America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond

16 05 2017

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus.  John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, was arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington, and he was held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials:

Federal judge Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court . . . issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln didn’t respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during a July 4 speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South.[2]

We may be approaching a series of crises in which President Donald Trump will have to act boldly and defiantly, and adopt harsh measures similar to those of Lincoln.

President Trump was elected by the American people.  There are a myriad of persuasive arguments why his opponent, Hillary Clinton, should be indicted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of her life.[3]  Yet, the drumbeat among Democrats, so-called “progressives” and the far-Left is to destroy the Trump presidency before it has begun.[4]

Many Americans felt just as strongly about the black racist Barack Obama[5], but they did not try to destroy his presidency or advocate his assassination as many in the anti-Trump camp have.  Their seditious, subversive and treasonous conduct strongly suggests that they pose a danger to our system of government. They should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Trump is hated by [Washington, D.C.], which gave him 4 percent of its votes, as much as Nixon was. And the deep-state determination to bring him down is as great as it was with Nixon. By 1968, the liberal establishment had lost the mandate it had held since 1933, but not lost its ability to wound and kill [Republican] presidents. Though Nixon won 49 states, that establishment took him down. Though Ronald Reagan won 49 states, that establishment almost took him down in the Iran-Contra affair. And that is the end they have in mind for President Trump.[6]

The United States and the American people are facing threats to our existence, which are unprecedented in our history, far surpassing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.[7]  We cannot permit the seditious, subversive and treasonous conduct of some to pose a danger to our system of government and way of life.

© 2017, Timothy D. Naegele

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at

[2]  See (“President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War”)

[3]  See, e.g. (“Clinton Fatigue”)

[4]  See, e.g. (“Impeachment: The Democrats’ Loonies And Wackos Are Frothing At The Mouth”)

[5]  If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that Obama is a racist, please read his book “Dreams from My Father” that sets forth his core black racist beliefs in his own words, which have undergirded his presidency.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

[6]  See (“Comey & The Saturday Night Massacre”)

[7]  See, e.g. (“North Korea Prepares EMP Catastrophe For America”)



30 responses

18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

End The Careers Of RINOS Curbelo And Amash Now! [UPDATED]

RINO Watch

Breitbart has reported:

As Washington D.C. was gripped once more by anti-Trump hysteria Wednesday, some Republican lawmakers scrambled to be the loudest in their condemnation of the President — with one lawmaker going so far as to contact a left-wing publication to let them know that he was the first Republican to mention a possible impeachment.

The furor gripping Capitol Hill and the mainstream media was triggered by a New York Times report Tuesday outlining a memo by fired FBI Director James Comey. The memo reportedly said that Trump had asked Comey to quash the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While some Republicans were skeptical about what was essentially a report about part of a memo about a conversation, some anti-Trump Republican lawmakers pounced. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a long-time Trump opponent, told CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, “It’s reaching the point where it’s of Watergate size and scale.”

“Every couple of days, there’s a new aspect of this really unhappy situation… None of us, no matter what our political leanings are, no matter how we feel about Trump, feel this is not good for America,” McCain said.

On Wednesday, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), told reporters that if the details in the memo were true, it would merit impeachment. According to The Hill, Amash was also asked if he trusted Comey or Trump’s word more. He responded: “I think it’s pretty clear I have more confidence in Director Comey.”

Quickly a number of outlets reported Amash’s remarks, calling him the first Republican to float Trump’s impeachment.

However, after left-wing outlet Mother Jones reported Amash’s remarks as such, the outlet said it was then contacted by a spokeswoman for Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), who reportedly told them: “Congressman Curbelo was actually the first Republican to mention impeachment.”

The spokeswoman was apparently referring to remarks Curbelo made Tuesday night on CNN in which he called for Comey to testify under oath, and said what was outlined in the Times report could be obstruction of justice.

“Obviously any effort to stop the federal government from conducting an investigation, any effort to dissuade federal agents from proceeding with an investigation, is very serious and could be construed as obstruction of justice,” Curbelo said.

While Curbelo said he wasn’t necessarily accusing anyone of anything, he later added, “Obstruction of justice, in the case of Nixon, in the case of Clinton in the late 90s, has been considered an impeachable offense.”

