not certified for use regarding classified information. Each instance of an email being sent or received on that server was a felonious action.
Barack Obama. That Clinton email server? Obama, during his presidency, corresponded using a secret Gmail email name. He frequently sent to and received from Ms. Clinton classified emails — dozens if not hundreds. Again, each such transmission broke a federal felony statute.
Andrew McCabe. The former FBI #2 was outed in the Horowitz investigation for lying to investigators. Horowitz referred McCabe for prosecution. A grand jury looked at the charges and investigated. Nothing happened for several years, and subsequently, the case was dropped.
John Brennan. Brennan, as CIA Director, lied while under oath in his Senate testimony. When asked by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), if the CIA had ever electronically surveilled members of the Senate, he answered they had not. It was later proven the CIA did just that and did it with not only Brennan’s knowledge but at his direction.
We could keep going throwing out names of past members of the government, several members of Congress, and numerous individuals that worked for the government but not in appointed positions. That list is exhaustive. There’s no need for us to do that. We all now know — especially after three years of the Mueller Investigation replete with constant lies and misrepresentations — members of the federal government, for the most part, get different and very partial treatment regarding being held accountable for illegal actions on their part.
This once again became front and center with the craziness of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he with a bullhorn spoke to a crazed crowd in anger regarding a case the Court heard at that exact moment. The case was regarding a Louisiana law that requires all doctors who conduct abortions in the state have Admitting Status with a hospital close to the abortion clinic being used. The law’s purpose is to mandate immediate medical help for anyone that requires emergency treatment as a result of the abortion.
Schumer using the bullhorn threatened Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they chose to support that law. If you didn’t see or hear those few words of his threat, here it is again:
The current Senate Minority leader threatened the two Justices — an unprecedented act committed by the Number two U.S. Senator.
Thursday, on the floor of the Senate, all expected an apology from Schumer. He did NOT apologize. He gave “reasons” for his saying so — “excuses.” One could easily reconcile that Schumer was caught-up in a heated political demonstration about the most polarizing political policy in American history — abortion –, but that would be disingenuous. By federal statute, he broke the law in making those threats.
We at TruthNewsNetwork decided to turn to a professional — a lawyer AND a sitting member in the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA). He had some very enlightening things to say about not only Sen. Schumer’s actions, but the current state of “Equal Justice Under the Law” in the U.S. Click on the link below to hear Congressman Mike Johnson answer my questions:
Congressman Johnson more than just agrees our justice system is in danger. He also agrees that we have problems that are evident, serious, and need to be addressed. He lives in the mess we call “The Swamp” and knows first-hand how the elitest tags given to certain people who are part of the Swamp allow them to live and abide by different rules than other Americans.
All the wrongdoing listed above by those political insiders will NEVER be prosecuted!
Just imagine if you were James Comey, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe or even Chuck Schumer and you did just one of the many things those were guilty of. If you did, you’d spend a long time in jail! This is not the way this nation was founded. In fact, our leaders through decades have let the sharp edges of Justice carve out specific guidelines called “Laws” by which we are governed and by which we live. They prayed our nation would never slip into the merry-go-round of partisanship in which we find ourselves today.
Thankfully, it has been exposed. That is the beginning of getting this issue resolved.
Remember this: it did not happen quickly — it will not be repaired quickly. Patience is not much of a virtue for many of us. But our opinions on timing are immaterial. It is OUR responsibility to remind our government members of their commitments to the Rule of Law. And if they continue to perpetuate that second tier of justice, we need to at the ballot box remove them from their power seat and replace them with those who will honor their oaths of office and complete the restoration of our nation to a Justice for All America!
Roadblocks, losses, rejection, failures, being not good enough: all these are things that most of us can relate to. It is rare when someone — ANYone — can say honestly, “I’ve not experienced any of those.”
Going through these things are normal occurrences. And each contains unique elements that do no impact everyone the same way. That makes it almost impossible to create a perfect how-to manual with accurate instructions one can use to solve the problem. Because of that, many just throw-in-the-towel.
Thankfully there has always been a sense of “anyone can do anything if they try hard enough” spirit in the U.S. That encourages many to dust themselves off after failures and go after the same objective again or go tackle a new one.
Have you known anyone that seems bullet-proof? No matter what they face that doesn’t work out, they just move on to a different way of doing it, or they just move on to something else.
Have you ever faced one or two of these circumstances? How did you handle losing or not being good enough or rejected? Did you give up or stop trying?
Today just might be a magical few minutes that change your life and maybe even many others through you. What follows is a video that is timed perfectly for this topic and today especially.
LSU faces Clemson tonight in the College Football National Championship. These are without question the best two college football teams in the nation. That means each roster is bloated with phenomenal athletes. Each has a quarterback that most experts feel are not just the best two college quarterbacks this season, but maybe the best two QB’s to play at the same time in college history.
I’m an LSU fan: a Louisiana “lifer.” I’m excited that the Tigers — “our” Tigers — are facing Clemson’s Tigers for the trophy. More than the chance to win that championship, I am ecstatic that for the last two years I have personally witnessed one of the most amazing responses to adversity ever seen in college athletics. Take a few minutes and watch this video then let’s get back together for two minutes.
Joe when not allowed to play at Ohio State knew he had failed. He kept trying. He worked hard to be the best at quarterback. He never quit.
