Monday, August 31, 2026

Russia Hoaxers Quiet about Canadian Election Interference


As President Trump has repeatedly pointed out, the Canadian government embraces a peculiar notion of national sovereignty: It depends upon the U.S. military for security and expects to sell its domestic products to Americans as if Canada were just another U.S. state.  At the same time, it insists on censoring American sources of news, restricting the flow of American goods into Canada, and rebuking American foreign policy decisions.  

When former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago to meet with President Trump following his 2024 re-election, the Canadian leader’s foremost concern was to prevent the new Trump administration from seeking fair and reciprocal trade (actual free trade) between the two countries — a goal that the president and his economic team had pursued during Trump’s first term and which ultimately resulted in the replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).  From Trump’s point of view, USMCA did not resolve decades-long trade imbalances between Canada and the United States, but it did kill NAFTA and put the U.S. in a legal position to recalibrate its economic relationship with Canada by 2026.  Trudeau and the Canadians needed for the old system to endure, and he told Trump that Canada could not economically survive if Canada were forced to remove its own trade barriers against the U.S.  This is when Trump suggested to Trudeau that if Canada cannot exist without American welfare, then it is operating as a de facto American state.  

Trump’s unvarnished truth-telling created an international brouhaha.  Never one for pretending or backing down, the president spent the next several months advising Canada to make its dependence upon the American Union official by becoming the fifty-first state.  Canadians from British Columbia to Newfoundland took great offense, and the Canadian Establishment used the issue as a catalyst for installing central banker Mark Carney as prime minister, under the rationale that the former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England was the ideal candidate for taking on President Trump.  

Since his premiership began, Carney has been on a mission to ruffle Trump’s feathers and cause friction between Canada and the U.S.  He has worked to strengthen Canada’s economic bonds with communist China.  He has repeatedly described Canada as an extension of Old Europe, rather than part of the New World.  He has promised to “defend” Greenland from any American attempts to assert dominion over the island.  He has pledged additional Canadian support for Ukraine in a war against Russia that President Trump wishes to end.  He has used every public speech to insult the United States as an unreliable and dangerous nation that cannot be trusted.  He has declared Canada to be in an economic “war” with the U.S. and has encouraged Canadian citizens to be obnoxiously hostile toward Americans.

These provocative stances and statements might make sense if Canada were not so economically and militarily dependent upon the United States.  If Carney wishes to strengthen communist China at America’s expense, he cannot expect the U.S. to give Canada the most favorable trade terms of any nation in the world.  Nor can he expect America to protect Canada as an ally if Canada allies itself with America’s principal geopolitical foe.  If Carney wishes to fight Americans so that the Kingdom of Denmark can continue to lay claim to a North American territory whose 56,000 residents are nearly all Inuit, then he should not expect the U.S. military to defend Canada from invasion.  Furthermore, Carney should not expect the U.S. to protect Canada under a Golden Dome missile defense system for North America that depends upon having operational control of Greenland.  He certainly shouldn’t expect American taxpayers to foot the bill for Canada’s national security when Canada is working to provoke a direct U.S.-Russia conflict over Ukraine.  He also shouldn’t expect preferential treatment from the United States when he undermines American strategic objectives around the world.

Canada’s flamboyant pomposity is obscene.  

Canada’s Hillary Clinton, Chrystia Freeland, was the trade negotiator who tried to keep Canada’s one-way tariffs intact during President Trump’s first term.  She’s currently serving as an unpaid “infrastructure reconstruction” advisor (or what some might call, “the CEO of wartime money-laundering in Europe”) to Ukraine’s holdover-president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  She popped her head up from Ukraine’s funny money operations last week to denounce the United States for treating Canada as a “vassal state.”  

Since Canada is not economically or militarily viable without enormous welfare assistance from the U.S., Canada is a vassal state; pretending otherwise is absurd.  

But here’s the thing: Central banker Mark Carney and the Canadian Establishment have chosen to fight back against President Trump’s efforts for reciprocal trade by binding Canada to communist China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.  Carney can’t beg for help from General Secretary Xi Jinping, King Charles III, and Queen Ursula von der Leyen without making Canada a vassal state of communist China and Old Europe. 

