Author

JOSEPH CURL

Browsing

The trial in the Senate on two articles of impeachment and whether to remove President Donald Trump from office has oftentimes been tedious, thus far. But Alan Dershowitz’s speech from the Senate floor last night was an exception.

Dershowitz has a lengthy resume: He began teaching law at Harvard when he 28 years old (the youngest ever to do so), and he has handled a slew of high-profile cases, from O.J. Simpson to Jeffrey Epstein to Harvey Weinstein. Now 81, Dershowitz retired in 2013, and has since been a regular media contributor, political commentator, and legal analyst.

He recently got the call to join Trump’s defense team, and on Monday held court for a little more than an hour. Below are the highlights of his speech.

“I stand before you today, as I stood in 1973 and 1974 for the protection of the constitutional and procedural rights of Richard Nixon, who I personally abhorred and whose impeachment I personally favored, and as I stood for the rights of Bill Clinton, who I admired and whose impeachment I strongly opposed,” he said as he opened his remarks.

“I stand against the application and misapplication of the constitutional criteria in every case and against any president without regard to whether I support his or her parties or policies. I would be making the very same constitutional argument had Hillary Clinton, for whom I voted, been elected and had a Republican House voted to impeach her on these unconstitutional grounds.”

He said he was there to answer one major question: “Do charges of abuse and obstruction rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the constitution?”

What follows is a transcript of portions of Dershowitz’s Senate floor speech.

WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE?

The main thrust of my argument, however, and the one most relevant to these proceedings is that even if that position is not accepted, even if criminal conduct were not required, the Framers of our Constitution implicitly rejected, and if it had been presented to them, would have explicitly rejected such vague terms as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as among the enumerated and defined criteria for impeaching a president. …

Now here I am making, I think, a very important point. Even if the Senate were to conclude that a technical crime is not required for impeachment, the critical question remains — and it’s the question I now want to address myself to — do abuse of power and obstruction of Congress constitute impeachable offenses? The relevant history answers that question clearly in the negative. Each of these charges suffers from the vice of being, “So vague a term that they will be equivalent of tenure at the pleasure of the Senate.” To quote again, the father of our Constitution, abusive of power is an accusation easily leveled by political opponents against controversial presidents. …

‘WHAT WAS IN THE PRESIDENT’S MIND?‘

[Constitutional law] Professor [Josh] Blackman drew the following relevant conclusion from this and other historical events. He said, “Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare while in the back of their minds considering how these actions will affect their popularity. Often the two concepts overlap. What’s good for the country is good for the official’s reelection. All politicians,” he said, “understand that dynamic.” Like all human beings, presidents and other politicians persuade themselves that their actions seen by their opponents as self-serving are primarily in the national interest. In order to conclude that such mixed motive actions constituted abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the president and attribute to him a singular self-serving motive.

Such a subjective probing of motives cannot be the legal basis for a serious accusation of abuse of power that could result in the removal of an elected president. Yet this is precisely what the managers are claiming. Here’s what they say, “Whether the president’s real reason, the ones actually in his mind are at the time legitimate.” What a standard. What was in the president’s mind? Actually in his mind? What was the real reason? Would you want your actions to be probe for what was the real reason why you acted? Even if a president were. It clearly shows in my mind that the Framers could not have intended this psychoanalytic approach to presidential motives to determine the distinction between what is impeachable and what is not.

ON QUID PRO QUOS

As a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power. Consider the following hypothetical case that is in our news today, as the Israeli prime minister comes to the United States for meetings. Let’s assume a Democratic president tells Israel that foreign aid authorized by Congress will not be sent or an Oval Office meeting will not be scheduled unless the Israelis stop building “settlements.” Quid pro quo. I might disapprove of such a quid pro quo demand on policy grounds, but it would not constitute an abuse of power. Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abusive power. It’s part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives that the president was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase, “abusive power,” as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president.

Now it follows that if a president — any president — were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power.

Let me repeat: Nothing in the [former National Security Advisor John] Bolton revelations — even if true — would rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution — you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like “quid pro quo” and “personal benefit.”

It is inconceivable that the Framers would have intended such politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as “abuse of power” and weaponized it as a tool of impeachment.