After things like this happen to most of us and we choose to give up, we quit. But worse, most of us want to place blame for our failure.
“Your wedding didn’t work out and you divorced your husband.” Our response to that: “Yeah…But….”
“You were fired at your job.” Our response: “Yeah…But…”
It’s the “Yeah…But…” that destroys millions of lives yearly. How? Just look at Joe Burrow.
He was benched again and again at his dream college, Ohio State. He kept working. He kept getting better. He never gave up. He never quit. His friends and teammates taunted him and maybe his position opponents talked down to him. He almost certainly heard this: “Hey, man. You aren’t good enough. You got permanently benched. You’ll never play quarterback.”
Joe could have said, “Yeah…But…” and rattled off a list of excuses. He didn’t do that. He simply found a way to push through. He transferred to LSU and began a college football historical run that is probably long from over.
If Joe had listened to and accepted what the Ohio State coaches said and did to him, he’d be somewhere working today, probably in the private sector. Instead, Joe Burrow leads LSU tonight into the college championship game. And in a couple of months, he’ll undoubtedly be the first college quarterback taken in the NFL draft — maybe even the #1 player drafted — and begin what portends to be a dramatically successful NFL career.
Joe never said “Yeah…But…” When anyone said any of those things to him, he probably just looked at them and smiled.
Which President’s U.S. economy is/was better: Obama’s or Trump’s?
If you’re not careful with your answer to that question, it could get you into a fight. There is little question that today’s U.S. economy is better than it was. But there are so many variables that factor into the “definition of a good economy,” there is no absolutely correct answer.
Of course, if you do a Google search on the internet for “Is Trump’s economy better than Obama’s?” You’ll see two pages of stories that poo any such claims. Most all of them include this or a similar disclaimer: “Today’s economic numbers cannot be claimed as Trump’s. Remember that Obama took over a sluggish economy in the middle of a serious economic downturn. Obama began economic policies that started economic reforms throughout the nation that are still in place and responsible for this economy today.”
Every one of those stories is from Leftist media sources or media organizations that are outwardly anti-Trump. Don’t forget that most economists who are “reputable” (or claim to be) are professors, other educators, or are part of think tanks that are almost totally tied to liberal universities and/or organizations.
Like Robert Reich: economist in several presidential administrations including a long stint as Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. In the national uproar about Trump’s tax cuts and how they positively impacted the lives of most Americans, Mr. Reich weighed in:
But almost in total, hard facts and results prove Mr. Reich to be dead wrong. He drew all his statistics he calls “facts” from that U.S. Government “never-been-wrong” Congressional group titled “The Congressional Research Service,” who said this: 1. The tax cuts were a total bust. They did not spur economic growth with little or no growth in their first year; 2. They didn’t raise wages; 3. They didn’t cause corporations to bring offshore profits back to the U.S.; 4. Corporate profits did not increase as projected so there were no significant increased corporate tax payment increases; 5. Corporations did NOT take excess profits to give raises to any workers other than supervisors and above. You saw and heard that from Mr. Reich. The only way to put it is He’s wrong! Let’s quickly respond to his five “facts.”
Just the “news” of the tax cuts spurred hundreds of billions of new dollars flooding the U.S. marketplace. Corporations with no government prodding paid massive employee bonuses, announced new hiring, pay raises, corporate domestic expansions and factory additions. GDP climbed steadily. However, pundits knowing GDP does not sit in a vacuum used that fact to confuse average Americans. “The U.S. Economy” does not exist in a vacuum either and is a measure of broad economic improvements — which the nation has unquestionably seen and that are growing every month. Government revenue has grown steadily since Trump’s election, as much as $500 billion annually in spite of reduced taxes to Americans and corporations!
Raises HAVE gone up and not just for managers. Working-class Americans are benefiting in such a way that their salaries are increasing faster than those of their bosses, under the booming economy of President Donald Trump. The salaries of these workers registered increases of 4.5% between November 2018 and November 2019, while the salaries of the 25% of the highest salaried workers increased by 2.9%, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Corporations have brought massive amounts of corporate profits back to the U.S. How much? According to Bloomberg News — not a conservative news outlet and certainly not supporters of Donald Trump — $1 trillion dollars at the end of 2019!
Corporations have not had higher profits so there were no significant corporate tax payments. Wanna hear the truth?
“Corporate profits in the United States rose by $11.2 billion, or 0.6 percent, to $1.869 trillion in the third quarter of 2019, following a 3.7 percent increase in the previous period. Undistributed profits advanced by $18.4 billion, or 3.6 percent to $529.1 billion and net cash flow with inventory valuation adjustment, the internal funds available to corporations for investment climbed by $40 billion, or 1.7 percent to $2.4442 trillion. Corporate Profits in the United States averaged $494.46 Billion from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all-time high of $1.8748 trillion in the third quarter of 2018 and a record low of $14.67 billion in the first quarter of 1951.”
Corporations went far and above any expectations of bonuses primarily for workers, pay increases, increased corporate payments to IRA, 401k and other investment accounts. And these fly in the face of folks like Mr. Reich and his claims. There are far too many to enumerate here. So you can click the link below to see a .pdf of 900 such actions taken by companies that have already totaled hundreds of billions of dollars to American workers.
