Randy DeSoto


Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas introduced a resolution on Thursday to ban the Democratic Party or any other political party that supported slavery.

Gohmert’s resolution also calls on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to have all items removed from the House of Representatives wing of the U.S. Capitol or the connected House office buildings that name any political party or organization that supported slavery.

The move came a day after a measure supported by Pelosi regarding Confederate statues passed the House. That bill calls for the removal from the Capitol statues of those who backed the Confederate States of America, Politico reported.

Gohmert explained in a statement regarding his resolution that “a great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred.”

“Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,” he said.

The conservative stalwart went on to argue that in light of calls to rename schools, military bases and city streets, the Democratic Party should follow suit.

“Whether it be supporting the most vile forms of racism or actively working against Civil Rights legislation, Democrats in this country perpetuated these abhorrent forms of discrimination and violence practically since their party’s inception,” Gohmert said.

“To avoid triggering innocent bystanders by the racist past of the Democratic Party, I would suggest they change their name. That is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur,” he concluded.

In his resolution, Gohmert pointed out that the Democratic platform in the 1840s and ’50s, before the outbreak of the Civil War, explicitly called for Congress not to interfere with the institution of slavery and warned to do so would “endanger the stability and permanency of the Union.”

The document further highlighted that Democrats in Congress did not offer one vote in support of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, guaranteeing the newly freed slaves equal protection of the law, and the 15th Amendment, granting them the right to vote.

Gohmert noted the Democratic President Woodrow Wilson introduced a segregation policy in the U.S. government in 1912.

Additionally, it was Democrats who waged a 75-day filibuster in the Senate in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Republicans supported that legislation in higher percentages than Democrats in both the Senate and the House.

In contrast to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party was founded to halt the growth of slavery in the 1850s.

The party’s first president, Abraham Lincoln, oversaw slavery’s demise.

It is no wonder abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass was a staunch Republican.

Democratic politicians in the Southern states responded to blacks Americans’ new freedoms by passing Jim Crow, segregationist laws starting in the late 1800s.

They also populated the ranks of the Ku Klux Klan, formed to terrorize African-Americans and keep them in subjugation.

Lest one think this is ancient history, the nation’s longest-serving senator, Democrat Robert Byrd, led a Ku Klux Klan chapter in his native West Virginia when he was a young man.

When the former Senate majority leader died in 2010, Hillary Clinton lauded him as her “mentor” and “the heart” of the Senate.

Meanwhile, in the years since the Civil War, Republicans stayed true to their roots of supporting the rights of African-Americans.

President Ulysses Grant, a Republican, sent the Army into the Southern states to protect African-Americans from Klan and other white supremacist-inspired violence.

He also championed the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870 guaranteeing black Americans the right to vote as a means to help them secure political power.

Decades later, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law, the first such legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1875 under Grant.

Eisenhower also sent the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which mandated integrating public schools.

By way of comparison, Joe Biden in the 1970s opposed student busing programs, which was a primary means used to desegregate public schools.

Gohmert’s right. The Democrats have a troubling record on race, and it’s time for a reckoning.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: GOP Rep. Gohmert Introduces Resolution To Ban Democratic Party

Federal district court Judge Emmet Sullivan filed a petition on Thursday seeking a review by the full D.C. Circuit Court regarding the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former Trump administration National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

In a 2-1 decision last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the DOJ’s decision in May to drop its charges against Flynn should have marked the end of the case.

Further, the appeals court held Sullivan was in the wrong to continue it.

In a highly unusual move, Sullivan had responded to the DOJ’s decision to end the case by appointing a former federal judge to file a brief arguing why the prosecution should remain in place.

Flynn then appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court before Sullivan made his final ruling on the matter, arguing the judge was acting as a de facto prosecutor.

In his Thursday court filing, Sullivan contended that the three-judge panel usurped his authority as a trier of fact in the case.

Sullivan’s attorneys wrote the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Flynn marked a “dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”

“It is the district court’s job to consider and rule on pending motions, even ones that seem straightforward,” the legal brief reads.

“This Court, if called upon, reviews those decisions — it does not preempt them.”

Sullivan’s team defended the judge’s decision to appoint a former federal judge to make the case against dismissal.