Canada is not a “middle power” because it has no power.  It has squandered its natural resources and economic wealth by pursuing foolish “climate change” policies that have no effect on the weather.  Sovereign nations capable of militarily defending themselves do not indulge costly, “woke” delusions.  Only vassal states commit economic suicide while puffing out their chests and acting tough.  Why?  Because real nation states stand behind and take care of them.

It is also fascinating how Chrystia Freeland publicly argues that the best way to fight back against the Trump administration is to assist Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.  Calling it the “Donut Strategy,” Freeland says that the Canadian government must go around the White House and manipulate the American people.  Canada’s minister of industry, MΓ©lanie Joly, is doing exactly that by strategizing with prominent Democrats around the country on the best ways to undermine President Trump’s trade policies.  Ontario Premier Doug Ford not only pledged to interfere in the U.S. midterm elections but also told Trump to “kiss his ass.”  Central banker Mark Carney and his globalist friends are coordinating an information war against American voters.  In other words, all the Canadians who whine about President Trump not respecting Canadian sovereignty have absolutely no respect for American sovereignty.

Prominent members of the Canadian government nonchalantly admit to interfering in American elections, and corporate news talking heads just nod and smile.  Do you remember when news media spent years lecturing Americans about “foreign election interference” after Trump clobbered Hillary in the 2016 election?  All we heard during the president’s first term was, “Russia, Russia, Russia!”  Now Canadian officials admit to manipulating American voters in past elections and promise to do so again this year, and not a single pundit is even whispering, “Canada, Canada, Canada.”  After Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Barack Obama’s intelligence agencies used the Russian Collusion Hoax to perpetrate a fraud against the American people, Democrats collude openly with the Canadian government to manipulate elections.  Do you think that “foreign election interference” might have been just another propaganda press talking point to advance another anti-Trump narrative?

Along with Canada, the United Kingdom seems to play a central role in sabotaging Trump’s government.  It was MI6 spy Christopher Steele who put together Hillary’s fake dossier on Donald Trump that triggered Robert Mueller’s two-year special counsel investigation into the president.  Later, British “Russia expert” Fiona Hill testified against the president when Democrats (and Mitt Romney) turned a Biden Family corruption scandal involving Ukraine into a Trump impeachment.  During her testimony, Hill insisted that Russia “meddled” in the 2016 election.  Now King Charles III’s North American prime minister, Mark Carney, is openly meddling in the 2026 midterms.  Will Chris Steele and Fiona Hill return to testify about Canada’s election interference?  Let’s not hold our breath.


Podcast thread for August 31

 


oh zzzzzz... 😴😴

Republicans Are Being Shockingly Smart on Data Centers


The whole data center imbroglio is one of those weird situations where you have valid arguments on all sides, there’s an obvious solution, and many Republicans aren’t being complete idiots about it. How often does that happen? Not very often. Especially the part about Republicans not being complete idiots.

No one wants a data center in their neighborhood. For one thing, they’re ugly. Who wants a grim industrial complex down the street? They tend to suck up a lot of power and require support infrastructure that is likewise ugly. Also, badly designed ones can use a lot of water, and the facilities are often noisy. No one in their right mind wants to live next to one. No one wants to live next to a quarry, a steel works, or a water treatment plant either. But we need all of those too.

The fact that you’re reading this online means that you’re using a data center. Data centers are key to maintaining the technology infrastructure that allows us to live the way we do today. With the Age of AI coming, we’re going to need a lot more data centers, and we’re going to need a lot more infrastructure to power them. That’s a given. But the Chinese don’t want us to build them. They don’t like America having the ability to compete in terms of artificial intelligence and technology. They want to strangle our technology in the crib. That’s why, according to X, they have been running bot farms to gin up opposition to these facilities. President Trump likewise points out that the Chi-coms are behind a lot of the organized data center hate, and he’s got the access to the intelligence to know these things. American communists are complicit with America’s enemies, as usual. They want to talk us into going full Luddite.

Never go full Luddite.

This is all of a piece with the attack on American fracking and other energy infrastructure that America’s enemies did everything they could to stop. It’s no coincidence that all the remedies for the climate hoax happen to be all the things that make America weaker, poorer, and less self-sufficient, as well as less free. What are the chances? Well, about 100 percent, which is why the enemies of the West are so insistent on demanding endless sacrifices to appease the angry weather goddess, sacrifices that also happen to impoverish us. The only way we can be weakened is if we choose to weaken ourselves. They have to talk us into losing this race. The information operation about data centers is akin to all the other leftist information operations dedicated to making us morally and materially poor.