“This daily dose of controversy, of scandal, of instability, is bad for the government and I think it’s also very taxing on the American people,” he said.

Mother Jones editor Jeremy Schulman referenced the Curbelo conversation as proof of “how bad it’s gotten for Trump.”

See (“REPUBLICAN Lawmakers Fight Over Who Floated Trump Impeachment First“) (emphasis added); see also (“Conservatives begin to whisper: President Pence“)

A RINO is a “Republican In Name Only.” Lots of us voted for John McCain when he ran for the presidency; and as each day passes, we regret having done so.

Curbelo is a freshman Member of Congress; and next year, he must be swept from office. The same thing must happen with Amash.

Curbelo and Amash


18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Special Prosecutor For Trump/Russia Investigation Is A Disaster [UPDATED]

EMP Attack on USA

In an article with the title above, political pundit and Trump supporter Dick Morris has written:

The Trump Administration may never recover from the decision of Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein to cave into Democratic pressure and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the totally fictitious “scandal” of Trump’s relationship with Putin.

The prosecutor, hired to investigate something that never happened, will not report Trump’s innocence. Special prosecutors never do. They justify their own existence, importance, budget, and staff by finding something to prosecute. Usually the “crime” they end up going after is one that his own investigation has created.

Remember the Valerie Plame affair? After years of work the special prosecutor found that no crime had occurred. The person who leaked her link to the CIA was authorized to do so. With no crime to come up with, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, indicted poor Scooter Libby, an aide to VP Dick Cheney, for perjury, a crime that would never have taken place had there been no investigation.

That’s how special prosecutors work.

In the meantime, they hobble the president, drain away his political credibility, separate him from his supporters, and paralyze his administration. No legislator is willing to lend his support for fear of what the prosecutor might find. Each one will run for cover rather than work with Trump to get something done.

In appointing a prosecutor, Rosenstein has killed this Administration’s ability to function. No health care overhaul. No tax cuts. No government reform. All while we await the results of a nothing investigation into a nothing scandal.

And did Mr. Rosenstein get vested with this power to destroy? The Democrats sidelined Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General for doing his job as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and meeting with the Russian ambassador. He was forced to recuse himself when he said he knew of no instance of a Trump campaign official or aide meeting with the Russians. Of course, Sessions was no campaign aide but a Senator doing his job.

Mueller is a fair man and perhaps he will resist the temptation to look under rocks that aren’t there in search of scandal that never happened. Let us pray.

See (emphasis added); see also (“The Special Counsel Mistake”—”[Mr. Mueller will] no doubt bring on young attorneys who will savor the opportunity to make their reputation on such a high-profile investigation”)

The one thing that I learned by working in the U.S. Senate is that everyone is out to screw everyone else. Destroying the lives and reputations of others is “blood sport” on Capitol Hill. Since I left there, it has only gotten far worse. Any notions of “bipartisanship,” comity and respect went out the window years ago.

The whole atmosphere is poisonous and noxious; and having watched congressmen and senators bedding young female staffers, no older than about 28, I vowed that my kids would never work there. Only one word truly fit: S-I-C-K.

See, e.g., (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“)

Fast forward to today, and I lived through Watergate too. It was breaking when I was still in the Senate; and I predicted Richard Nixon’s demise as I was leaving the Hill.

Donald Trump is essentially an Independent, and perhaps the first truly independent president in our history. This has its virtues and its vices. He is beholden to neither “establishment” political party, which is why lots of American love him and elected him.

However, he has made plenty of enemies in reaching our nation’s highest office, who want to see his presidency destroyed and Trump run out of Washington in utter disgrace. More than just reversing last year’s election results, they want to demonstrate to the nation and to the world who is really in charge of the United States.

Leave aside the fact that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who should be in prison, Trump’s enemies want to destroy him. They must be beaten, and they must be disgraced. Too much is at stake to do otherwise. North Korea and other enemies want to destroy us; and we are “inches” away from that happening.

