Monday, October 28, 2019

The Booing Smirking Class

Out here in the Real World, the Smirking Class booing the President is just one more reminder that Trump is not one of them. He’s one of us. And that, my friends, is why we elected him.



Last night during the World Series, while their team was getting beaten like a redheaded stepchild, the DC Smirking Class began booing President Trump — who was in attendance with Melania.

Naturally, the ResistanceLOL, the DC Swamp-denizens and the media bubble-dwellers are orgasmic over it.

Take that, Trump!  The city that voted 96% against you and hates your guts is booing you on national television on the same day you announced the successful operation to take out al-Baghdadi!  That’ll show those gap-tooth nobodies in flyover country!

Oh, yes.  It does show us — quite a bit, actually.

It shows us that the people who profit off of our taxes and who are still trying to undo the 2016 election really are hateful, awful people.

And, hey.  We already knew that.


Ann Coulter called it in 2016 when she said it is the Working Class against the Smirking Class.

And we know what side did the booing last night.

These nitwits seem to think we give two craps about what the Smirking Class thinks of our President.

Can they possibly be that out of touch?

Why, yes!  They can!


Booing the President on the same day we learned that Baghdadi was taken out isn’t the own these idiots think it is.

Sure the over-eager ResistanceLOL, desperate for Trump Hate Revenge Porn as they are, will cheer this level of disrespect the same way they cheer the hateful news media, the hateful Hollywood celebrities, and the rest of the hateful Smirking Class.

But out here in the Real World, the Smirking Class booing the President is just one more reminder that Trump is not one of them.

He’s one of us.

And that, my friends, is why we elected him.


I don’t know if that observation is true or not.  But the end result is certainly the case.
The Lobbyists, political operatives and denizens of the DC Smirking Class booing our President is going to piss us off.

Sure, it may give them a temporary happy.  But it will only galvanize us.

Booing Trump is one more reminder of just how little respect they have, not just for him, but for the working class people who elected him.


Yes, President Trump is very unpopular with the Smirking Class.  However will he survive?

Were these morons in a coma in 2016?

Do they not realize their visceral hatred for Donald Trump was one of the reasons voters tossed aside the other sixteen Republican candidates and nominated the guy?

Have they forgotten how the Greek chorus of “We cannot permit this man to be President” editorials from entrenched, career government “officials” rolled off of us like rain on a slicker?

These same entrenched, entitled hacks booing the President we already knew they hated isn’t going to be the win that they think it is.


Watching these jerks revel in their hatred isn’t going to peel one single voter away from President Trump.  Though, it might just the push any fence-sitters need to vote for Trump in 2020 — if for no other reason than to deliver a “screw you” to the hateful, booing Smirking Class.

Especially coming as it did on the heels of the garbage media spending the day crapping all over the news that we got Baghdadi.

I’d also like to thank the news media who will play and replay all that booing thinking it will hurt the President. Thanks to you many more folks in the Working Class will get to see just how ugly and disrespectful the Smirking Class really is.

So go ahead and keep on booing, you imbecilic, out of touch fools.

It doesn’t make us hate President Trump.

You, on the other hand…



How Michael Flynn Was Set-Up

It was a minor oversight, more than likely due to the former national security advisor’s lack of recall. Nevertheless, in the phony outrage generated by the since-discredited Russian collusion hysteria, Flynn was forced to resign and admit to a process crime to spare his family from a long, crippling trial.



General Michael Flynn was indicted based on a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on December 29, 2016, seven weeks after the presidential election.

That was the day lame-duck President Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats—including gardeners and chauffeurs—for election interference.

After the measures were announced, members of the Obama Administration listened in on Flynn’s conversation with the ambassador via wiretap.

They expected Flynn to say: “President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office.”

There is nothing wrong with the incoming national security advisor telling an ambassador that the new administration will have a different approach to foreign policy than its predecessor. That is what typically happens in a transition.

Here, though, the accommodation would have been cited to suggest a quid pro quo proving the nonexistent collusion.

The statement would have been improperly leaked and the New York Timesheadline would have been something like, “Trump Secretly Agrees to Lift Sanctions in Exchange for Putin’s Election Interference.”

Given the political considerations prevailing at the time, it is unlikely that Trump’s presidency would have survived the hit. The CIA, the FBI, and their friends in the media would have worked together to ensure maximum damage.