ON ABUSE OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Sure, nobody was above the law, but they created a law. They created a law by which Congress could impeach and they did not want to expand that law to include all the criteria that permitted impeachment in Great Britain. The Framers would never have included and did not include abuse of power as an enumerated and defined criteria for impeachment. By expressly rejecting “maladministration,” they implicitly rejected “abuse.” Nor would the Framers have included “obstruction of Congress” as among the enumerated and defined criteria. It is too vague, indefinable — especially in a constitutional system in which according to [Alexander] Hamilton in Federalist 78, the legislative body is not themselves, the constitutional judge of their own powers. And the construction they put on them is not conclusive upon other departments. Instead, he said the courts were designed as an intermediate body between the people as declared in the Constitution and the legislature in order to keep the ladder within the limits assigned to their authority. …

By their very nature, words like “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are standard-less. It’s impossible to put standards into words like that. Both are subjective matters of degree and amenable to varying partisan interpretations. It’s impossible to know in advance whether a given action will subsequently be deemed to be on one side or the other of the line. Indeed, the same action with the same state of mind can be deemed abusive or obstructive when done by one person but not when done by another. That is the essence of what the rule of law is not. When you have a criteria that could be applied to one person one way and another person in another way, and they both fit within the terms abuse of power. …

You are entitled to use that rule of interpretation, as well, in deciding whether or not “obstruction of Congress” or “abuse of power” can be defined as fitting within the criteria of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” For the Senate to remove a duly elected president on vague non-constitutional grounds such as “abuse of power” or “obstruction of Congress” would create a dangerous precedent and be construed, in the words of Senator James N. Grimes, into approval of impeachment as part of future political machinery. This is a realistic threat to all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities that could easily concoct vague charges of “abuse” or “obstruction.” The fact that a long list of presidents that were accused of “abuse of power” were not impeached demonstrates how selectively this term has and can be used in the context of impeachment.

I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents. The idea of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are so far from what the Framers had in mind that they so clearly violate the Constitution and would place Congress above the law. Now, nor are these vague, open-ended and unconstitutional articles of impeachment that were charged here, they’re not saved by the inclusion in these articles of somewhat more specific, but still non-criminal, type of conduct. The specifications are themselves vague, open-ended, and do not charge impeachable offenses. They include such accusations as compromising national security, abusing the power of the presidency, violating his oath of office. In any event, it’s the actual articles that charge “abuse of power” and “obstruction of justice,” neither of which are in the Constitution — it’s the actual articles on which you must all vote, not on the more specific list of means included in the text of the articles.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: ICYMI: Dershowitz Obliterates Dems’ Case For Removing Trump From Office

President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently traveled to Ukraine, and the president says “I hear he’s found plenty.”

Ukraine is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into Trump, who, Democrats say, asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor:” investigating a state natural gas company there connected to Joe and Hunter Biden.

Trump told reporters on Saturday that Giuliani’s trip was successful and that the former New York City mayor is “going to make a report, I think to the attorney general and to Congress. He says he has a lot of good information.”

“I have not spoken to him about that information yet,” Trump added. “He has not told me what he found, but I think he wants to go before Congress and also to the attorney general and the Department of Justice. I hear he has found plenty.”

The president was also asked about choosing not to participate in Monday’s impeachment hearing. He responded as he has in the past — that he discussed the option with several parties — but said that “nothing came out of the conversation.”

“The impeachment thing is a total hoax,” Trump said. “The numbers have totally swung our way. They don’t want to see impeachment. Especially in the swing states they’ve swung our way. I’ve never seen a swing like this. Because people realize it’s a total hoax. We had a perfect conversation. It was only a conversation. Nothing came out of the conversation, except for the relationship with Ukraine. And the people see that it’s just a continuation of this three-year witch. And I’m looking forward to seeing the IG report. I hear they’re announcing it on Monday. And I look forward very much to seeing what happens with the Durham report, maybe even more importantly. Because it’s a horrible thing that took place, and it should never happen to another president.”

Giuliani reportedly traveled to Hungary and Ukraine last week for meetings, according to The New York Times. The Times reports that he met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko in Budapest on Tuesday, then met with several former Ukrainian prosecutors in Kiev later in the week.