See (“North Korea Prepares EMP Catastrophe For America“); see also (“North Korea Capable Of EMP Attack On USA“) and (“FBI Warns of Cyber Threat to Electric Grid”—”[The Department of Homeland Security (DHS}] and the FBI began a nationwide program warning of the dangers faced by U.S. utilities from damaging cyber attacks like the recent hacking against Ukraine’s power grid. The nationwide campaign by DHS and the FBI began March 31[, 2016] and includes 12 briefings and online webinars for electrical power infrastructure companies and others involved in security, with sessions in eight U.S. cities, including a session next week in Washington”)

This is what is at stake, and it is frightening. The “gotcha” politics of Capitol Hill and Washington are insane when viewed in the context of the dangers facing our country and every American. With the prospect of only 30 million of us surviving a nation-ending EMP Attack, a nuclear war seems to pale by comparison, and remarkably so.

. . .

Lastly, and a footnote to all of this, the first thing I did on Capitol Hill was to represent the Senate on a Joint Senate-House commission, the Presidential Commission on Mortgage Interest Rates. We had subpoena powers; and we spent months trying to reach a consensus before our final report and recommendations were made.

Young members of Robert Mueller’s staff will be cutting their teeth and building reputations and careers, just like Hillary Clinton and others have done before them. Dick Morris is correct: we can only hope and pray, for our great nation and—this time—its survival.


18 05 2017

Not good Timothy. Not good at all. Between Trump’s woes, and an EMP attack.. Yeash.. At least I bought some military EMP proof generators that run on heating oil…

Liked by 1 person

18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

Obviously, we do not need any of this. However, the Dems are masters at spinning falsehoods; and most Republicans are rank amateurs, if not outright stupid.

Regarding an EMP Attack, it would produce chaos, anarchy, roaming gangs, total lawlessness, and cannibalism as food stocks disappear. Also, if your generator was not stolen from you violently, you would have to find heating oil, which might be impossible.

You might wish to watch Denzel Washington’s film, “The Book of Eli.” My guess is that it approximates what life would be like in America after an EMP Attack.

See (“The Book of Eli”)


18 05 2017

The coup has begun. Wake up !


18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

How nice to hear from you, Smilin Jack. It has been a while. 😊

. . .

If it happens, and let’s hope it does not, targets should be put on the backs of every Democrat, Liberal, far-Leftist, and GOP Neanderthal who made it happen; and there should be “open season” on each of them.

This is not the Watergate era when the “Silent Majority” went silently. The “Flyover States” will be enraged, and their anger will know no bounds.


19 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice [UPDATED]

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation,” writes Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.

What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the prodigal son?

Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.

Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.

Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.

Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey last week.

Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take.

Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel’s office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.

Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him?

Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.

After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the document White House aides called crucial to Trump’s decision to fire Comey.

Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump’s orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.

Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done.

As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller’s investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

All that time, there will be a cloud over Trump’s presidency that will drain his political authority. Trump’s enemies will become less fearful and more vocal. Republican Congressmen and Senators in swing states and marginal districts, looking to 2018, will have less incentive to follow Trump’s lead, rather than their own instincts and interests. Party unity will fade away.

And without a united and energized Republican Party on the Hill, how do you get repeal and replacement of Obamacare, tax reform or a border wall? Trump’s agenda suddenly seems comatose. And was it a coincidence that the day Mueller was appointed, the markets tanked, with the Dow falling 372 points?

Markets had soared with Trump’s election on the expectation that his pro-business agenda would be enacted. If those expectations suddenly seem illusory, will the boom born of hope become a bust?

A White House staff, said to be in disarray, and a president reportedly enraged over endless press reports of his problems and falling polls, are not going to become one big happy family again with a growing office of prosecutors and FBI agents poking into issues in which they were involved.

Nor is the jurisdiction of the special counsel restricted to alleged Russia interference in the campaign. Allegations about Trump’s taxes, investments, and associates, and those of his family, could be drawn into the maw of the special counsel’s office by political and business enemies enthusiastic about seeing him brought down.

More folks in Trump’s entourage will soon be lawyering up.

While it’s absurd today to talk of impeachment, that will not deter Democrats and the media from speculating, given what happened to Nixon and Clinton when special prosecutors were put on their trail.