“Judicial decisions are supposed to be based on the record before the court, not speculation about what the future may hold,” the petition reads.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan decides he will not accept a 3-2 circuit court ruling instructing him to drop Michael #Flynn case. Sullivan is now requesting a hearing before the entire 11 judge panel. Flynn is not out of the woods yet. @FoxNews

— David Spunt (@davidspunt) July 9, 2020

“All the district court has done is ensure adversarial briefing and an opportunity to ask questions about a pending motion” to dismiss the case, it adds.

Flynn plead guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in the transition period before President Donald Trump took office.

In January, the retired three-star general sought to withdraw his plea based on alleged misconduct by the FBI.

In the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case, federal prosecutors argued that Flynn’s behavior as the incoming national security advisor was appropriate.

They said that his calls were not material to the FBI’s underlying counterintelligence investigation about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Sullivan Does Not Accept Flynn Ruling, Appeals to Full DC Circuit Court

Seeing Chief Justice John Roberts side with the liberal justices on yet another high-profile Supreme Court decision brings to mind on old debate line employed by Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter: There you go again.

Let’s go down the recent list of Roberts’ defections from constitutional fidelity, starting with his Monday decision striking down a Louisiana law requiring doctors performing abortions to having admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

Roberts sided with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan finding such a requirement unconstitutional.

Mind you, four years ago Roberts dissented from a ruling striking down a Texas law with a similar requirement, but that requirement was more restrictive than Louisiana’s.

In that instance, now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberal wing of the court in the 2016 Texas case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Riddle me this: How is a more restrictive Texas law constitutional in Roberts’ mind in 2016 but a less restrictive Louisiana law unconstitutional in 2020?

Roberts has fully ensconced himself in the role of swing vote first filled in recent times by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, then by Kennedy and now by the chief justice.

Remember that talk about the court shifting to the right with President Donald Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy?

Roberts has assured us that has not happened.

In his concurring opinion on Monday in June Medical Serivces LLC v. Russo, the chief justice wrote he felt bound to follow court precedent and claimed the Louisiana law was just as restrictive as the Texas law. But that still does not explain the flip-flop.

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” the chief justice wrote. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Justice Clarence Thomas took him to task for the switch, noting stare decisis generally refers to settled law with a long record of decisions stemming from it.

“[N]o one could seriously claim … Whole Woman’s Health, decided just four Terms ago — [is] part of the ‘inheritance from our forefathers,’ fidelity to which demonstrates ‘reverence to antiquity,’” Thomas wrote, quoting philosopher Edmund Burke.

Of course, Roberts has been more than willing to side with the liberal justices when his vote really matters.

We all remember him throwing down the deciding lot upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare.

But the trend has become pronounced since Trump took office.

Last summer, Roberts, in his majority opinion, ruled against the president’s administration including a citizenship question on the census. He claimed Trump’s commerce secretary did not explain well enough why such a question was relevant.

What kind of silliness is that? Our country ought to know how many citizens it has so they can be properly represented in Congress.

The citizenship question, in some form, has appeared in nearly every census conducted during the history of the nation.

Earlier this month, Roberts joined the liberal justices in rejecting a suit brought by California churches in which they argued Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on religious gatherings were too restrictive.

The governor had limited church gatherings to 25 percent capacity while secular businesses were not subject to such a restriction.

These included “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries,” Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.

“California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh concluded.

Perhaps the whopper of them all from this term was Roberts’ ruling blocking Trump from winding down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Former President Barack Obama acknowledged on numerous occasions he had no authority to change immigration law without Congress, but he did it anyway during the summer of 2012 at the height of his re-election campaign.

In his majority opinion, Roberts made the implausible claim the justices were not seeking a specific policy outcome.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern,’” the chief justice wrote.

“We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” Roberts continued. “Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.

“That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”

Since when is it the judicial branch’s role to gauge if the executive branch exercised its “discretion in a reasonable manner” in terms of ending an illegal program?

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas responded to Roberts’ decision, observing, “It cannot be the law that what Barack Obama has unlawfully done, no president may undo. Yet John Roberts again postures as a Solomon who will save our institutions from political controversy and accountability.”

“If the Chief Justice believes his political judgment is so exquisite, I invite him to resign, travel to Iowa, and get elected. I suspect voters will find his strange views no more compelling than do the principled justices on the Court.”