But Flynn was noncommittal about future administration policy. Drat!

The conspirators did have transcripts of what he said in that and other conversations with the ambassador. This is where the tin-pot dictator behavior of former FBI Director James Comey is fully displayed.

The FBI invited Flynn to be interviewed, supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election. If you’re Flynn, you say, “Sure, I want to tell you 100 different ways that there was no collusion and when do you want to meet.”

What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the election. It would be a test pitting his memory against the transcripts.

Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in his conversations with the ambassador—he had the transcripts. The only reason to ask Flynn was to cross him up.

Last week, Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed a brief citing evidence that Comey said “screw it” to longstanding FBI protocols that would have prevented the interview.

The brief points out, “Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates candidly opined that the interview ‘was problematic’ and ‘it was not always clear what the FBI was doing to investigate Flynn.’”

In support of the statement, “They knew what they were doing was wrong,” the brief quotes one of the texts Lisa Page sent to her lover and fellow FBI employee Peter Strzok leading up to the interview: “I can feel my heart beating harder. I am so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.”

The brief catalogs “planning and rehearsing tactics calculated to keep Mr. Flynn ‘relaxed’ and ‘unguarded’ so as to not alert him to the significance of the conversation.”

While answering questions in an interview he thought was inconsequential, Flynn did not have a strong recollection of his conversations with the ambassador.

In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the Trump Administration would be dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to be about the election.

He certainly did not think the FBI would compare transcripts of his conversations to his answers. That would be unlawful.

His lack of complete recall notwithstanding, the agents determined that he had told the truth. They prepared a summary of the interview—a form 302—after concluding that he had answered honestly.

In early February, it was disclosed that Flynn had told Trump’s transition team that he never discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador. The illegally unmasked transcripts, however, indicated that the subject had come up at one point.

It was a minor oversight, more than likely due to Flynn’s lack of recall. Nevertheless, in the phony outrage generated by the since-discredited Russian collusion hysteria, Flynn was forced to resign.

The FBI now had Flynn “lying” to Trump’s transition team. The problem was his 302 indicated he had not lied in his interview. Incredibly, the FBI then amended its 302 to suggest, yes, he lied to us, too.

As Powell points out, “The agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not.” The words “FLYNN stated he did not” were added to the document.

FBI shenanigans such as these led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. He threatened to indict Flynn for numerous crimes, including the failure to register as a foreign agent over some work he did involving Turkey.

Facing certain financial destruction and a criminal proceeding that would have harmed his family, Flynn punted. He copped to a minor crime—lying to the FBI—to avoid a crucible.

A judge recently threw out the case involving Flynn’s business partner in the Turkey matter, ostensibly resolving in his favor the crime that was fabricated to obtain his guilty plea.

Powell is now seeking to have Flynn’s case dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. She wrote in her brief:
In this case, high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president’s National Security Advisor not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity—they already had tapes of the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn—but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.
Also last week, U.S. Attorney John Durham opened a criminal investigation into whether the whole Russian collusion canard that forced Flynn to sit down for an interview was itself a fabrication.

The walls are closing in on the conspirators.

What do you call a system of government that cannot tolerate a transition of power without corrupt criminal prosecutions by those unwilling to cede control?

“Banana republic” is a term that comes to mind.

Four-Star Twit Tweets Twaddle

If Mussolini shares a style with anyone, consider Barry McCaffrey.



It seems that the former Clinton Administration cabinet member, Barry McCaffrey, who had a so-so record as drug czar, is annoyed with the actions of President Trump.

In a much-discussed 39-word tweet, McCaffrey, a retired and highly decorated U.S. Army general, has managed to confabulate the president’s cancellation of government subscriptions of hard-copy editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post with the totality of the actions of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

How McCaffrey—not previously noted for his publication of finely tuned and deeply researched geopolitical theses—can somehow equate the two is hyperbolic and, frankly, preposterous.

McCaffrey attempts to compare a successful billionaire capitalist who—as the elected chief executive of the United States—cancels newspaper subscriptions, to the legacy of Benito Mussolini, the failed-school-teacher-turned-progenitor of the filosofia fascista, and 20-year dictator noted for his indiscriminate use of force. Thus McCaffrey’s equation is not only a non-sequitur, it is a non-starter.

The irony of all this is that Barry McCaffrey is the same man who, as commander of the Army’s 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), obliterated the Iraqi Hammurabi Division, allegedly two days after the Iraqis were defeated and heading for home.