There are plenty of naysayers just like Reich out there who scream as loudly as possible that the economy is bad, for no other reason than to try to prevent the President from having a victory. How sad is that?
But that brings us to a really important question:
Is Our Economy Really Good?
There are six facts that tell you how the U.S. economy is doing. Economists call them “leading economic indicators” because they measure the early influencers on growth. In October 2019, they report that the economy is faltering slightly. It has slightly slower growth, low unemployment, and inflation is below target. But it’s still almost a “Goldilocks economy” because it’s neither too hot nor too cold.
I. 266,000 Jobs Added In November 2019: Strong
II. Stock Market Is Setting New Records: Healthy
III. In Third Quarter 2019, GDP Growth Was 2.1% = Good
IV. Durable Goods Orders Fell 1.1% in September 2019 = Low
V. Core Inflation Was 2.4%: At Target
VI. When Interest Rates Remain Stable = Healthy
Remember those screaming from the mountaintops even before President Trump was elected that the stock market would crash with a Trump election? There were those that even warned of a massive worldwide financial panic that would destroy the economies of our partners in Europe, Southeast Asia, and even that of China! It’s odd that none of these have shown back up on talk shows or written columns in which they apologize for being wrong. In fact, several have even doubled-down.
Charles Payne — an economics specialist on FOX Business — said this the other day: “It has been uncanny to watch and listen to economic pundits continue their dire projections of pending financial doom for the U.S. The problem is, most in their lifetimes have not seen any sustained growth in the U.S. economy akin to what they see today. Why haven’t they seen it before? Because it hasn’t happened in their lifetimes!”
In spite of all the whining, all the financial nuclear devastation warnings, and the continued predictions of the “imminent crash of the Stock Market,” our economy continues to grow at healthy rates. And it’s not just happening in the Stock Market: inflation is low, unemployment at record lows, more people employed than ever before, every worker in each employment sector is seeing their unemployment drop to record levels, incomes are climbing, corporate profits and subsequent tax payments are soaring. Financial pundits are gnashing their teeth at all this, actually praying for the U.S. economy to fail!
HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher admitted that he hopes the American economy will crash so that President Donald Trump will be voted out of office! Think about the hatred that must be in Mr. Maher’s heart. That anyone could actually wish the entire U.S. economy would fail, result in a recession, solely for the purpose of seeing this president — ANY president — voted out of office is unfathomable to most Americans. Think of the financial devastation for tens of millions of Americans that would result from such a recession. But that’s just how much they hate Donald Trump.
Will this economy remain this strong? What’s ahead for the U.S. financially? Is there a looming recession?
The answer to each of those questions is simple: “I don’t know.” And, further, “No One Knows!”
Fortunately, this economy is not soaring as it is just by accident. This president as a very successful businessman saw long before entering politics the structural changes that were needed to spur our economy back to steady growth. And either through legislation (his tax corporate and personal cuts), executive action (termination of stifling regulations), or just the confidence Americans have in a president that actually fulfills the campaign promises he made rather than just ignoring them, Mr. Trump has us headed in the right direction.
And if his opposition is prevented from destroying all the processes he put in place that resulted in these improvements, we’re headed to another great year.
That’s the reason why they want him gone! He’s messing with their candy jar!
Wow! There’s a bunch of news flooding us 24/7. How can we possibly pick the top headlines from the week to give you a brief and concise but thorough snapshot of the week? But we’ll give it our best shot. Remember: first we give you a quick synopsis followed with a hyperlink to the full story of each. This way you can choose that you want to go deeper into without wasting team trying to pick through the ones that are what you want to examine.
Enjoy your weekend!
For FOX news fans, Judge Andrew Napolitano has been a frequent contributor regarding all things legal. On several occasions, I have differed dramatically with his conclusions. I know, I’m not an attorney and don’t have any legal background and he is and does. That being said, I have often found with attorneys in my business life an often stiff resolve regarding certain issues that sometimes are not accurate. I’m not saying the Judge is in such a spot, but I differ greatly with his conclusions that are the subject of the story below. The title to the story tells the entire story: “Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior.” Click on this link for the full story:https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/03/biden-warren-super-tuesday-2020-023355
Facebook was just handed a massive blow from a European court. A European Union court ruled that content on all IT platforms could be regulated by this court on internet sites worldwide labeled by the court as “defamatory content.” You will remember that Facebook has recently come under fire by even the U.S. Congress for their policies regarding their right to determine whether or not U.S. content is ruled unacceptable — not be any published policies but by Facebook editors alone. Click on this link for the full story:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/10/03/facebook-suffers-legal-blow-in-eu-court-over-hate-speech/
Right behind that Pence story comes another. This one is directly from the mouth of the Vice President. Although he did not reference the story above about his staffers having issues with their White House counterparts, the VP made it clear he is in locked-step with the President. Click on this link for the full story:https://apnews.com/feb0ec66b1e747069f05ecdc92647d59
Presidential candidate Biden gives no signs of quitting in the midst of his personal and professional allegations of intense Ukraine corruption that embroils him and his son Hunter. He’s actually taken out a “Super Tuesday” insurance policy of sorts. He’s really thinking ahead: March of 2020! Click on this link for the full story:https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/03/biden-warren-super-tuesday-2020-023355