What has become perfectly clear is Trump needs another term if for no other reason than to try to truly establish a conservative, law-abiding majority on the court.

Then Chief Justice Roberts can join with the liberals all he wants while the American people enjoy a high court that keeps fidelity with the Constitution regardless of political expediency.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Roberts Is at It Again, Siding with Liberal Justices To Strike Down Pro-Life Law

In recent interviews, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has employed words made famous during the Watergate hearings in reference to President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, suggesting a congressional investigation into his conduct will occur.

On Sunday, Pelosi accused Trump of not working urgently enough to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We should be taking every precaution. What the president — his denial at the beginning was deadly,” Pelosi told host Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The speaker then referenced one of the most noteworthy questions asked during the 1973 Watergate impeachment hearings against then-President Richard Nixon: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

“I don’t know what the scientists said to him. When did this president know about this, and what did he know? What did he know and when did he know it? That’s for an after-action review,” Pelosi said.

“But as the president fiddles, people are dying. And we just have to take every precaution,” she added.

Pelosi asked the same question Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe, wondering what and when scientists were advising Trump about COVID-19.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington responded to Pelosi’s interview, tweeting, “Democrats are so impeachment obsessed, Pelosi is trying to turn a virus from Wuhan into Watergate.”

“‘What did he know & when did he know it?’ Is she talking about Xi?” Harrington continued. “POTUS mobilized CDC, created task force, and stopped travel, while Dems wasted our time on a Ukraine witch hunt.”

On Jan. 31, Trump announced the then-controversial decision to ban flights coming out of China into the United States, making the U.S. one of the first nations to do so, according to a CNN timeline.

The move came 10 days after officials confirmed the first American case of the virus.

That same week, the president established a coronavirus task force to monitor the unfolding public health situation.

Even as the news coming out of China worsened, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were pushing for additional witnesses and documents to be included in Trump’s impeachment trial, which would have resulted in the proceedings continuing for weeks or perhaps months.

Following Pelosi’s Sunday CNN interview, the president called her a “sick puppy” and a “disgrace” in response to her claim his administration is costing people’s lives.

He accused her of playing a political “game.”

“It’s a sad thing,” Trump told Fox News.

“She’s a sick puppy, in my opinion. She really is. She’s got a lot of problems, and that’s a horrible thing to say especially when … I stopped some very, very infected, very, very sick people, thousands coming in from China.”

“She was playing the impeachment game, her game where she ended up looking like a fool,” he added.

By invoking the language of Watergate, Pelosi may be seeking to shift the coronavirus narrative.

Recent polling shows a majority of Americans support Trump’s handling of the outbreak.

A Gallup poll released last week found 60 percent approve of the president’s COVID-19 efforts, including 27 percent of Democrats in the survey.

Similarly, an ABC News/Washington Post poll published late last week showed Trump with 51 percent approval and 45 percent disapproval in his handling of the crisis.

Additionally, for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polling conducted during Trump’s presidency, a majority of Americans approve of his overall job performance: 48 to 46 percent.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Pelosi Invokes Language of Watergate, Suggesting Trump Coronavirus Response Investigation

An interesting phenomena we’ve seen repeated throughout U.S. history is that somehow, either through providence or the wisdom of the American people or both, we’ve ended up with the right person as president to face the crisis at hand.

Donald Trump — the former businessman, who ran on the need to secure our border — is well-suited to the current crisis.

It is uncanny how America has been blessed in this way, over and over again.

At our nation’s founding, it was the reluctant George Washington who took the reins of the presidency.

In his first inaugural address, after being chosen by an unanimous Electoral College vote, the retired Revolutionary War commanding general lamented that his countrymen may have placed too much trust in his ability to be chief executive based on his past success on the battlefield.

But he entrusted himself and the nation to that Almighty Being “whose providential aids can supply every human defect” and accepted the responsibility.

So instead of a self-aggrandizing General Napoleon Bonaparte, who took dictatorial control of France shortly after its revolution in 1789, the United States was blessed with the self-effacing Washington, whose greatest desire was to see the new government under the Constitution successfully launched.

Washington set the gold standard for what public service looks like for all the presidents to follow.

One of Washington’s greatest admirers, Abraham Lincoln, would rise to the fore over 70 years later to lead the nation through the Civil War, which threatened to undue much of the American experiment in self-government.