But while the agitation of foreign actors and internal communists who hate everything about our society is indisputable, not everybody who is reacting to data centers is reacting to propaganda. Data centers present real challenges to real people. As we have seen, data centers are ugly and annoying, and they can be a bane to a community. It’s not just agitation that is creating the opposition, and the opposition isn’t only a bunch of geriatric No Kings geeks, blue-haired communists, and sexually dysfunctional wine women. Normal Republicans are concerned about the impact on the quality of life in their communities, and they have every right to be.

Now, it didn’t have to be this way, but to the shock of no one, the neurodivergent tech bros who emerged from Silicon Valley – with notable exceptions like Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey – apparently thought that all of America was going to be as impressed with, and deferential to, them as Santa Clara County has been for the last few decades. The only thing they have in excess of money is arrogance, and they often came out to American suburban and rural communities and announced, “We’re building this ugly, brutalist behemoth here on your beautiful pastures, and you can essentially bite me.”

To the shock of no one, that was not well received. In the past, robber barons like Carnegie and Morgan and the rest were at least savvy enough to spread their money around to win a little support from regular people. You can still find the remnants of their largesse all around the country. Of course, it wasn’t entirely benevolent. A lot of it was a cynical attempt to court public opinion in an atmosphere where they were under a lot of suspicion. But it worked. And it might work for the tech bros too if they would pull their collective heads out of their USB ports.

But no. A lot of economic good stems from these autistic technological entrepreneurs, but we’re past the time of purely economic determinism. Maybe 25 years ago, the kind of Chamber of Commerce Republicans who quote Milton Friedman to tell you why you must have the entire Third World sneak into, and totally change, your country to spur that .2 percent increase in GDP would have worked. But we’ve seen the consequences of that kind of thinking, from crowded ERs to murdered Americans, and the mainstream GOP base doesn’t think that way anymore. Even for us Republicans, life is more than just economic stats and spreadsheet calculations. I would rather be slightly poorer but not flooded with a bunch of peasants from foreign hellholes bringing their garbage cultures, feuds, and ideologies to my shores. Everything’s not about the money. Some of it’s about the lifestyle, and we would like to stop having criminals take our lives and alien freeloaders living off us in style.

And we’re making the same calculation with data centers. Data centers can be a huge economic boon. The tax benefits they provide can be enormous. And they can be constructed and run in a manner that doesn’t disrupt our communities. They don’t have to be built on a historical landmark or a long-term family farm. They’re never going to be beautiful, but they don’t have to be actively ugly. You can control the water problems with closed systems, and you can generate the power on site or arrange for them to pay for the increased infrastructure they’ll require. Many communities are very happy with their data centers. If the tech companies come to these communities, which are largely in Republican areas for reasons we will get to, with a positive attitude and a willingness to address the concerns of the people genuinely, you can find solutions. We need the data centers, and we also need to not live in a dystopian hellscape.

But here’s the thing – the data centers are largely going to be located in Republican areas. You might think that maybe we should stick them in ruined blue cities and give those people a chance to work instead of live on the dole. Well, the Democrat administrations in places like that are totally corrupt, and they’re going to make it a giant pain to build in blue cities between onerous regulations and outright graft. Once they do get built, the infrastructure that the Democrats have allowed to waste away isn’t going to be able to support the data centers. You’ve got to be stupid to build in a blue city. That’s why the tech bros go out to the red areas. But if you go out and declare, “We’ve got a ton of money, and if you don’t do what we say, we’re going to buy your city council, and we’re going to bankrupt your town with litigation,” you’re going to make enemies of us Republicans.

And Republican pols, in many cases, have been smart enough not to roll over for Big Tech. In Texas, Greg Abbott has paused data center construction to audit them to make sure they’re doing it the right way. There are Republican candidates out there running on a “No data centers” platform. Why? Because the tech bros have alienated their voters.

And that’s smart for Republicans. Simply because a corporation does something doesn’t mean we have to reflexively defend it. The idea that somehow corporations and Republicans are united died decades ago. Most corporations hate us. Almost all tech corporations hate us. They give a ton of money to Democrats, and much of their content is woke. A few years ago, tech companies were censoring people like me and keeping people like you from reading the truth. We don’t owe them anything. They’re not our friends, and we have no obligation to jump on a hand grenade whose pin the tech autists pulled.