“What Mr. Giuliani is doing at this point is still confidential and is for the sole purpose of proving his clients’ innocence. In doing so he will prove that this latest farce is even more baseless and malicious than the first attempted coup takedown. Once all individuals have returned safely to the United States, we will reveal the significant witnesses involved,” a spokeswoman for Giuliani told CNN in a statement.

“Andriy Telizhenko, a former Ukrainian diplomat and associate of Giuliani, wrote on Twitter Friday that Giuliani was ‘prepping for tomorrow another hard working day’ meeting former Ukrainian prosecutors Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin,” CNN reported. “To all conspiracy theorist there is no secret on what we are doing,” Telizhenko wrote. “The TRUTH will come out. God Bless Ukraine and God Bless the United States of America.”

On Friday, Giuliani suggested that the United States and Ukraine launch “a large scale joint investigation” into corruption in their countries.“In reviewing my notes, it seems to me that a large scale joint investigation into Ukraine and the US would uncover and recover billions stolen by crooks, from both countries, at the highest levels,” Giuliani wrote on Twitter. “This would be the most effective way to bring our two countries together.”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: ‘I Hear He’s Found Plenty’: Trump Says Giuliani’s Recent Trip To Ukraine Was Fruitful

Joe Biden knows he makes a lot of gaffes.

“I am a gaffe machine, but my God what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can’t tell the truth,” he said last year, referring to President Trump.

And he sure is right. The 76-year-old is just that: A gaffe machine. Or, as the Washington Post put it, “the Lamborghini of gaffes.”

He’s done it again. The former vice president was campaigning in Iowa on Saturday. Or maybe Ohio.

“How many unsafe bridges do you still have here in Ohio?” he said to laughter from the crowd at Abby Finkenauer’s Fish Fry in Cedar Rapids. “I mean Iowa,” he said, quickly correcting himself.

In another weird occurrence, Biden is seen in one clip posted on Twitter talking to a screen, not the audience.

“Joe Biden speaking in an arena in Iowa gets confused where the camera is and keeps talking to a screen. CSPAN keeps cutting away to try and help him out…hahahahahahah,” said the post.

The campaign trail apparently confuses Biden.

“What’s not to like about Vermont?” Biden said one day in August. Problem: He was in New Hampshire. Biden also confused Burlington, Iowa, with Burlington, Vermont.

But Iowa is home to many of Biden’s gaffes. In August, Biden said “poor kids” are just as smart as “white kids.” He also said he was vice president when he met with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, but that occurred in February 2018, after he’d let office.

He also makes a lot of gaffes during debates among candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I would eliminate the capital gains tax. I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of 39.5%,” he said during one debate in October.

At one point, as he was trying to attack rivals Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Biden nearly said he ended the Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

“Senator Warren said we can’t be running any vague campaigns. We’ve got to level with people. We’ve got to level with people and tell them exactly what we’re going to do, how we’re going to get it done, and if you can get it done. I’m going to say something that is probably going to offend some people here, but I’m the only one on this stage that has gotten anything really big done — from the Violence Against Women Act to making sure that we pass[ed] the Affordable Care Act to being in a position where we, in fact, took almost a[n] … Act that kept us from going into a depression, making us — putting us in a position where I was able to end Roe — excuse me,” he said, breaking off quickly.

At another debate, Biden at one point blurted out, “go to Joe 3-0-3-3-0.” Apparently, he meant to tell viewers they should text “Joe” to 30330, but he looked out of it with the blunder.

The Biden campaign has downplayed the gaffes. Kate Bedingfield, deputy manager of the Biden campaign, said new media are applying an “unfair standard” to him.

“If you listen to what candidates say all day as they’re out campaigning — they’re out in front of cameras, they’re in front of people, they’re talking all day. Everybody’s going to slip up and misstate a name or a date or a location — it happens all the time,” she said last month on MSNBC. “It doesn’t get the outsize attention that Joe Biden gets. So I understand that’s part of being a front-runner. But I also think that people know him, [and] part of his charm is that they understand that they’re getting it straight from him. It’s not overly packaged. He’s always speaking from his heart.