President Trump’s now-infamous phone call with the President of Ukraine prompted the “supposed” final action necessary for Democrats to launch their “formal” impeachment inquiry. Why? Because the President, they say, asked the Ukrainian President to restart his government’s investigation into Joe Biden and apparent corruption involving his son and a company involving large amounts of money from a Russian oligarch. Now, it’s Trump’s Biden talk with China. Click on this link for the full story: https://apnews.com/c4fc388b22f549e0a67925cab8cd7e93
The latest in the Batman series — The Joker — opened Thursday night. It is literally a psychotic thriller. And with its release, some folks have gone absolutely bonkers online, actually making threats of violence around the country in coordination with the movie’s release. Obviously, many moviegoers are scared to death which has prompted the FBI to take a look. Click on this link for the full story: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/iphone-user-sues-apple-after-20392402
Speaking of movies, the FBI gets pointed out in the upcoming movie about Richard Jewell. Remember him? It’s about the drama surrounding the bomb-plant at the Atlanta Olympics. During that scare, a security guard who “found a bomb” implicated Richard Jewell. The FBI famously swept in and grabbed Richard Jewell who was implicated as the bomb maker and who planted it. But it was discovered long after a massive and nasty FBI investigation that the reporting security guard actually planted the bomb himself. The movie titled “Richard Jewell” is set to appear in theaters in early December. It is supposedly a blockbuster presented by Clint Eastwood. To get full details and see the trailer, click on this link for the full story: https://www.thewrap.com/clint-eastwood-richard-jewell-trailer-jon-hamm-fbi-media/
It seems that the majority of the time we concentrate on controversial political stories. And that’s true. But we try to find stories from other than American politics that are critical to all of us. Yes, sometimes it seems there aren’t any others nearly as important as those detailing the political state of our country. But, believe it or not, there are other important issues for us to consider. Saturday is the time and TruthNewsNet.org is the place to get a breakfast mix of it all.
It’s quiet in D.C.: not just because members of Congress are home on vacation or campaigning. It’s quiet because other Democrats are in their bunkers mapping out battle plans.
No, I’m not speaking of Democrats that are running for president. I’m speaking of Democrat “worker-bees” who are deep into preparations for impeachment. Yes, Donald Trump’s impeachment is front-and-center again for the Democrat Party. They’re not just talking about those plans: yet. When will they go public with their latest Trump conspiracy allegations? Not until the time is perfect and the political landscape is ripe.
Make no mistake: one of the greatest political success stories in Washington D.C. is how united and on-message members of the Democrat Party have become. They may have varying opinions in politics while campaigning. But when it’s time to draw swords and wade into battle with Republicans, no one in political history has ever been so accomplished as is this Democrat Party. Not only are they (on the most part) young and energetic, they always stick together — especially once a common foe is identified. Enter Donald Trump — their foe.
Before we detail the angst Democrats hold against Mr. Trump, let’s talk about Democrat leadership.
Democrat Party Bosses
In this battle to get rid of Donald Trump, House and Senate Democrat leaders are the obvious ones to lead the charge to battle. But have you noticed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have pretty much disappeared? These two are always in any Democrat/G.O.P. war on point at least in front of television cameras detailing the unified Democrat attack plan. Neither has showed-up anywhere of late. What’s that all about?
We’ll probably know that answer very shortly. Both the House and Senate have been on staggered summer vacations and will be back in session soon. You can bet the Trump attack will escalate to deafening levels.
Meanwhile, the communications arm of the Democrat Party — the Media — are in full swing in their unified Trump attacks. Have you heard the latest? Trump is mentally deranged and a mental danger to us all!
CNN and MSNBC hosts have gone crazy themselves the last two days pointing out numerous examples of Trump’s “losing it.” But their memories are short or they think ours’ is. Just a little over a year ago the same media pundits spent many hours drawing examples of proof of Trump’s mental issues then. I guess his intelligence and mental prowess quickly jumped for a bit. But, he’s lost it again!
They hate him. Why? Their plans for the White House were dependent on the blonde from New York living there. When Hillary Clinton fell short in her bid for the presidency, the party fell short of finding the missing critical elements necessary for their liberal government takeover attempt. Hillary just screwed things up.
But what made their failure even more damning was the HRC loss to the orange-hair mogul from Queens. His beat-down of the odds-on favorite Hillary Clinton left not just egg on her face, it lit the fires of hatred that are driving Democrats to a frenzied pace to put whatever elements are necessary to drive Trump back to real estate in New York.
First they put Comey and Company on the task of framing Trump et al for Russian election collusion. There was no evidence there. Then it was obstruction of justice. Nope, he’s clean. Then the fall-back was racism — something they knew they did not have to prove was real. Painting the perception of racism of the President and members of his campaign would be sufficient to drive him from office. That didn’t work either.
What’s next? The “Trump” card (pun intended) is the big “I” word: Impeachment.
Wait: it was proven there was no election tampering and no obstruction of justice by Trump or members of his campaign. On what basis is there any provable actions by Mr. Trump that rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” what is necessary to successfully impeach a president? None come to mind. But having solid and real actions by Mr. Trump that rise to that threshold is NOT necessary. Democrats are in luck!