This gentle, yet firm man, well-acquainted with disappointment and grief, seemed to have just the right words to assuage Americans’ pain, as well as inspire them to “accept war rather than let [the United States] perish.”

In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took over the presidency during the heart of the Great Depression.

Despite the dire situation, he confidently proclaimed during his first inaugural address, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Those words came from a man who had been struck with polio at the age of 39, paralyzing him from the waist down. FDR knew what it meant stare down one’s fears and move forward.

He would use the same spiritual muscles developed in his own personal crisis in the 1920s to lead the United States through the Great Depression and World War II.

At the dawn of the nuclear age in the 1950s, Americans chose former WWII Allied Commander Gen. Dwight Eisenhower as their president. He led with a steady hand through some of the most complicated, perilous national security times the world ever faced.

When the United States was weighed down by a malaise in the 1970s, economically and otherwise, Ronald Reagan stepped forward to run for president.

The former California governor and movie star made his intentions clear: He wanted to revive the nation’s economy, which was entering into a steep recession, and restore the American spirit.

“We have every right to dream heroic dreams … and believe in our capacity to perform great deeds,” Reagan pronounced in his first inaugural address in January 1981.

“And, after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

Two decades later, George W. Bush prevailed by the thinnest of margins in the 2000 presidential election.

Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, there was something so reassuring when this former Yale college football cheerleader took the bullhorn at Ground Zero and declared to the first responders, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people – and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

These recent days feel a little like the aftermath 9/11, with uncertainty about what the next weeks and months will look like.

Somehow, Trump seems well-suited for the moment.

Going into the crisis, the former New York businessman presided over one of the hottest economies in U.S. history, with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years.

Gallup found in January, “Americans’ confidence in the economy is higher than at any point in the past two decades.”

Trump takes that goodwill and trust in his economic policies into this present coronavirus crisis.

The president also knows what it means to make a payroll, and that no doubt helps instill confidence in business leaders that actions will be taken at the federal level to keep them afloat.

Further, the candidate who ran on building a wall on the southern border was quick to shut down travel from China in January after learning of the coronavirus outbreak, and has closed down travel from much of Europe, Canada and other parts of the world since.

Even Trump’s personal hygiene practices (he’s previously described himself as a “germaphobe,” and “clean-hands freak”) seem particularly helpful at this point in time.

Call it divine providence (which I believe in), the wisdom of the American electorate or both, but somehow during the nation’s most challenging times, the right person arises as president to see us through.

This time around appears to be no different.

Praise God!

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Once Again America Is Blessed with the Right President at the Right Time

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer conceded he exercised poor word choice when he called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday, but went on to blame Republicans for “manufacturing outrage” over his comments.

Speaking at a rally for abortion rights supporters as the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the issue, Schumer turned toward the courtroom and said, “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The condemnation of Schumer’s comments was swift, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,’” Roberts said in a statement.

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

American Bar Association president Judy Perry Martinez was also “deeply troubled” by Schumer’s words.

“Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats — whether real or allegorical,” she said in a statement. “Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the President, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable.”

In a Wednesday tweet, liberal Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe also sided with Roberts and called for Schumer to apologize.

“These remarks by @SenSchumer were inexcusable,” Tribe wrote. “Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments. I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat. It’s beneath him and his office.”

Wednesday evening, Schumer’s spokesman Justin Goodman issued a statement saying the senator meant that Republicans would pay a “political price” for putting Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court, The Hill reported.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was not buying that explanation, saying from the Senate floor Thursday morning, “There is nothing to call this except a threat, and there is absolutely no question to whom, to whom it was directed.”

“Contrary to what the Democratic leader has since tried to claim, he very very clearly was not addressing Republican lawmakers or anyone else,” McConnell added.

“The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, period. There’s no other way to interpret that,” he said.

Schumer responded to the controversy later on Thursday morning stating McConnell made a “glaring omission” by not mentioning the minority leader’s remarks came in the context of the Supreme Court case potentially impacting women’s ability to obtain abortions.

“Now I should not have used the words I used yesterday,” Schumer said from the Senate floor. “They didn’t come out the way I intended to.”

“My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President (Donald) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose,” he continued.

Schumer then accused Republicans of manufacturing outrage and distorting his comments.