“And sure, that means sometimes he’s going to misstate a couple of things, but frankly, so does every other candidate,” Bedingfield said.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: Joe Biden Gets Confused About His Location… Again

If you want to know how horribly and disgustingly partisan America has become in the days of Trump Derangement Syndrome, look no further than what occurred over the weekend.

The president ordered the U.S. military to take out the worst terrorist in the world. The special outfit known as Delta Force stormed into Syria, tracked down Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and cornered him in a tunnel. The coward blew himself up with a suicide vest.

America and the world are now safer. That’s a good thing, right?

Wrong.

It’s a terrible thing because Donald Trump is president.

When Barack Obama ordered the mission that took out Osama bin Laden, the heinous terrorist who led the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, Americans cheered — as they should.

What did they do this time? They booed. Literally.

Hours after detailing the mission at the White House, Trump attended a World Series game in Washington. When his image came up on the jumbo screen, boos were heard throughout Nationals Park.

The cesspool that is D.C. was weirdly unified over the upstart team, which in May had a 0.1% chance of making the playoffs. Not any more. The mere image of the president, along with First Lady Melania Trump, brought jeers from the rafters.

But let’s back up. Trump was mocked Sunday when he said “bin Laden was a big thing, but this is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever.” Worse than bin Laden? You bet. Here’s why.

Al-Baghdadi was the scum of the earth. As founder and leader of the Islamic State, he was seeking to set up a global caliphate under Islamic law.

“His followers burned victims alive in cages or slowly drowned them. They threw gay people off rooftops, and beheaded others on videos they then broadcast online,” the Daily Mail reported. “They executed 13 teenage boys in Iraq with machine guns because they were watching a football match on TV. They shot, suicide-bombed and massacred any rival Shia Muslims they could find in a relentless frenzied attempt to ethnically cleanse them off the face of the planet.”

During his reign of terror, ISIS was responsible for the attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, as well as massacres at a soccer stadium, European cafes, a festival in France and an Ariana Grande pop concert in England. ISIS killed hundreds in the attacks and injured many more.

But the U.S. media couldn’t give Trump even a modicum of credit.

“Face the Nation” put on James Winnefeld, Barack Obama’s deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who ripped Trump for “piling humiliation” on ISIS after the mission. “If you look back at the bin Laden raid, we treated his body with respect that is due under Islam.” (For the record, they photographed his dead body then dumped him in the sea.)

Nick Paton Walsh, an international correspondent for CNN, said Trump’s statement was reminiscent of ISIS, saying the “explicit details” he gave “echoed, frankly, the crudeness you would often expect to hear maybe from ISIS.”

The Washington Post went so far as to claim al-Baghdadi was courageous in death.

“The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up,” columnist Max Boot wrote. Another columnist, Greg Sargent, said Trump’s detailed account of what happened on the raid featured “deeply sick and twisted” rhetoric. (After public shaming, Boot deleted the line.)

And, of course, The Washington Post wrote in a headline Sunday referring to al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar.” Not “world’s worst terrorist.”

Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, a conservative press watchdog, summed up the MSM’s reaction.

“What a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the liberal media. They have developed such an aversion to covering the president favorably that they cannot even bear to celebrate an American special-forces victory over ISIS,” he told The Washington Times.

That’s where we are today. The mainstream (read: liberal) media cannot even deliver straight news coverage on a major event that made America and the world safer.

And it’s all about to get worse, with impeachment and the 2020 election.

Brace yourselves.

*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: CURL: Liberals Blast Trump For Taking Out World’s Worst Terrorist. Seriously.

Halloween is coming up soon so, of course, the witches are coming out of the woodwork.

Thousands of witches plan to gather on Thursday to cast a spell on President Trump in a move dubbed #MagicResistance.

The spell is “to bind Donald Trump and all those who abet him,” and the witches plan to do the spell at every waning crescent moon, hoping their magic will drive Trump out of office.

“With rituals and spells for protection of immigrants and refugees, reproductive rights, anti-fascism, and protection of the earth (among other critical issues), you can be part of the powerful #MagicResistance movement,” Michael M. Hughes wrote in 2017 on ExtraNewsfeed.