It dawned on some bigshot Democrat that no actual evidence of presidential wrongdoing is necessary for impeachment. It’s the old “symbolism over substance” concept. No smoking gun or formal testimony riddled with holes and/or innuendo is necessary. All that is necessary is “reasonably believable” evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach a president. And even though no such evidence has appeared, you can bet they have something more than just “in mind,” they have it ready to roll into witness subpoenas.
Gerald Nadler (D-NY)
I should apologize here. I caste Rep. Nadler some time ago as nothing more than just a Congressional professional or, in Southern terms, an “empty suit.” After all, he never practiced law after passing the Bar. He’s been nothing in his professional career but a politician. There are two strikes against Nadler: 1 is as a lawyer. Secondly is law school. I’m certain Nadler has financial backing to send him to great colleges from which he was put in the perfect spot for a political career. And that’s exactly what happened to him.
Nadler revels in his chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. It probably (in this political environment at least) is the most powerful House committee. It’s where any impeachment action must be initiated. And Nadler has made it abundantly clear for over a year that President Trump’s illegal actions that cry for Congressional impeachment are well documented. In his words, “They’re in plain sight.” But try as they have, no one in the media or fellow Congressional member can get from Nadler exactly what things that evidence justifying impeachment includes.
Trump impeachment is now something that two-thirds of Americans do not think is warranted. Democrats should do a bit of historical research on this one. Republicans by most accounts lost their bid to upset Clinton in 2002 because they so aggressively pushed through impeachment proceedings against Clinton when Americans in large were against it. Americans have long memories when it comes to politics.
Word leaked yesterday that it is apparent that Nadler’s committee had already begun preliminary impeachment research even before the Mueller Report was completed and released. This apparently happened even though Nadler on numerous occasions claimed that nothing regarding impeachment has been initiated.
Pelosi and Schumer have both publicly stated they favor “at this point” not impeaching President Trump. However, both made it clear that “if” findings indicate there are grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the Constitution, they would emphatically support impeachment.
Wait a minute? 2.5 years, $30 million taxpayer dollars, thousands of subpoenas, millions of pages of evidence, hundreds of sworn testimony, and no evidence of Trump wrongdoing and they still “have evidence” of Trump’s impeachable actions? If they do, Trump needs to face the music as should all guilty of government wrongdoing. But if Nadler’s wish it for truth in the matter, and if as he says there is absolute evidence of impeachable offenses, why hasn’t that evidence been brought forward to substantiate impeachment proceedings and a trial in the Senate? The only reason for that is there must be no evidence that supports impeachment!
Let’s be frank: doesn’t Congress have a plethora of legislative issues that should be handled instead of chasing another impeachment rabbit for two years? I can think of a few: immigration law, federal law enforcement, illegal drug epidemic, government spending, foreign trade, corruption in government, etc. Why should we expect Congress to act on any of this? Simple: because that’s what elected members of Congress are elected to do!
Let me remind you of this: I predicted some time ago on this website that President Trump will be the subject of impeachment proceedings in the House. And the House possibly can harvest enough votes to get an impeachment finding sent to the Senate to hold an impeachment trial. I doubt if that happens there will be any impeachment success. But that really is not critical to Democrats. All they care about is holding questions of Trump wrongdoing up in the air to get them to the 2020 elections. Maybe then enough Americans will have that question about Trump in their minds to entice them to vote for a Democrat presidential candidate. Remember: they desperately feel the sense of urgency to hold the House, retake the Senate, and, of course, the White House.
Many on the Right are tempted to write Democrats off as being in chaos. Don’t get caught-up in that reasoning. In my lifetime no political party has ever been as adept as these Democrats at unifying around a common foe, getting on the same page from which to campaign, and their unification of vitriol for a president. Democrats are really good at messaging — much better than Republicans. And if they stay their course, they may upset Trump in 2020.
But here’s the catch: they have no good options to put before Americans! The closest they can come in a palatable Democrat they can run to beat Trump is Vice President Biden. And he’s a lost cause.
Face it: the 2020 White House bid is as of now pretty much a sure thing for Trump, “if” he doesn’t do anything really stupid or nothing serious from his past shows up. And even then, there may be enough Americans who have watched the amazingly wonderful accomplishments made by this White House.
I never thought we in America would ever be discussing the dismantling of our country. Some of us have feared it as being something that might happen — “eventually” — but not in our lifetimes! I think the “eventually” may be upon us.
As quickly as a shooting star, the oppressiveness of totalitarianism that for a century has been secluded to “those countries far away” is creeping today into our political system. There have been warning signs for a good while, but almost all Americans while seeing them, brush them off as being impossible. Impossible is what they should be — but they’re not. Let’s take a look.
A group of U.S. Senators sent a warning to the Supreme Court telling the Court that it better change the way it operates — or else. The following was reported about the alert to SCOTUS today: “The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it is ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”
As shocking as this notice was, it’s not unexpected. Think about it: we have been living in an atmosphere for some time in which politicians have been giving us signs that inexorably point to not just their desires, but to their intentions to push the U.S., not just further to the left, but to the far left.
This control spirit existed in the shadows for several decades. Fortunately, champions of freedom like Ronald Reagan kicked the consuming monster of mass control out of sight long enough for a generation of Americans to bask in the light of real freedoms across the board, for a decade or more. But since, steadily and stealthily it has slipped back into everyday U.S. life.