“Of course I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise. I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language,” the senator said.

“I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing. And Leader McConnell knows that. And Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that, too.”

GOP Sen. Josh Hawley announced on Wednesday he would be introducing a motion to censure Schumer for his controversial comments.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Schumer Admits ‘I Should Not Have Used the Words I Used Yesterday,’ But Blames Republicans

The jobs market finished 2019 on a high note, adding 202,000 new positions to the private sector payrolls in December.

According to an ADP and Moody’s Analytics report released on Wednesday, the service sector provided 173,000 of those positions.

Meanwhile, small and medium sized companies made up a bulk of the hiring, with small businesses (1-49 employees) adding 69,000 new jobs, while midsized employers (50-499 workers) brought on 88,000.

The construction sector saw a 37,000 increase in employment, while the manufacturing sector lost 7,000 positions.

“The service providers posted the largest gain since April, driven mainly by professional and business services. Job creation was strong across companies of all sizes, led predominantly by midsized companies,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute.

“Manufacturers, energy producers and small companies have been shedding jobs,” noted Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.

The total 202,000 jobs added “was well above the 150,000 consensus estimate from economists surveyed by Dow Jones and sets the stage for the government’s official count that will be released Friday,” according to CNBC.

ADP also revised its initial November new jobs count from 67,000 to 124,000 created.

Ivanka Trump, who leads the Trump administration’s National Council for the American Worker, touted the gains made while her father has been in office at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Tuesday.

“This is a very very exciting time to be in the work force,” Trump said during her keynote remarks.

“One of the things that I’m really passionate about is there really is this blue collar boom that is taking place,” she added.

“If you look at where wages are rising, they’re rising the fastest in the bottom quintile. They’re rising the fastest for blue collar workers,” Trump said.

The country has been experiencing its lowest unemployment rate since 1969, and the lowest ever for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans.

Meanwhile, hourly wages have risen at their fastest rate in years, with those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum seeing the highest percentage gains.

Since President Donald Trump was elected, 7 million new jobs have been created.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Trump Economy Continues Winning as US Companies Add 202K Workers in December: Report

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler issued his impeachment report early Monday morning, arguing President Donald Trump abused his office, is a threat to the Constitution and must be removed from office as soon as possible.

But under the Democrats’ standard, former President Barack Obama was clearly in violation of it on at least two occasions during his 2012 re-election campaign.

The 658-page report — including a dissent by Republicans on the committee — opens with the two articles of impeachment that the House is expected to vote on and likely pass this week.

The first article alleges Trump “abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper political benefit.”

“He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections,” the article further reads.

Nadler and the Democrats’ charges of wrongdoing stem from Trump’s July 25 with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked the newly sworn-in leader to look into a March 2016 incident involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor.

In January 2018, Biden bragged he’d demanded the removal of the prosecutor or Ukraine would not be receiving $1 billion in U.S. aid.

The prosecutor happened to be investigating the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, which was paying Biden’s son Hunter at least $50,000 a month to serve on its board.

Nadler’s first article of impeachment alleges part of Trump’s abuse of power was conditioning payment of $391 million in aid that Congress authorized for Ukraine on the Kyiv government investigating the Bidens and the “discredited theory” that Ukraine interfered in the U.S. presidential election in 2016.

As House Republicans have repeatedly pointed out during the course of the impeachment proceedings to date, no matter how many times the Democrats allege it, Trump did not condition the receipt of military aid on Ukraine taking any actions during his phone call with Zelensky.

Both Zelensky and his foreign minister have stated they felt no pressure to open the investigations, and Trump released the aid in the middle of September with Ukraine not having announced an investigation into the Bidens or 2016 election interference.

So despite what Nadler or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff may say, these are the facts, and they stand in complete contrast to what the Democrats are selling.

If the Democrats’ new abuse of power standard were to be adopted, Obama was clearly in violation of it during his re-election campaign 2012.

Where were the calls from Democrats that Obama violated his oath office in March 2012, when he asked then-outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in an infamous hot mic moment, to tell incoming President Vladimir Putin that he would have more flexibility after the U.S. election that fall to negotiate about placement of anti-missile defenses in Poland and Romania?

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, according to Reuters.

In other words, for the sake of his re-election, his own political gain, Obama had to appear to be playing hardball with Russia.