“This document has been making the rounds in a number of magical groups both secretive and public. It was created by me along with members of several private magical orders who wish to remain anonymous. I make no claims about its efficacy, and several people have noted it can be viewed as more of a mass art/consciousness-raising project (similar to the 1967 exorcism and levitation of the Pentagon), than an actual magical working. But many are clearly taking it very seriously,” he writes.

Hughes told the Washington Examiner that the call to witches to cast a spell went “immediately viral and just completely exploded” after he posted it on Medium. Since then, witches have been gathering to cast the spell (Vox writes that there are a “13,000-strong umbrella group of internet neo-pagans, Wiccans, solo practitioners who self-identify as ‘hedge witches,’ longtime magical practitioners in various traditions, and committed activists).

He posts “a number of suggestions and variants for this ritual.”

A Spell to Bind Donald Trump and All Those Who Abet Him (version 2.0)

To be performed at midnight on every waning crescent moon until he is removed from office. The first ritual takes place Friday evening, February 24th, at the stroke of midnight. This binding spell is open source, and may be modified to fit your preferred spiritual practice or magical system — the critical elements are the simultaneity of the working (midnight, EST—DC, Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower NYC time) and the mass energy of participants.

See below for the upcoming dates. Some lodges/covens are doing a variation of this as a group working, while a number of solitary practitioners are planning to connect and livestream via Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.

Components:

Unflattering photo of Trump (small); see below for one you can print

Tower tarot card (from any deck)

Tiny stub of an orange candle (cheap via Amazon)

Pin or small nail (to inscribe candle)

White candle (any size), representing the element of Fire

Small bowl of water, representing elemental Water

Small bowl of salt, representing elemental Earth

Feather (any), representing the element of Air

Matches or lighter

Ashtray or dish of sand

Optional:

Piece of pyrite (fool’s gold)

Sulfur

Black thread (for traditional binding variant)

Baby carrot (as substitute for orange candle stub)

The post on ExtraNewsfeed also directs witches on what to say.

Hear me, oh spirits

Of Water, Earth, Fire, and Air

Heavenly hosts

Demons of the infernal realms

And spirits of the ancestors

(Light inscribed orange candle stub)

I call upon you

To bind

Donald J. Trump

So that his malignant works may fail utterly

That he may do no harm

To any human soul

Nor any tree

Animal

Rock

Stream

or Sea

Bind him so that he shall not break our polity

Usurp our liberty

Or fill our minds with hate, confusion, fear, or despair

And bind, too,

All those who enable his wickedness

And those whose mouths speak his poisonous lies

“Knowing thousands of people are gathering together at the same time from all over the world to do this ritual and to put our beliefs and our desires into sharp focus, and to do that ritualistically, I think that has a really powerful effect,” Hughes told The Examiner.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: Witches Plan To Cast ‘Binding Spell’ On Trump This Week

No wonder Los Angeles can’t handle its homeless problem.

Los Angeles County paid nearly $1.3 billion in welfare money during 2015 and 2016 to families of illegal aliens. That number amounts to one-​quarter of the total spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to Fox News.

In 2015, more than 58,000 families received $602 million in benefits. The next year, some 64,000 families received $675 million.

The sanctuary county of Los Angeles draws foreigners who enter the United States illegally and now has the largest concentration of any county ​in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. ​Illegal aliens in the county are allowed to receive welfare and food stamp benefits.

Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who studies poverty and illegal immigration, told Fox the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.”

“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said, including the costs of education, police and fire, medical, and subsidized housing — which can total $24,000 per year in government spending per family.

But President Trump may be saving California hundreds of millions of dollars with his strict border policies. The study shows Los Angeles County is set to pay out $200 million less this year than in 2016, with thousands fewer families collecting benefits. “The number of entrants nationwide is going down. The population is static if not shrinking,” Rector said.

Meanwhile, new data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more than 22 million non-citizens now live in the United States.

The Bureau on Thursday released details from its annual American Community Survey. According to estimates extrapolated from data collected, 22.1 million are “not a U.S. citizen,” the data showed.

The statistics also showed a record 13.7% of the nation’s 2018 population — nearly 44.7 million people — was born in another country, Census bureau researchers said. That’s the highest number of foreign-born citizens since 1910. Most are from Latin America.