The data centers are going to get built because they must be built. But it’s not on Republicans to make it happen without conditions just because some company wants it. That’s a different kind of Republican, an obsolete one. That Chamber of Commerce crap is dead. The tech bros need to get smart, and they need to get out their checkbooks. They need to start making data centers a good deal because they’re not going to be able to jam them down our throats. Yeah, they can buy a city council, and the city council can greenlight a center, but then what’s going to happen? What’s going to happen is what’s happening now. At the higher levels of government, the state and federal level, angry Republican voters are going to incentivize their politicians to stop the abuse. For their part, the blue states will go overboard and ban data centers entirely. That’s fine. We will be happy to take the data centers and the huge benefits that go with them once the techies meet our needs and address our concerns out in red America. Oh, and the tech bros need to stop backing our enemies if they want to be friends with us. That’s the deal. Take it or leave it.

It’s nice to see the Republicans getting on the right side of an issue involving big business. For too long, we went out of our way to help people who hate us at the expense of our own base. That’s why we had – and still have some – amnesty Republicans. No thanks. The data center issue is a business transaction. If the tech bros want to get something from us Republicans, they’re going to have to give.


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Why Is Kentaji Brown Jackson Still Wearing a Mask In 2026?

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is known for penning her own dissents in any cases remotely favorable to conservative causes, was spotted jetting out of Washington, D.C. while wearing a mask…in 2026.

The decision to wear a mask sparked numerous responses considering that the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent mask mandates, ended nearly five years ago.

Brown Jackson has become something of a leftist icon as of late, replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the so-called “girl boss” of the Supreme Court. In February, she was nominated for a Grammy for the release of her memoir, to which she received a thunderous applause from the progressive crowd despite not taking home the award.


Dem Brad Lander 'Finds Out' in Brutal Lesson: No Matter How Far-Left You Are, It's Never Enough

You may recall the Democrat nominee for New York's 10th Congressional District, Brad Lander. 

Supported by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani, he was one of the three far-left candidates from New York City, including two others who were socialists, who won their primary races. 

He used to be a socialist but says he left when the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) amplified a “vile” rally in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israelis. And yet, he's still hanging out with them. 

He also infamously created a scene and was arrested for interfering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when he was running for mayor last year, and got hauled away by agents. 

But despite doing all the "right" things in the eyes of the left, that apparently wasn't enough to provide him cover during a protest on Saturday. 

Lander had actually come to join the protest outside of Madison Square Garden against Indian Hindu-nationalist leader Mohan Bhagwat — chief of the controversial Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh nationalist group. However, protesters then screamed and cursed at him. One man said he looked like a "scrotum" and called him a "filthy balls**k, and said "F**k you...Zionist balls**k," as you can see in a clip here on X.

They yelled at him to get out of there and said they didn't want him there; they even waved keffiyehs in his face. People who looked like organizers came over to tell them to cool it, but they kept yelling, as Lander griped, "They don't get to tell me where to stand." They even tried to interrupt him as he was doing what looked like an interview on the protest. "We don't want no zionists here!" they yelled. One man even said Lander needed to leave so they could "focus." Apparently his very presence was too much for them. 

Lander, who is Jewish, has been critical of Israel and even of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). He's called the action in Gaza "genocide." But that apparently still wasn't enough for them because he supports the existence of Israel. 

Yet, he will doubtless continue to support the radical left, and if he doesn't make them happy, don't doubt for a minute they'd run someone against him in a couple of years to get him out. 


U.S. Visa Restrictions, Reviews and Applicant Suspensions Create Massive Anxiety in India – Millions Pour into DC Lobbyists


CTH strongly emphasizes two key policy sectors, Maganomics and Immigration enforcement; they go together. We cannot achieve the economic results we want for the American people unless strong and powerful immigration enforcement is in place.

While the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) navigates the deportation and removal process (painfully slow in my opinion), Secretary of State Marco has revoked, blocked and restricted visa entry processes. The State Dept effort is strong, but continually encounters resistance from the Lawfare communists who are trying to destroy U.S. nationalism.

NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service Companies) is an Indian non-governmental trade association and advocacy group that primarily serves the Indian technology industry. Founded in 1988, NASSCOM operates as a nonprofit organization and serves as a key entity within the Indian technology sector. NASSCOM is the primary advocacy group for manipulating the U.S. visa entry system.

When we discuss the politics in countries who accept bribes and payments for influence in political decisions, we call that bribery and corruption. However, when the exact same activity takes place in Washington DC, we call it Lobbying. NASSCOM is now spending money to purchase U.S. politicians and look specifically about how they frame the discussion. (emphasis mine):

[…] Ameet Nivsarkar, VP in Nasscom, said the association was working on various strategies to limit the adverse impact of the immigration bill. “We are engaging with coalitions and consortiums in the US like the US India Business Council, an independent think-tank. It’s also important for our members and non-members to be a part of the advocacy through multiple engagements that requires having local representatives in the US or even talking to their customers to raise the issue on their behalf,” he said.

The immigration bill seeks to make work visas like H-1B more expensive and difficult to obtain for companies that already have a high proportion of their US staff on such visas. Infosys, for instance, is said to have almost 90% of their 15,000 employees in the US on such visas. If these visas become difficult to obtain, it will compel Indian IT companies to significantly alter their business models. They would either have to hire many more local Americans, which would be expensive, or find ways to do more of the work offshore, which would be difficult. Any such changes would put Indian IT companies at a disadvantage against their global competitors who have a strong local American presence. {SOURCE}

As noted by Amanda Louise on X: “[NASSCOM’s] concern wasn’t that jobs would go unfilled because America lacked skilled workers. It was that companies like Infosys would have to “hire many more local Americans, which would be expensive.”

“Americans weren’t described as unavailable. Americans were described as the more expensive alternative.

And they acknowledged the other half of the problem.. companies with a “strong local American presence” would have a competitive advantage if visa-dependent companies lost easy access to that labor.

That tells Americans exactly what this business model does. Use visa labor to lower costs. Compete against companies that hire more Americans. Win their contracts. And now those American-employing companies have fewer jobs to offer too.

The American worker loses twice.
So why are we still debating what these visa programs are being used for? Their statements tell us the incentive. The immigration filings show us the scale. The layoffs show us who pays the price.

How much more evidence does Congress need before it answers why U.S. immigration policy gives companies a competitive advantage for hiring visa workers instead of Americans?”


DNC Election Rigger Proposes Adding 4 Leftist Judges to Supreme Court at First Available Opportunity


When the South Carolina congressman travelled to Wisconsin in 2024 to visit with poll workers and not candidates, no one seemed curious about the intent.  When South Carolina had the opportunity to redistrict that same congressman, the professional republicans in the palmetto state protected him.

Now the organizer of the AME Church network of poll workers appears on NBC to say at the first available opportunity the Democrats should pack the court with another four leftist judges to ensure all of the constitutional restraints are removed from the judiciary.  Yep, that’s James Clyburn.

Clyburn begins his remarks in this segment by decrying Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for not adhering to the manipulative racial expectations of his position.  Clyburn then advocates for adding as many justices as needed in order to advance his agenda.  WATCH:



[Transcript] – KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. Congressman Clyburn, welcome back to Meet the Press.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN: Well, thank you very much for having me back.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, thank you so much for being here. I do want to start with what we just heard from Senator Cruz. We were talking about, of course, Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, you actually testified in favor of Clarence Thomas’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. I want to play a little bit of that video.

[BEGIN TAPE]

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend, Clarence Thomas. I have known Clarence for ten years and I consider him to be a personal and professional friend, in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy.

[END TAPE]

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you stand by your decision to make the case for Clarence Thomas’s confirmation?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