In fact, the McCaffrey who now declares the cancellation of newspaper subscriptions on par with Italian fascism, who was reviled for his indiscriminate use of poison gas on Ethiopian troops, is the same man who, when asked by Newsweek about his own apparently indiscriminate use of force in Iraq, replied:
We didn’t go up there looking for a fair fight with these people. The new American way of war is to pulverize the enemy with overwhelming force at the cost of the fewest possible casualties.
Not exactly the kind of milquetoast persona who now is conjuring-up Mussolini by way of newspaper cancellations.

If Mussolini shares a style with anyone, consider McCaffrey. It was Barry McCaffrey who, while he was spending $25 million of taxpayer money on overt anti-drug commercials, also was financing apparently not-so-overt, if not downright secret, payments to TV producers for embedded anti-drug messages in programs such as “ER,” “Beverly Hills 90210,” “Chicago Hope,” “The Drew Carey Show,” “7th Heaven” and “Smart Guy.”

Not that anyone would ever consider that Barry McCaffrey would even remotely condone the Mussolini-style shadowy manipulation of the film industry as the covert arm of government propaganda. After all, had it not been for Mussolini, famous directors such as Federico Fellini, Luchino Visconti, and Roberto Rossellini never would have gotten started.

And then there is the same Barry McCaffrey who got clobbered by . . . the New York Times for multiple conflicts of interest in being a retired general officer, a television pundit, and a defense contractor all at the same time.

Oddly, his contemporaneous comments about the Gray Lady in a letter to then-U.S. Representative Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) sound exactly like those of the current president:
“The recent New York Times attack . . . was badly sourced and a disservice to objective journalism.” He went on, “Too bad the great newspaper which I have read faithfully since I was a 17 year old cadet at West Point has developed a reflexive bias against the U.S. Armed Forces.”
Given the intensity of McCaffrey’s stark comments, one might suppose that the good general might have been perturbed enough with the New York Timesto revise his faithful reading to his fateful cancellation. 

Our Bankrupt Nomenklatura


Take all the signature brand names that the Baby Boomers inherited from prior generations—Harvard, Yale, the New York Times, NPR, CNN, the Oscars, the NFL, the NBA, the FBI, the CIA, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, and a host of others. And then ask whether they enhanced or diminished such inheritances?

Donald Trump is now in the midst of another coup frenzy that has the Left accusing him of being crazy. But he already took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test. It was a simple cognitive exam and he aced it, as would most people. The Left, remember, had called in a Yale psychiatrist to testify that Trump was demented, during the lulls between the first impeachment, the serial “Russian collusion” hoaxes, the emoluments clause psychodrama and Robert Mueller’s “walls-are-closing-in,” “turning-point,” and “bombshell” investigation.

Perhaps the wrong public figures took the test.

At times, former Vice President Joe Biden is unaware of which town, indeed which state, he is in. He slurs his words often. Biden strings together unconnected thoughts that result in utter incoherence—not alleviated by his near shouting emphatics or fits of pique at reporters.

Sometimes, Biden forgets names, and referents, and appears befuddled generally. His biography is mythical. He cannot address Ukraine and the role of his son, Hunter Biden, because, after all, what would a truthful person say? That the vice president of the United States allowed his wastrel son to become a multimillionaire by leveraging his father’s office with foreign corrupt governments? And was Biden’s moral lapse atypical, or rather reflective of prior ethical laxities that destroyed his two earlier presidential bids when he variously lied about his bio, plagiarized, and used a variety of racially insensitive remarks of the sort that would have characterized most others as racists.

Shouldn’t Hillary Clinton also take the MoCa Test? At times she seems completely delusional—or is she a bit unhinged?

In one of the strangest paradoxes in American history, Clinton apparently does not accept or cannot remember that she hired Christopher Steele, a foreign national, through the use of three deceptive firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS—in order to smear candidate Trump from bought Russian sources. She also simply will not admit that other campaign aides in 2016 were working to get dirt on Trump as well from disgruntled Ukrainians.

While fleeing from this reality, she had concocted a fantasy that Donald Trump won the Electoral College not because her hare-brained campaign team sent her southward to win a “mandate” by flipping unflippable red-states Georgia and Arizona, while neglecting a supposedly secure blue wall in the north.