Another consequence of the naming of a special counsel, given what such investigations have produced, will be that Vice President Pence will soon find himself with new friends and admirers, and will begin to attract more press as the man of the future in the GOP.

A rising profile for Pence is unlikely to strengthen his relationship with a besieged president.

In the United Kingdom, the odds are growing that Trump may not finish his term.

So how does he regain the enthusiasm and energy he exhibited in previous crises, with such talk in the air?

A debilitating and potentially dangerous time for President Trump has now begun, courtesy of his deputy attorney general.

See (“Rosenstein Joins the Posse“); see also (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“Rosenstein Defends Memo Condemning Comey Before Trump Fired Him“)

Cowardly Rosenstein should be fired next!

Coward Rod Rosenstein


20 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The American Left Needs To Understand: Democracy Is Not Your Plaything [UPDATED]

Donald Trump arrives . . .

Peggy Noonan has written in the Wall Street Journal:

This will be unpleasantly earnest, but having witnessed the atmospherics the past 10 days it’s what I think needs saying:

Everyone, get serious.

Democracy is not your plaything.

This is not a game.

The president of the United States has produced a building crisis that is unprecedented in our history. The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated, in his first four months, that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability. That epic question is then broken down into discrete and specific questions: Did he improperly attempt to interfere with an FBI criminal investigation, did his presidential campaign collude with a foreign government, etc.

But the epic question underlies all. It couldn’t be more consequential and will take time to resolve. The sheer gravity of the drama will demand the best from all of us. Are we up to it?

Mr. Trump’s longtime foes, especially Democrats and progressives, are in the throes of a kind of obsessive delight. Every new blunder, every suggestion of an illegality, gives them pleasure. “He’ll be gone by autumn.”

But he was duly and legally elected by tens of millions of Americans who had legitimate reasons to support him, who knew they were throwing the long ball, and who, polls suggest, continue to support him. They believe the press is trying to kill him. “He’s new, not a politician, give him a chance.” What would it do to them, what would it say to them, to have him brusquely removed by his enemies after so little time? Would it tell them democracy is a con, the swamp always wins, you nobodies can make your little choices but we’re in control? What will that do to their faith in our institutions, in democracy itself?

These are wrenching questions.

But if Mr. Trump is truly unfit—if he has demonstrated already, so quickly, that he cannot competently perform the role, and that his drama will only get more dangerous and chaotic, how much time should pass to let him prove it? And how dangerous will the proving get?

Again, wrenching questions. So this is no time for blood lust and delight. Because democracy is not your plaything.

The president’s staffers seem to spend most of their time on the phone, leaking and seeking advantage, trying not to be named in the next White House Shake-Up story. A reliable anonymous source who gives good quote will be protected—for a while. The president spends his time tweeting his inane, bizarre messages—he’s the victim of a “witch hunt”—from his bed, with his iPad. And giving speeches, as he did this week at the Coast Guard Academy: “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Actually Lincoln got secession, civil war and a daily pounding from an abolitionist press that thought he didn’t go far enough and moderates who slammed his brutalist pursuit of victory. Then someone shot him in the head. So he had his challenges.

Journalists on fire with the great story of their lives—the most bizarre presidency in U.S. history and the breaking news of its daily missteps—cheer when their scoop that could bring down a president gets more hits then the previous record holder, the scoop that could bring down the candidate.

Stop leaking, tweeting, cheering. Democracy is not your plaything.

There’s a sense nobody’s in charge, that there’s no power center that’s holding, that in Washington they’re all randomly slamming into each other.

Which is not good in a crisis.

For Capitol Hill Democrats the crisis appears to be primarily a chance to showboat. Republicans are evolving, some starting to use the word “unfit” and some, as a congressman told me, “talking like they’re in a shelter for abused women. ‘He didn’t mean to throw me down the stairs.’ ‘He promised not to punch me again.’ ”

We’re chasing so many rabbits, we can’t keep track—Comey, FBI, memoranda; Russia, Flynn, the Trump campaign; Lavrov, indiscretions with intelligence. It’s become a blur.

But there’s an emerging sense of tragedy, isn’t there? Crucially needed reforms in taxing, regulation and infrastructure—changes the country needs!—are thwarted, all momentum killed. Markets are nervous.