And then Barack Obama promised in 2008 that he would famously lead “the fundamental change of the United States.” And he made good on his promise.
His first term was somewhat limited without control of the entire Congress for a couple of years. But when Democrats gained control, the “transformation” that he promised took off. It was obvious what his fundamental change was planned to look like:
To fundamentally transform America from a society where the majority of people live by the sweat of their brows to one where the majority live off the labors of a shrinking productive class.
To fundamentally transform America from one where the American dream is a job, home, and family to one where the dream is food stamps, welfare, Obama-phones, and government dependency.
To fundamentally transform America from a society that strives, however imperfectly, for color-blind equality to one where race matters in everything from enforcement of voter protection laws to college admissions, to hiring, to school grades and discipline.
To fundamentally transform America from a nation that is a beacon for freedom and democracy to one that leads from behind in the world.
To fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in entrepreneurial efforts and free markets to a controlled economy where central planners make economic decisions for you.
To fundamentally transform America from a country that rewards success and hard work to one where those who disagree still believe they are entitled to a “fair share” of what those who do have earned.
To fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in rugged individualism to a caricature of a European socialist dependency, where citizens all belong to interest groups ever demanding more largess from the government.
To fundamentally transform America from a country where our grandkids have a brighter future to one where they will live in poverty and destitution under the yoke of unpayable debts to fund ever-larger vote-buying schemes from leftist interest groups.
To fundamentally transform America from a land of plenty to one where the poor cannot drive, heat their homes, or feed their families as they are crushed by energy costs to please environmental interest groups and green crony contributors — like the “Green New Deal” hopers.
To fundamentally transform America from a society that strives to eliminate class to one of four classes: wealthy elite liberals, government union bureaucrats, the growing dependent poor, and the shrinking pool of working, productive folk employed in the private sector who are expected to support the other three classes.
To fundamentally transform America from a society that believes in and defends our culture and values to one where multiculturalism declares equal respect and value for cultures that hang gay people, mutilate the genitals of young girls, stone women for adultery, execute “witches,” murder apostates, prohibit education of girls, riot violently against free speech if someone offends them, and murder female relatives over trivial affronts to the family’s “honor.”
To fundamentally transform America from one where there exists a balance of power between the states and the federal government, and between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, to one in which an all-powerful elitist class rules everything with virtually unlimited power.
Let’s don’t forget this one: To fundamentally transform America from one that believed in a life to one where babies are routinely aborted because of their gender or disabilities or just for inconvenience.
We’ve seen it happen for years. The insistence and embedded practice of ignoring laws at the federal level. Folks, drug possession and recreational use have been illegal — criminal law violations — for years. Yet during the Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal law enforcement to ignore “minor” drug offenses and its offenders. Illegals continue their journeys to our southern border and their numbers are now in the millions. Yet, it is a federal crime for one — anyone — to cross into the United States without having expressed permission. Yet for decades, federal authorities have — at least in part — turned blind eyes on many of these illegals who do so. And the list of allowed lawlessness goes on and on.
What is the reasoning of federal authorities for doing this? After all, the United States is a “nation of laws.” I could play you videos of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, numerous Senate and House leaders through all of these administrations make speeches confirming the importance and the necessity of the “rule of law.” Yet it’s almost as if they think Americans don’t look-in on how our government acts. Certainly, many Americans don’t pay attention and many don’t care. Maybe it’s because they’re out there working, trying to make good livings for their families. And in doing so, they pay taxes — billions in taxes — that our leaders in Washington who supposedly represent all those Americans find ways to spend not just the taxes we pay, but borrow more and more to spend on additional “necessary” programs. All this while trillions are flushed at the hands of purveyors of special interests that have nothing to do with the support of the American people.
For me, these Democrat Senators have drawn a line in the sand. In effect by doing so they have for political purposes told the U.S. Supreme Court, “You either get your stuff together, start ruling on these controversial cases that come before you in ways that WE think you should, or we’re going to take you to the woodshed.”
The atmosphere to set up a top-down, bureaucratic, control authority in D.C. to run the nation without the people having any say-so is on the edge of town. And they want it. And they want it desperately.
They’ve been hard at work while good Americans slept doing their busy work as Americans have always done. But these Swamp Rats really don’t care. They smell it, they hunger for it, and their objective is to get power: no matter what it takes.
This is our wakeup call. We need to be vigilant and make ourselves heard. None of us want to be the frog on the stove in a pot of cool water that has the burner turned up very slowly. That frog gets lulled to sleep never thinking he’s in any danger — until it’s too late.
When the water comes to a boil, it’s all over. And in America, these folks have started turning the burner up a little higher every day.
There is so much rancor and ugliness being thrown about it seems everywhere in the U.S. Let’s take a little time to just have a laugh or two together. Laughter really IS good medicine.
We’ll get back to business this week — and there’s PLENTY of business to get back to! Enjoy.
An Old Golfer
An older golfer was chipping his ball from near a water hazard and his club fell into the water.
When he cried out, the Lord appeared and asked, “Why are you crying?”
The golfer replied that his club had fallen into water, and he needed the club to win the tournament to supplement his meager pension.
The Lord went down into the water and reappeared with a golden club.
“Is this your club?” the Lord asked. The golfer replied, “No.
The Lord again went down and came up with a silver club. “Is this your
club?” the Lord asked. Again, the golfer replied, “No.”