Now she apparently believes an erstwhile, post-election ally, third-candidate leftist Jill Stein, was a Russian “asset” used by Moscow to draw votes from her candidacy, while current Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard likewise is in the de facto service of the Russians. Who knew that outsiders Trump, Stein, and Gabbard were all Russian moles variously working against Hillary’s interests?

And all this from Hillary Clinton, who inaugurated the 2009 disastrous Russian appeasement scheme known as “reset” by pushing a red plastic Jacuzzi button in Geneva, and who was instrumental in green-lighting North American uranium sales to Russian interests, which interests through third parties had donated to her foundation and indirectly paid Russians to interfere in the 2016 election to destroy her opponent?

Mitt Romney often was seen as the pinnacle of silk-stocking Republican sobriety and judiciousness. He was a gentleman who did not stoop to reply in kind to the smears leveled at him by the Obama team in the 2012 campaign—from putting dogs on his car roof, to being a youthful hazer, to an elevator-owning elite, to the husband of an equestrienne, to wishing to poison the air and starve the poor.

Romney used to like reality-television star and businessman Donald Trump, at least in the sense of making occasional trips to Trump Tower to enlist his endorsements. No doubt he thought he was legitimizing the outsider Trump by allowing the latter to endorse him. But after the implosion of the once impressive 2016 Republican primary field, Romney assumed the mantle of senior establishment Trump foe. If he played by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules with Barack Obama, he certainly did not with Donald Trump, blasting him frequently as a fraud, con, dishonest, a bully, and greedy—clueless that instead Trump served as some sort of sharp planer that ripped off the thin, shiny mahogany veneer pasted over our particle-board establishment.

Romney seems to have entered Hillary/Biden fantasyland by admitting to being a “lurker” on social media—one who adopts an anonymous and secret Twitter account (in Romney’s case under the nom de guerre “Pierre Delecto”), to channel and encourage nice stories about himself, and to attack vicariously those who do not share his views or self-admiration.

In other words, Romney, of all people, has now entered the unhinged territory of former Obama EPA director Lisa Jackson, who created a fictional royal persona “Richard Windsor” to communicate with green activists and others, without leaving an official EPA footprint. (Why do our government officials favor these foreign-sounding pseudonyms—or do we remember former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s handle “Carlos Danger”?)

These people should not be considered by any stretch of the imagination our “establishment” at least if there any positive sense left in the world. Yet they are typical, not aberrant of a habit of equating appearances, credentials, and demeanor of not necessarily talented people as proof of excellence and deserved authority. Where you live, what school branded you, what title, past and present, you can parlay, whom you know, and whom you married somehow have ended up far more important than what you actually have done. They remind one of played out “senators” from the last generations of the Roman Empire.


Eminent Scoundrels

The curious fact about the moral meltdowns and exposés of the sharks Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein was not that their respective sexual assaults were at all surprising in such polluted and target-rich waters.

The surprising development was that both were ever outed, given that their felonious behavior went on for years under the noses of the elite whom they enriched, befriended, leveraged and compromised—a fact often the object of jest among our celebrity social activists. Their downfall apparently was not due just to their own well-known sexual coercions and perversions, but mostly from becoming too ostentatious, too public, and too haughty about both.

That narcissism drew attention and put their elite compromisers and compromised in an untenable position of aiding and abetting molesters and assaulters. And so, when both became more liabilities than assets, then the elite was “shocked” about what had gone under their noses. Both Weinstein and Epstein were nefariously cynical. They grasped that the power, the money, the influence and the fun that these two parlayed far outweighed the ethical considerations of their friendly circles. 

The top echelons of our intelligence agencies largely have been similarly discredited. Before Trump, both John Brennan and James Clapper, respectively CIA director and director of national intelligence, lied under oath to Congress—and paid nothing for doing so. Or rather their past prevarications became good CV items for the new fake news industry. From them, we respectively once learned that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely secular and that jihad was a mostly a non-violent expression of personal growth and discovery. In their world, drones never hit bystanders, the intelligence agencies never spy on Americans, and the two of them never lied under oath. Both leveraged their past service and security clearances into lucrative cable TV analyst contracts—and often editorialized about ongoing investigations in which they were either knee-deep or of which they later became targets.