Between 1960 and 1970, just one in 20 US residents was foreign born.

“Today’s foreign-born resident rate has surged to about one in seven in California, Texas, Florida, and New York — the nation’s largest states — where the foreign born population is 15 percent higher than it is elsewhere in America,” The Daily Mail reported.

The findings come after a report released in August by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, that found in fiscal year 2018, 64% of all the arrests made by the federal government were of non-U.S. citizens.

“While non-U.S. citizens make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), they accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018. Non-U.S. citizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests and 25% of all federal property arrests, including 28% of all federal fraud arrests,” the department said in a press release.

The report came as migrants from Central America have been flooding the U.S.-Mexico border. The report notes that foreigners from places other than Mexico have skyrocketed.

“The country of citizenship of persons arrested by federal law enforcement changed notably over time. From 1998 to 2018, Mexican citizens’ share of federal arrests rose from 28% to 40%,” said the Department. “Citizens of Central American countries’ share of federal arrests rose from 1% to 20% during the same period, while U.S. citizens’ share of federal arrests fell from 63% to 36%. Federal arrests of Central Americans rose more than 30-fold over two decades, from 1,171 in 1998 to 39,858 in 2018. The number of federal arrests of Mexican citizens (78,062) exceeded the number of federal arrests of U.S. citizens (70,542) in 2018.”

Immigrant crime has also soared.

“Across 20 years, 95% of the increase in federal arrests was due to immigration crimes. From 1998 to 2018, federal immigration arrests increased 5-fold (from 20,942 to 108,667), rising more than
50,000 in one year from 2017 to 2018. In 2018, 90% of suspects arrested for federal immigration crimes were male, while 10% were female. Eighty-five percent of federal arrests of non-U.S. citizens in 2018 were for immigration offenses, and another 5% of arrests were immigration-related,” the DOJ said.

“Of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018, 57% were U.S. citizens and 43% were non-U.S. citizens. Almost all (99.7%) of the non-citizens prosecuted in U.S. district court were prosecuted for something other than first-time illegal entry.”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: L.A. Paid $1.3 Billion In Taxpayer Money To Illegal Aliens Via Welfare

The Democrat-controlled House shouldn’t have much trouble impeaching President Trump. After all, Democrats enjoy a 235-198 margin over Republicans, with one independent and one vacant seat.

But Democrats are looking to add some Republicans — and they may have just found one.

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) has become the first House Republican to voice support for an impeachment inquiry into Trump — and he wants everyone to know.

In a conference call with reporters on Friday, Amodei said he won’t necessarily vote to impeach Trump, but he said the House should “put it through the process and see what happens.”

“I’m a big fan of oversight, so let’s let the committees get to work and see where it goes,” he said, according to audio of the call released by The Nevada Independent.

“Using government agencies to, if it’s proven, to put your finger on the scale of an election, I don’t think that’s right,” Amodei said. “If it turns out that it’s something along those lines, then there’s a problem.”

Amodei later pulled back on his remarks, issuing a statement after the Independent’s piece was published in which he said, “In no way, shape, or form did I indicate support for impeachment.”

“Amodei declined to say whether he believes Trump committed an impeachable offense, though he noted that his comments in the call were regrettable,” said the Independent.

“If it was my statement and I had the ability to do it over, I would probably phrase it differently,” he said. “I don’t know that it’s a smoking gun.”

“I think that’s why we have the committee process,” he added. “I won’t attribute what was in the president’s mind. That wasn’t a great way to express concern about it. Part of what the committees will do is try to find some context for that and then based on what a fair reading of the context is, they’ll go forward from there.”

The Nevada Republican dismissed the notion, raised by Trump, that the issue was raised by political enemies in the government looking for any reason to depose him. He noted that Trump has a reputation for coming out hard when he feels like he’s being attacked, but said the issue is one of law. “I don’t care if it was a partisan spy or not,” Amodei said. “The only thing I get a vote on is, if it comes to the House floor… do I think that there is evidence there that is credible, that says he broke a specific law?”

The endgame will take place is the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-45 margin over Democrats, with two independents. But to convict Trump and oust him from office, Democrats need a 2/3 majority, or 67 votes. That means Democrats need 22 extra votes to get to the magic number.