The Lord went down again and came up with an iron club. “Is this your
club?” the Lord asked. The golfer replied, “Yes.”
The Lord was pleased with the golfer’s honesty and gave him all three
clubs to keep, and the golfer went home happy.
Sometime later the golfer was walking with his wife along the water hazard, and she fell into the river. When he cried out, the Lord again
appeared and asked him, “Why are you crying?”
“Oh Lord, my woman has fallen into the water!”
The Lord went down into the water and came up with Kate Upton. “Is
this your woman?” the Lord asked.
“Yes,” cried the golfer. The Lord was furious. “You lied! That is an untruth!”
The golfer replied, “Oh, forgive me Lord. It is a misunderstanding. You see, if I had said ‘no’ to Kate Upton, You would have come up with
Jennifer Anniston. Then if I said ‘no’ to her, you would have come up with my woman. Had I then said ‘yes,’ you would have given me all three. And Lord, I am an old man not able to take care of all three women in a way that they deserve, that’s why I said yes to Kate Upton.”
And God was pleased.
The moral of this story is: If a golfer ever tells a lie, it is for a good and honorable reason, and only out of consideration for others!
The King and the Meteorologist
The king wanted to go fishing, and he asked the royal weather forecaster the forecast for the next few hours. The palace meteorologist assured him that there was no chance of rain.
So the king and the queen went fishing. On the way he met a man with a fishing pole riding on a donkey, and he asked the man if the fish were biting. The fisherman said, “Your Majesty, you should return to the palace! In just a short time I expect a huge rain storm.”
The king replied: “I hold the palace meteorologist in high regard. He is an educated and experienced professional. Besides, I pay him very high wages. He gave me a very different forecast. I trust him.”
So the king continued on his way. However, in a short time a torrential rain fell from the sky. The King and Queen were totally soaked.
Furious, the king returned to the palace and gave the order to fire the meteorologist. Then he summoned the fisherman and offered him the prestigious position of royal forecaster.
The fisherman said, “Your Majesty, I do not know anything about forecasting. I obtain my information from my donkey. If I see my donkey’s ears drooping, it means with certainty that it will rain.” So the king hired the donkey.
And thus began the practice of hiring dumb asses to work in influential positions of government. The practice is unbroken to this date.
As it seems almost certain that the House of Representatives will attempt to impeach Donald Trump, it’s worth a look back at the last impeachment of a president that took place during the lives of many of us. However, many today were not alive in 1999 when Bill Clinton’s impeachment took place. It is worth a look back today to examine the similarities and the differences between Clinton’s impeachment and details surrounding it as compared to the impending impeachment of President Trump. Let’s walk down Memory Lane together and reminisce for the late 1990s.
The Clinton Impeachment
In the highly charged partisan politics of the 1990s, President Bill Clinton’s personal indiscretions led to the second impeachment trial in our history. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating Clinton’s pre-presidential financial dealings but could prove no wrongdoing. In a separate case, Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. In her effort to demonstrate that Clinton was a harasser, Jones called a young former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky to testify. Lewinsky had told a friend that she had been having a relationship with the President.
In the Jones case, Lewinsky at first denied a relationship with the president. In his deposition, Clinton denied under oath any involvement with Lewinsky. This denial caught Starr’s attention; Starr suspected the president had committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Jones trial. Starr assembled a grand jury, issued dozens of subpoenas, and eventually offered Lewinsky immunity in return for her testimony. She finally admitted that she had lied — she and Clinton had had sexual encounters. When Clinton testified for Starr’s grand jury, he gave evasive answers. However, that same night, he admitted the Lewinsky affair to the American people, apologizing to his family.
Starr submitted his report to the House Judiciary Committee, saying that he had proof of eleven impeachable offenses. The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment, both regarding his relationship with Lewinsky. House prosecutors said that Clinton deserved to be convicted and removed from office because he had committed perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones investigation. Lying under oath is clearly a crime.
The president’s own lawyers said his behavior was “morally reprehensible,” but not impeachable. They explained that the accusations against the president did not “meet the constitutional standard to remove the president from office.” Whatever wrongs the president had committed were wrongs against his family, not matters of public concern because they did not threaten the national interests that the president is sworn to uphold.
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr’s referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President’s defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
The 1990s was a time of viciously partisan politics in the United States. According to a U.S. News & World Report article published in December 1998, “The House that voted to impeach President Clinton is more deeply divided than at any time since Reconstruction.” Some people believe that Clinton was impeached for political reasons, not for constitutional reasons.
There are many people — including many Constitutional experts — that question the substance of the original impeachment statute. Rather than pontificate on personal opinions, let’s take an objective look.
What is the Basis For Impeachment?
Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for “mal-practice and neglect of duty” as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested “maladministration,” but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President’s independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which the Convention accepted.
Because “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.
The word “impeachment” is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity.
It’s important to note that the U.S. President is NOT the only person in the federal government who can be impeached. Impeachment can occur for any person in the judiciary or executive branch of government. I know that is mentioned above but is important to mention again. I’ve seen numerous social media posts encouraging the impeachment of members of Congress and even state governors. In each of those cases, the voters who elected them into their positions have recall power to use to remove them. That process varies from state to state but is governed by law.