The strange thing about James Comey was not his serial leaking to the press, his deception of a FISA court, his effort to subvert the Trump candidacy by peddling a false dossier and using informants, or even warping the Clinton email investigation. Rather, the rub was that Comey was not aberrant, but rather the apt expression of the Washington, D.C. culture of the FBI, at least as epitomized by his conniving and often deceitful associates such as James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok, who did not worry much about ruining the lives of others.

Page and Strozk apparently post facto classified Comey’s presidential memos as merely confidential to preclude their ex-leaker-boss’s felonious exposure. And the two seemed to have texted about reworking the 302 interview memos of the Michael Flynn ambush, again post facto, to ensure he seemed guilty of lying. Anywhere there was a major FBI scandal of the last three years, Peter Strzok was to be found—the Comey-McCabe go-to fixer when there was rigging to do.

Perhaps once a Clapper, McCabe, or Strzok begins to spill his proverbial guts to preclude a felony charge, the entire structure may come crumbling down—and spark Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to hit the accelerator to use the impeachment hysteria as the last firewall between the complete collapse of the corrupt Obama elite intelligence hierarchy.


Celebrity Nothings

The National Basketball Association is going the way of Hollywood, as its hip, cool, woke athletes turn out to be lions as they so often trash their own culture of freedom, and mice when they squeak homilies about their Chinese paymasters.

We are learning that sports and film are industries of outspoken, moralistic scolds who as opportunists rail at supposed unwoke Americans as they do the bidding of fascistic Chinese authoritarians. Harvey Weinstein thrived in Hollywood for so long because he did on the sexual level what the Chinese did on a financial one—bet that almost every star, producer, and director would abdicate moral responsibility in return for power or money or both, and as Medieval penance, then virtue signal about the trivial to square the selling of the soul in matters fundamental.

Adam Schiff is a Harvard Law School graduate and, as he reminds us, for a time a federal attorney. But once he powered his way onto the national stage, it is hard to find any statement of his that has proved to be true. Were he not in Congress, but again a regional federal attorney he long ago would have been fired for unprofessionalism and perhaps illegal behavior as well.

For nearly two years, he winked and nodded to the country that he had seen damning classified information, which, of course, being upright Schiff, he could not disclose but would shortly lead to a Trump impeachment, removal, resignation—as he sped the process along with periodic leaks to pet journalists. When Schiff felt the presidential Ukrainian call transcript was too nondescript, he simply made his own up version, before redefining it as a parody when people noticed.

He has now created an impeachment hysteria on the basis of second- and third-hand gossip, bundled together by a former intelligence officer, Trump opponent, and Biden associate, who under the guise of a “whistleblower” first met Schiff’s staff to translate his rumors into legalese before notifying the inspector general—a process about which Schiff flat out lied.  

Schiff’s notion of an impeachment inquiry is to forbid transparency, to hector hostile witnesses in closed session and to publicly praise obsequious ones, and then to step out to cameras, furrow his brow, bite his lip, and lecture that he had never seen such “incriminating” disclosures the substance of which he, unfortunately, cannot disclose, as he leaks distortions to the leftwing media. Schiff’s Star Chamber seems merely a desperate last stand to derail ongoing audits of Obama-era officials by damaging Trump to such a degree that he has no authority to ensure the continuation of Justice Department and inspector general investigations.


Cattle Brands

What explains the bankruptcy of the elite?
We have confused credentials with merit—as we learned when Hollywood stars and rich people tried to bribe and buy their mostly lackadaisical children into named schools, eager for the cattle brand BAs and without a care whether their offspring would be well educated. 

Graduating from today’s Yale or Harvard law school is not necessarily a sign of achievement, much less legal expertise. Mostly, entrance into heralded schools is a reminder of past good prep school grades and test scores winning admittance—or using some sort of old-boy, networking, athletic, or affirmative action pull.

Being a “senior” official at some alphabet government agency also means little any more outside of the nomenklatura. Academia, the media, and entertainment industries are likewise supposedly meritocratic without being based on demonstrable worth. Otherwise, why would college graduates know so little, the media so often report fantasies as truth, and Hollywood focus on poor remakes? Take all the signature brand names that the Baby Boomers inherited from prior generations—Harvard, Yale, the New York Times, NPR, CNN, the Oscars, the NFL, the NBA, the FBI, the CIA, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, and a host of others. And then ask whether they enhanced or diminished such inheritances?