Some in the Senate may be convinceable. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) has called Trump’s actions “troubling,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said the phone call with the Ukrainian president was “very concerning,” and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) has warned Republicans against “rushing to circle the wagons to say there’s no there there when there’s obviously lots that’s very troubling there.”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: First House Republican Comes Out In Support Of Impeachment Inquiry

President Trump’s approval rating on the economy has soared to an all-time high, according to a CNN poll released on Thursday.

In the survey, 56 percent said they approve of the way Trump in handling of the economy, compared with 41 percent who disapproved. Trump has consistently been in the mid-40s and low 50s throughout his term, but the 56 percent rating is a new high.

“Here’s is the Trump card for the president: 56 percent of Americans approve how he’s handling the economy,” gushed CNN’s political director David Chalian in a report about the poll. “This is the highest number we’ve ever seen in CNN polling. … That 56 percent, if you stack it up historically, it’s the high-water mark in the entirety of the Trump presidency in CNN polling.

“As you know — James Carville made famous — ‘it’s the economy, stupid.’ We know the sensibility about the economy heading into an election matters a ton,” Chalian said.

The numbers were high, even though the methodology said that of the 1,007 people surveyed, “33% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described themselves as Republicans, and 41% described themselves as independents or members of another party.”

Meanwhile, as CNN hit new lows in its ratings, another poll released on Wednesday showed Trump’s overall approval rating has hit the highest level in two years, at 43 percent. That rating is the highest since an April 2017 CNN poll, which came about 100 days mark of his presidency.

On Monday, Trump wrote on Twitter that yet another poll had good news as well. “Gallup Poll: 56% of Americans rate their financial situation as excellent or good. This is the highest number since 2002, and up 10 points since 2016.

“A majority of Americans, 56%, rate their current financial situation as ‘excellent’ (12%) or ‘good’ (44%), while 29% rate it as ‘only fair’ and 15% as ‘poor.’ This overall positive rating has increased 10 percentage points since 2015 and is currently the highest since 2002, though it is statistically unchanged since last year. Likewise, the 57% of Americans who now say their overall financial situation is getting better has risen 10 points since 2016 and is at its highest numerical point since 2002,” Gallup wrote.

Asked about the new numbers, White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also quoted Carville, the top architect of Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992.

“You hate to sound like a cliché, but are you better off than you were four years ago? It’s pretty simple, right? It’s the economy, stupid. I think that’s easy. People will vote for somebody they don’t like if they think it’s good for them,” Mulvaney said.

As Trump’s numbers go up, CNN’s numbers go down. The liberal network’s prime-time ratings plunged 26 percent in April, compared to 2018. MSNBC’s ratings, meanwhile, fell 14 percent compared to last year.
According to Nielsen Media Research’s ratings, CNN suffered its lowest-rated month in viewers since October 2015. CNN had just 767,000 average primetime viewers, down from 1.04 million in April 2018. “In the 25- to 54-year-old demographic that advertisers covet most, it was the network’s least-watched month since Aug. 2015,” The Hill reported.

In prime time, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC for the 208th month in a row. MNSBC had double the viewership of CNN — and Fox News tripled CNN total viewers.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Thegatewaypundit: CNN GUSHES: Trump’s Approval Rating On Economy ‘Highest Number We’ve Ever Seen ’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to use taxpayer money to “cancel” hundreds of billions of dollars in student-loan debt and offer debt-free college for millions more, which would cost $1.25 trillion over the next decade.

In a blog post on Medium, the Massachusetts Democrat said the “huge student loan debt burden” is “crushing millions of families and acting as an anchor on our economy. It’s reducing home ownership rates. It’s leading fewer people to start businesses. It’s forcing students to drop out of school before getting a degree. It’s a problem for all of us.”

The first step in addressing this crisis is to deal head-on with the outstanding debt that is weighing down millions of families and should never have been required in the first place. That’s why I’m calling for something truly transformational — the cancellation of up to $50,000 in student loan debt for 42 million Americans.