Trump’s Acts of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”
Now we know what impeachment is all about, how it works, and what is necessary to initiate the act. To impeach this president (or ANY president) their acts of “high crimes and misdemeanors” must be established. Let’s look at what a few of the President’s such acts have been that are driving the cries for his impeachment:
Former Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Mueller report outlined evidence of impeachable offenses by President Trump. “Oh, I think there are grounds for impeachment. I said, if you look at the second part of the report, there’s no question that obstruction of justice does exist in the findings that Bob Mueller reported, and in painstaking detail. And that in and of itself would be the basis for impeachment,” Holder said. “I think the House needs to gather evidence, we need to hear from Bob Mueller. They need to get the entirety of the report, and then make a reasoned decision,” Holder said.
David Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Psychology & Cognitive Sciences at Rice University said, “Trump has done a lot of things that are even more disgusting than anything Clinton did, but at least in the sexual realm not while president as far as we know. He has helped further divide the country and has issued policy statements based on fear, hatred and a kind of racism. He’s a horrible human being, and by my lights has been a terrible president. Using the Republican standards for impeachment he probably qualifies. But if we apply the narrower and I think correct standards I’m far less sure.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), who has been one of Trump’s fiercest critics, redoubled his criticism of the president, saying the Mueller report depicted presidential conduct that was as bad as or worse than Watergate, the scandal that forced the resignation of President Nixon.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York declared that there was “plenty of evidence of obstruction” that lawmakers would need to weigh. “Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable,” Nadler said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment proceedings originate.
Author David Swanson uses the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution as the justification for the Trump impeachment: “Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states: ‘The President … shall not receive … any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.’ This means that the President cannot receive personal financial gains from the United States government or from the governments of any of the 50 states while he is president. This restriction is absolute and cannot be waived by Congress. Trump is already in violation of it and will be more so with every law, rule, regulation, enforcement, or lack thereof that his subordinates, Congress, or any agency of the federal government enact to the benefit of Trump’s businesses and possessions. For example, Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Building violates an explicit clause in the General Services Administration lease contract which states: ‘No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.’ The GSA’s failure to enforce that contract is an unconstitutional benefit to Trump.”
The problem with Swanson’s explanation is that if the Emoluments Clause was used as the basis for impeachment, any and all who are appointed to positions in the judiciary and/or the executive branches of government could never have professionally engaged in any type of business enterprise or personal financial interaction at all before being elected President or appointed by the President. Obviously, that would be an impossible task to enter into or oversee. President Trump famously turned over ALL Trump business enterprises and operations to his two sons Eric and Don Jr. to exclusively handle without his involvement at all. Short of liquidating dozens and dozens of companies and historical financial interactions this President and many previous judges at all federal judicial levels and members of pretty much every presidential cabinet would have been disqualified under the strictest interpretations of the Emoluments Clause.
We could list politico after politico who all are on the “Impeachment Bandwagon.” Do you know what’s missing in all of their impeachment charges against President Trump? Specific facts showing “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Constitutionally those must be present and provable to successfully exercise impeachment that would result in removal from office.
Impact of Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump
Most Democrat Party leaders are extremely hesitant to go down the “Impeachment Road.” Doing so by the Republicans in 1999 cost them dearly in the next midterm election. Bill Clinton’s approval rating among Americans during impeachment proceedings was as high as it ever had been during his presidency. Why? The economy in America was soaring! Sound a bit familiar?
Make no mistake about it: the Democrat Party is — on the impeachment issue — severely divided. Those in the “establishment” wing of the Party understand the dangers of going through an impeachment. Certainly, there are not enough Republican senators that will vote against the President to secure a conviction even if the House passes an impeachment motion. Those Democrats are convinced their House majority would be obliterated in 2020 just as happened to the GOP after the Clinton impeachment.
On the other hand, the young Turks in the House are hell-bent on impeachment. They as a unified and militant arm of the Democrat Party have made it clear they demand impeachment proceedings immediately. They primarily represent Millennials, which is a group of voters that Democrat Party leadership are desperate to keep happy. Without their support of Party policies and legislation, it would be tough to reach their legislative objectives.
Democrats are in a “catch-22” dilemma.
There’s one more thing we need to mention before we finish today. Let’s imagine for a minute:
The assumption is for Mueller to call and execute that very unusual press conference at the Department of Justice in which he did little more than repeating the details of his already released Mueller report, one would think he did so for a specific purpose. Many are certain that his reason was to send a message to Congress that says, “Hey guys, I’m done. We couldn’t prove sufficient wrongdoing to guarantee a successful action against President Trump, but we want to make certain you understand we think YOU (Congress) should take the ball we gave you to use to impeach him.” But I’m not so certain that’s the case.
Consider this: Let’s assume for a moment that Mueller really DOES NOT think or want the President impeached. By leaving his report with no solid conclusions shared for or against his removal from office, his dog whistle shoutout to Congress says, ” Sick ’em, Boys!” What if he purposely is goading members of Congress led by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Chair of the House Judiciary Committee to impeach the president all the while KNOWING THAT THEIR DOING SO WILL MOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN A SIMILAR ELECTION OUTCOME AS DID AFTER THE FAILED CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL!
Wouldn’t that be a sneaky way to assist the President in a dramatic re-election in 2020, “IF” really wants President Trump to win?