A country over $22 trillion in debt, with an open border, an existential conflict with China, and a West in cultural and demographic decline, for two years was told falsely that Donald Trump supposedly knew of a meeting in advance at Trump Tower, that James Comey would supposedly testify that he never told Trump he was not under investigation, and that Trump would soon be indicted, resign, or impeached. The amount of elite energy spent replaying the embarrassing progressive 2016 loss and trying to abort the Trump presidency before the 2020 election, remember, was the product of our best and brightest, the top echelon of our law enforcement and intelligence communities, and our most esteemed political and media elite.

To paraphrase an assessment found in Tacitus’s Agricola, the current American nomenklatura has all but ruined our institutions and branded all that success.

This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution



It’s nakedly political and procedurally defective, and so far there’s no public evidence of high crimes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense. Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.

The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker. Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.
The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 vote. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret. Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation. 

Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context. Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.

House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they hate Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by voting on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process. 

The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further. If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.

The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited. 

Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a presidential “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.

Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power. One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter was unlawful “interference with an election.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). Election-related offenses involve specific actions such as voting by aliens, fraudulent voting, buying votes and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.

Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns. 

Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery. Federal bribery statutes require proof of a corrupt intent in the form of a quid pro quo—defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1999), as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” There was no quid pro quo in the call. Mr. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure, and the purported quid (military aid to Ukraine) was not contingent on the alleged quo (opening an investigation), because the former materialized within weeks, while the latter—not “something of value” in any case—never did.

More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities. 

Thomas Jefferson impounded funds appropriated for gunboat purchases, Dwight Eisenhower impounded funds for antiballistic-missile production, John F. Kennedy impounded money for the B-70 bomber, and Richard Nixon impounded billions for highways and urban programs. Congress attempted to curtail this power with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case. 

Presidents often delay or refuse foreign aid as diplomatic leverage, even when Congress has authorized the funds. Disbursing foreign aid—and withholding it—has historically been one of the president’s most potent foreign-policy tools, and Congress cannot impair it. Lyndon B. Johnson used the promise of financial aid to strong-arm the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea to send troops to Vietnam. The General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) concluded that this constituted “quid pro quo assistance.” In 2013, Barack Obama, in a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, said he would slash hundreds of millions of dollars in military and economic assistance until Cairo cooperated with U.S. counterterrorism goals. The Obama administration also withheld millions in foreign aid and imposed visa restrictions on African countries, including Uganda and Nigeria, that failed to protect gay rights. 

Further, there is credible evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election at the request of senior Obama administration officials. The Justice Department is investigating this as part of its broader inquiry—now a criminal investigation—into efforts to target the Trump campaign in 2016 and beyond. It is certainly legitimate for the president to ask Ukraine to cooperate.

In addition, the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” implies broad discretion to investigate and prosecute crimes, even if they involve his political rivals. Investigating Americans or Ukrainians who might have violated domestic or foreign law—and seeking the assistance of other nations with such probes, pursuant to mutual legal-assistance treaties—cannot form a legitimate basis for impeachment of a president.

It’s legally irrelevant that a criminal investigation may be politically beneficial to the president. Virtually all exercises of constitutional discretion by a president affect his political interests. It would be absurd to suggest that a president’s pursuit of arms-control agreements, trade deals or climate treaties are impeachable offenses because they benefit the president or his party in an upcoming election. 

Using a private party such as Rudy Giuliani to carry out diplomatic missions is neither a crime nor an abuse of power. While the State Department’s mandarins have always lamented intrusions on their bureaucratic turf, numerous U.S. presidents have tapped people to conduct foreign-policy initiatives whose job—whether in the government or private sectors—did not include foreign-policy experience or responsibility. George Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate the “Jay Treaty” with Britain. Woodrow Wilson used American journalist Lincoln Steffens and Swedish Communist Karl Kilbom as special envoys to negotiate diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. A close Wilson friend, Edward House, held no office but effectively served as chief U.S. negotiator at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I.

Nor is it illegal or abusive to give a diplomatic assignment to a government official whose formal institutional responsibilities do not include foreign affairs, such as the energy secretary. JFK relied on Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to negotiate with Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis.

Although the impeachment inquiry has been conducted in secret, what we know suggests it has become a free-ranging exploration of Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy substance and process, with the committees summoning numerous State Department witnesses. Congress could properly undertake such an inquiry using its oversight authority, but by claiming that it is proceeding with an impeachment inquiry, it has forfeited this option.