Neither Nadler, Schiff nor then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nor even the leaders in the Republican Congress, pushed for Obama’s impeachment for putting at risk U.S. security.

He engaged in a quid pro quo: If Putin does not push me on deployment of anti-missile defenses now, I promise I can give him a better outcome for Russia after I’m re-elected.

Was this weakness Obama displayed toward Putin a reason the Russian leader felt he could invade Ukraine with impunity a little over a year into Obama’s second term?

Obama’s collusion, if you will, with Russia in March 2012, wasn’t the only time that year he put his own political interest ahead of that of the United States.

The president also announced his Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program in June of that year.

Obama himself acknowledged two years before he had no constitutional authority to act unilaterally regarding the status of those who are in the country illegally.

When asked about the topic during a 2010 Univision interview, Obama responded, “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen.”

To implement DACA by executive order was a clear political play aimed at helping his re-election prospects.

The Democrats held both houses of Congress — including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — during Obama’s first two years in office, yet did nothing to address immigration, despite calls from Hispanic leaders to do so.

Obama could not risk losing support from such a key constituency, so he took the law into his own hands. He failed to faithfully execute the law passed by Congress.

Republicans and even “Saturday Night Live” later pointed out that Obama acted in a lawless fashion, but there were no widespread calls on Capitol Hill to impeach the president, and certainly no impeachment inquiries opened.

The Democrats may be sowing the wind and about to reap the whirlwind in the years ahead with their new “abuse of power” impeachment standard.

Let’s hope the most immediate consequence is the American people voting to return Trump to office and remove Democrats from power in the House in 2020.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Obama Violated Dems’ New Impeachment ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard at Least Twice

As Democrats ramp up their impeachment push, newly released polling shows a majority of Democratic voters now believe President Donald Trump will complete his first term.

The number of Democrats who don’t think Trump will be removed from office before the end of his term has increased to 56 percent, up 7 percentage points from last month’s results, according to a Hill-HarrisX survey.

Meanwhile, 93 percent of Republicans see Trump staying in office, a 4 percentage point increase from October.

Overall, 73 percent of the voters surveyed believe that Trump will complete his first term.

The poll was conducted online among 1,204 registered voters between Nov. 8 and Nov. 9, ahead of Wednesday’s first public testimony in the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry into Trump’s delay of military aid to Ukraine.

At a news conference Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described the hearing as a “successful day for truth” and alleged that Trump had engaged in “bribery” for his own political benefit.

In a tweet Wednesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy noted some key facts that work against Pelosi’s allegation.

First, the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows no quid pro quo.

Further, Zelensky has stated on multiple occasions he did not feel pressured by Trump’s phone call to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

Based on testimony by acting U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine Bill Taylor on Wednesday, Ukraine had no knowledge the aid was being withheld until after Trump’s call with Zelensky, making it very hard to argue a quid pro quo had been suggested.

Finally, the aid was in fact released in mid-September.

McCarthy noted that GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York made the point succinctly during Wednesday’s hearing.

“For the millions of Americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following: Number 1: Ukraine received the aid. Number 2: There was, in fact, no investigation into Biden,” Stefanik said.

Pelosi argued during her Thursday news conference that the American public needs more time to form its views on impeachment.

“Impeaching is a divisive thing in our country. It’s hard,” Pelosi said. “The place that our country is now, it’s not a time where you go to 70 percent when President Nixon walked out of the White House. It wasn’t there before he left, even two weeks before he left until the other shoe fell and he walked out of the door.”

“By the way, what President Trump has done on the record in terms of acting to advantage his, a foreign power to help him in his own election and the obstruction of information about that — the coverup — makes what Nixon did look almost small,” she added.

Gallup found that days before former President Richard Nixon left office in August 1974, 71 percent of Democrats supported his removal from office, and 19 percent did not. Among Republicans, 31 percent felt he should be moved and 59 percent did not.

So there was solid bipartisan support for Nixon to go.

By contrast, 87 percent of Democrats want Trump out of office, but only 7 percent of Republicans do. Ninety-two percent of Republicans oppose Trump’s removal.

As a reminder, Watergate involved the actual crime of breaking into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., during Nixon’s re-election campaign, and him being caught on tape conspiring to cover up White House involvement.