My plan for broad student debt cancellation will:

Cancel debt for more than 95% of the nearly 45 million Americans with student loan debt;

Wipe out student loan debt entirely for more than 75% of the Americans with that debt;

Substantially increase wealth for Black and Latinx families and reduce both the Black-White and Latinx-White wealth gaps; and

Provide an enormous middle-class stimulus that will boost economic growth, increase home purchases, and fuel a new wave of small business formation.

“Experts estimate my debt cancellation plan creates a one-time cost to the government of $640 billion. The Universal Free College program brings the total cost of the program to roughly $1.25 trillion over ten years,” Warren wrote.

But Warren says “the actual costs of these new ideas are likely to be even less than that,” and claims “we can fully cover the cost of these ideas with revenue from my Ultra-Millionaire Tax on the wealthiest 75,000 families in the country — those with fortunes of $50 million or more.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that would entail “an annual 2% levy on wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.”

The senator, who is running for president in 2020, also proposes using $50 billion in taxpayer funds for historically black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs. And she wants to “prohibit public colleges from considering citizenship status” when making admissions decisions.

In addition, Warren wants to phase out federal money that now goes to for-profit schools. “After an appropriate transition period, ban for-profit colleges from receiving any federal dollars (including military benefits and federal student loans), so they can no longer use taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves while targeting lower-income students, servicemembers, and students of color and leaving them saddled with debt,” she wrote.

Student loan debt has more than doubled over the last 10 years to $1.5 trillion, and some economic experts say that is driving the declining home ownership rates among young adults.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Dailywire: $1.25 TRILLION: Sen. Elizabeth Warren Proposes Using Taxpayer Money To Pay Student Debt

For the first time in 75 years, the United States exported more oil than it imported, carrying out a pledge from President Trump that America can achieve “energy independence.”

While the U.S. has been a net oil importer since 1949, over the final week of November, U.S. net imports of crude oil and petroleum products fell to minus 211,000 barrels per day (bpd) — which means America exported more than it imported, according to data from U.S. Energy Information and Administration.

Oil production has been booming in the U.S. as the shale revolution swept the nation. America is now the world’s largest producer of petroleum, passing Russia and Saudi Arabia. As the U.S. oil boom spread, the power of OPEC was reduced and gas prices in the U.S. have dropped from the $4+ highs under former president Barack Obama.

Net imports peaked in 2005, topping 14 million bpd, but in the last few months, the U.S. has imported an average of 2 million bpd. U.S. production has more than doubled since 2012 because of the new technologies for extracting oil.

“U.S. crude exports are poised to rise even further, with new pipelines from the Permian in the works and at least nine terminals planned that will be capable of loading supertankers,” Bloomberg reports. “The only facility currently able to load the largest ships, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, is on pace to load more oil in December than it has in any other month.”

The shift to net exports is the dramatic result of an unprecedented boom in American oil production, with thousands of wells pumping from the Permian region of Texas and New Mexico to the Bakken in North Dakota to the Marcellus in Pennsylvania. …

The massive Permian may be even bigger than previously thought. The Delaware Basin, the less drilled part of the field, holds more than twice the amount of crude as its sister, the Midland Basin, the U.S. Geological Service said Thursday.

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency said in its latest World Energy Outlook “that the United States will be the biggest contributor to the oil market, accounting for almost 75 percent of global oil production growth in the period to 2040,” Epoch Times reported.

The news about the United States becoming a net oil exporter was largely ignored last week, as markets were obsessed with the OPEC meeting in Vienna.

“While there is so much focus on the drama in the OPEC cartel, the real historic news that went unnoticed was that the United States last week exported more crude oil and fuel than it imported for the first time on record,” Phil Flynn, analyst at Price Futures Group in Chicago, wrote in an email.

OPEC, the massive oil cartel in the Middle East, voted Friday to cut oil output by 1.2 million bpd for the first six months of 2019. The move is an effort to push prices up.

Trump, though, called on OPEC and Saudi Arabia not to restrict oil production. “Hopefully OPEC will be keeping oil flows as is, not restricted. The World does not want to see, or need, higher oil prices!” he wrote on Twitter last Wednesday.

Author: JOSEPH CURL

Source: Dailywire: GOOD TRUMP: U.S. Ends Reliance On Foreign Oil For First Time In 75 Years

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!