If the House impeaches Mr. Trump because it disapproves of a lawful exercise of his presidential authority, it will in effect have accused him of maladministration. The Framers rejected that amorphous concept because it would have allowed impeachment for mere political disagreements, rendering the president a ward of Congress and destroying the executive’s status as an independent, coequal branch of government. If the House impeaches on such grounds and the Senate concludes it has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial, it should focus first and foremost not on the details of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy, but on the legal question of whether the conduct alleged is an impeachable offense.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835: “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.” What House Democrats are doing is not only unfair to Mr. Trump and a threat to all his successors. It is an attempt to overrule the constitutional process for selecting the president and thus subvert American democracy itself. For the sake of the Constitution, it must be decisively rejected. If Mr. Trump’s policies are unpopular or offensive, the remedy is up to the people, not Congress.

Rot in Hell, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi



Even as he killed himself, ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took three last innocent lives — slaughtering three children with his suicide vest late Saturday night after being cornered by US special forces.

May he rot in hell.

A rapist and author of countless atrocities, al-Baghdadi had taken refuge in a part of Syria controlled by al Qaeda, from which he’d broken years ago when he founded his so-called Islamic State.

This is a big win for America and the civilized world — a decisive blow to the once-potent extremist group that has now been routed all across the swaths of Iraq and Syria that it once controlled.

It’s also a victory for President Trump, who took office vowing to crush ISIS — and has.
Al-Baghdadi “died like a dog, he died like a coward,” Trump said Sunday morning. US forces had had him under surveillance for weeks before the president gave the go-ahead for a mission to capture or kill.

The president thanked the governments of Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq, as well as Kurdish forces, for their assistance, which apparently helped the op go off like a charm, with no American lives lost, but multiple ISIS ones.

The raid also captured considerable information that should help run down scattered remnants and assets of the terrorist group across Syria and Iraq.

Something calling itself the Islamic State may survive, as has al Qaeda. To prevent any ISIS revival, Washington will need to keep Iran-aligned extremists from again radicalizing the region’s Sunnis, as Tehran’s pawns did after President Barack Obama pulled the last US forces out of Iraq.

Indeed, to check Iran and protect the Syrian Kurds who helped smash ISIS in Syria, Trump is looking to deploy some US forces in the oil-rich areas of northeast Syria, a part of the Kurdish heartland, which seems a wise precaution.

Washington can’t force peace on the region, but it can stand by its friends and against its enemies — as well as hunting down the worst vermin, like al-Baghdadi.

John Ratcliffe and Doug Collins Discuss U.S. Attorney John Durham Investigation


Earlier today representatives John Ratcliffe and Doug Collins react to the successful operation to capture/kill Baghdadi along with recent events surrounding the John Durham investigation shifting into a criminal probe.
First, John Ratcliffe discusses the killing of Baghdadi and the possibility of criminal indictments as the Durham investigation focuses on the origin of the Russia investigation.


Additionally, Doug Collins discusses current events:


Knock – Knock

Who’s there?

.

Justin!

.

Justin who?

.

…Justin case you thought we’d forgotten about you.


Adam Schiff: AG Barr Is 'Weaponizing' the DOJ for Probing Into the Russia Investigation



House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) criticized Attorney General William Barr and John Durham in response to reports their investigation into the origins of the Russia probe has turned into a criminal investigation. 

Schiff has previously expressed concern that "Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department has become a vehicle for President Trump’s political revenge."

"If these reports are correct and Bill Barr’s Justice Department is doing a criminal investigation of people who properly looked into Russian interference in our election, in the FBI or intelligence agencies, it means that Bill Barr, on the president’s behalf, is weaponizing the Justice Department to go after the president’s enemies," Schiff said Sunday on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

"I served for years, I don’t anymore, on a commission that would help emerging democracies and we would inform the parliamentarians that when you win an election you don’t seek to prosecute the losing side, but this is what Bill Barr is seeking to do," he said. "He is demonstrating once again that he is merely a tool of the president, the president’s hand, not the representative of the American people."

Host Martha Raddatz then said to Schiff how Durham, who is leading the investigation, is well-respected and asked if he would accept the results of their probe.

"I was going to say you can assign good people to do an illegitimate investigation," Schiff replied. "You can assign good people to investigate the president’s political rivals. It doesn’t mean that the investigation is any less tainted. This is tainted because of the motivation which is a political one to serve the president’s political interests."