It is becoming increasing clear, apparently even to Democratic voters, that no smoking gun of Trump wrongdoing exists, because there was in fact no crime.

The president was quick to release the transcript of the call with Zelensky, and proudly stood by his request for Ukraine to investigate public corruption in their country, even if it implicates the Bidens.

Here’s hoping that the Democrats’ purely political impeachment push backfires and propels Trump to a landslide victory in 2020 while returning control of the House to Republicans.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: Polling Shows Democrats Have Lost Faith in Impeachment in Just 1 Month

“The View” host Whoopi Goldberg told Newt Gingrich she was not going to let the former House speaker “spin” after he brought up the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign had worked with foreign entities to try and influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

The program then cut to commercial.

The topic came up on Tuesday’s show, when “The View” co-host Abby Huntsman pressed Gingrich on whether it was wrong for President Donald Trump to raise the issue of Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine on his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“You admit that it’s an abuse of power though, right, what he did on the phone call?” she asked.

Gingrich did not concede that point, saying he had re-read the transcript of the phone call and saw no evidence of wrongdoing.

A review of the transcript shows Trump made no quid pro quo demand. In fact, the Ukrainians did not know until a month after the call that the Trump administration had directed the aid to be delayed.

He then released it in mid-September with Ukraine not having opened an investigation into the Bidens.

“Then what is [an abuse of power]?” Huntsman wanted to know.

“When I think about a president’s role, if you call a foreign president and you ask them to investigate your opponent in a presidential race … ”

Co-host Sunny Hostin then interjected: “And look into the [Democratic National Committee] server as well.”

“No, I’m actually curious, if that’s not an abuse of power, what is?” Huntsman asked Gingrich.

“What it is is exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign did,” Gingrich responded.

“Notice the difference. The Clinton campaign paid to create a dossier … ”

Goldberg then stepped in.

“Hillary — y’all are — tried her, you beat her. She’s not the president. The man who’s the president broke the law,” Goldberg insisted.

“He didn’t break the law. He did not,” Gingrich replied.

However, Goldberg cut him off again, saying, “We’re not going to let you spin,” and the network went to commercial.

Huntsman briefly took up the topic again after the commercial break.

Gingrich explained that Trump was asking the new president of Ukraine in the call to find out the truth.

“It cannot be a crime to try to find the truth,” Gingrich said.

“Sure it can,” Hostin responded.

She argued that Trump should be asking the FBI or other officials in our government to investigate the matter, not a foreign government.

Gingrich then noted this is exactly what Trump said in the call: He hoped Zelensky’s administration would be able to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into interference in the 2016 race and other corruption matters.

Hostin contended that the attorney general should not be working with a foreign government.

It’s unclear how she expects the U.S. government to find out the origin of interference originating from the Ukraine, coordinated in part by a Democratic operative, if he does not.

Hostin insisted it was wrong to be investigating a political opponent in this fashion.

“It’s not investigating a political opponent; it’s investigating an allegation of corruption,” Gingrich said.

Goldberg then cut Gingrich off, saying, “Excuse me while I spin,” and turned around in her chair, drawing laughter and cheers from the audience.

“You can’t announce you’re a candidate and then say ‘therefore I can’t be investigated,’” Gingrich argued.

The former speaker noted foreign influence in the 2016 election was not limited to Ukraine, referencing the fact that former British spy Christopher Steele wrote the now-infamous Trump-Russia dossier.

The dossier was used, in part, by the FBI to launch a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

He added that a “whole series of people in Europe” also helped.

One of them was Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who arranged a meeting with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in London in May 2016.

Downer pushed Papadopoulos to admit the campaign was working with the Russians, but the adviser told him he had no knowledge of anything like that.

“The whole effort to smear [Trump] was a multinational effort,” Gingrich said, drawing dismissive reactions from the co-hosts.

They obviously need to do their homework.

Even former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report noted there were multiple attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign from foreign individuals, but no evidence that the campaign colluded with Russia.

It’s quite obvious that Goldberg and the rest of her cohorts can’t handle the truth when it comes to the Democrats’ misconduct in 2016.

Author: Randy DeSoto

Source: Western Journal: ‘The View’ Cut Newt When He Brought Up Evidence Hillary Abused Power, Not Trump

Ad Blocker Detected!

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