Absolutely not. You know, I have made mistakes in my life, and that’s one that I made. And I will own up to that mistake. The fact of the matter is I had faith and confidence in the fact that his background and experiences would instruct him in his professionalism, especially sitting on the bench. We had worked together when he was chair of the Equal Opportunity Commission. And of course, I was running the state agency here in South Carolina. We had differences over how that agency should run. But I also thought that he believed in precedents of the law. And I felt sure that he would be there upholding those precedents set down in 1954 in the Broad v. Board of Education decision. I thought that he would follow those court decisions that upheld the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act. I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences. He was raised by his grandfather and he has shown very little sensitivity to the environment his grandfather grew up, down in Pin Point, Georgia, just south of where I now sit. And so yes, that was a mistake on my part and I own up to it.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay, well, since we are on the topic of the court, let’s speak more broadly about it. Former Vice President Kamala Harris shares some of your criticisms, clearly. She’s called for expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13. Do you support adding four more seats to the Supreme Court, Congressman?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls from some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand — and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course, and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney, that said that no Black man has any rights that the white man must respect. That was the Supreme Court that made that decision. I had hoped that Clarence Thomas would follow the mordant underpinnings of that constitution of ours, but he has not done so. In fact, he’s decided to go all the way from an angry leftist to a very angry rightist.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. Let’s talk about the midterms and let’s talk about your state of South Carolina. Senator Darline Graham, as you know, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, did win her primary. She’s going to be facing off against Dr. Annie Andrews, the Democrat running in that Senate race. Do you believe Dr. Andrews can win given that no Democrat has won that Senate seat since the 1990s, Congressman?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

I do believe Dr. Andrews can win, and I do believe that she will win. The only thing that would stop her from winning this race is for us to not do our part to turn out the vote. I have said before, and people seem to misrepresent this: we have to do a better job of turning our base voters out. When the other side is turning out 71% and we are turning out 59%, we need to take stock of why that is happening. But that did happen in the last election. I take some responsibility for that. I’ve been working on that very vigilantly. I spent yesterday and the day before, and I’ll be spending time this afternoon working on the turn out the vote effort –

KRISTEN WELKER:

Alright.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

– that I think will update what we’ve been doing in the last few years, and make for a much better turnout. And if that were to happen, I think that Dr. Andrews will do well in this election.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Congressman Clyburn, I had the opportunity to interview Leader Hakeem Jeffries and he has not ruled out impeaching President Trump should Democrats take back control of the House. But some Democrats have said to me privately that that would just be a distraction, to impeach President Trump for a third time. Do you believe Democrats should impeach President Trump if they take back the House?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

If the Democrats were to take back the House, and I feel confident that we will, our first order of business ought to be developing an accessible and affordable campaign effort that will yield what I will call making this country, its greatness, accessible and affordable for all of its citizens –

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you rule out impeachment?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

I don’t want to forget about the American people.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you rule out supporting impeachment?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

I don’t rule it out, but I don’t rule it in. No, I don’t. But I don’t think that should be our priority if we get into office. Our priority ought to be making housing, education, energy, healthcare affordable and accessible for all of our citizens. Impeaching the president will not do that. We need to focus on what is necessary to make education available for our children, making healthcare affordable for our children, making housing affordable, making energy affordable. That’s where the focus ought to be.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. Congress —

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

And we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and maybe do both.

KRISTEN WELKER:

All right. A few more questions for you, and we’re almost out of time. I have to ask you about what’s happening in Michigan, the Senate race there. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed has apologized to Jewish Democrats for comments he made after the attack on a synagogue in March when he said, quote, “Hurt people hurt people.” That comes as he’s also faced scrutiny over his association with Hasan Piker, who some Democrats this week denounced for what they called antisemitic remarks from Piker. Do you believe that this divide within the Democratic Party over Israel and antisemitism is becoming a political liability that could hurt Democrats in November?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

I don’t think will hurt Democrats at all. Some Democrats who get painted with that brush will have to defend the things that they’ve said. I have spoken with the good doctor. He’s our nominee. I support his election. I take him at his word. He has apologized. He says he’s — he will not campaign with Piker anymore. I think that it’s worth taking him at his word. All of us deserve second chances.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Very quickly, Rob Sand, the Democratic candidate for governor in Iowa, says former Vice President Kamala Harris should not run again in 2028. When you look to 2028, Congressman, do you think Kamala Harris should run for President again?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

Now, that’s up to Kamala Harris. I supported her when she ran the last time. I would consider her among all the others if she were to run again. But whether or not she should run is a very personal family decision that I will leave up to her and her family.

KRISTEN WELKER:

All right.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

And when they make that decision, whatever it is, I will then make determinations as to what my actions would be going forward.

KRISTEN WELKER:

All right. Congressman Jim Clyburn, thank you so very much for being here. We really appreciate it.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN:

Thank you very much for having me.

Clyburn with 100,000 AME Ballots!