The world sees the U.S. political system once again as a circus. Once the circus comes to town, it consumes everything, absorbs all energy.

I asked the ambassador to the U.S. from one of our greatest allies: “What does Europe say now when America leaves the room?” You’re still great, he said, but “we think you’re having a nervous breakdown.”

It is absurd to think the president can solve his problems by firing his staff. They are not the problem. He is the problem. They’re not the A-Team, they’re not the counselors you’d want, experienced and wise. They’re the island of misfit toys. But they could function adequately if he could lead adequately. For months he’s told friends he’s about to make big changes, and doesn’t. Why? Maybe because talented people on the outside don’t want to enter a poisonous staff environment just for the joy of committing career suicide. So he’s stuck, surrounded by people who increasingly resent him, who fear his unpredictability and pique and will surely one day begin to speak on the record.

A mystery: Why is the president never careful? He doesn’t act as if he’s picking his way through a minefield every day, which he is. He acts like he’s gamboling through safe terrain. Thus he indulges himself with strange claims, statements, tweets. He comports himself as if he has a buffer of deep support. He doesn’t. Nationally his approval numbers are in the mid to high 30s.

His position is not secure. And yet he gambols on, both paranoid and oblivious.

History is going to judge us by how we comported ourselves in this murky time. It will see who cared first for the country and who didn’t, who kept his head and did not, who remained true and calm and played it straight.

Now there will be a special prosecutor. In the short term this buys the White House time.

Here’s an idea.

It would be good if top Hill Republicans went en masse to the president and said: “Stop it. Clean up your act. Shut your mouth. Do your job. Stop tweeting. Stop seething. Stop wasting time. You lost the thread and don’t even know what you were elected to do anymore. Get a grip. Grow up and look at the terrain, see it for what it is. We have limited time. Every day you undercut yourself, you undercut us. More important, you keep from happening the good policy things we could have done together. If you don’t grow up fast, you’ll wind up abandoned and alone. Act like a president or leave the presidency.”

Could it help? For a minute. But it would be constructive—not just carping, leaking, posing, cheering and tweeting but actually trying to lead.

The president needs to be told: Democracy is not your plaything.

See (“Democracy Is Not Your Plaything“) (emphasis added)

I have seldom if ever agreed with Noonan, certainly in recent years. At best, she is one of the Neanderthals in the GOP—like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George Will and Bill Kristol—who symbolize why lots of us left the party years ago and have never looked back. They did not elect President Trump. His dedicated supporters did.

Many Americans felt and still feel just as passionately about Barack Obama as others do about President Trump today, but they did not try to destroy the Obama presidency or advocate his assassination as many in the destroy-Trump movement have and continue to do.

They believed and continue to believe, with good reason, that Obama was and is a black racist and un-American. If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a racist and a divider, please read his book Dreams from My Father, which sets forth his core beliefs that undergirded his eight years in the presidency.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

The Democrats or so-called “progressives” or far-Left and their captive Mainstream Media (or “MSN”), along with despicable elements of Neanderthals in the GOP, are literally trying to bring about a coup before the Trump presidency gets under way in earnest. They are like ugly vultures circling their prey.

I was working in the U.S. Senate when Watergate began; and as I left there, I predicted that the Nixon presidency would end. I hailed from California; and my parents were dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republicans. My mother even had a photo of “Dick and Pat” in our living room; and I had three chances to vote for him and never did.

I am not a “fan” of the totally Narcissistic Noonan who considers herself one of Washington’s “elites,” and seldom read her, but she asks the right question:

What would it do to them, what would it say to them, to have [President Trump] brusquely removed by his enemies . . . ?

Put succinctly, it would shatter our democracy. This is not the Watergate era that I lived through as I was leaving the U.S. Senate. “Gotcha politics” prevailed in Washington then, and the “feeding frenzy” has begun again.

The despicable Left and its alter ego in the so-called MSM are literally salivating—and so are our enemies around the world. The “blood sport” has begun again; and for lots of us who worked on Capitol Hill, this is merely the latest chapter and déjà vu.

Noonan’s mention of Lincoln’s travails is apt. History may be repeating itself.

See (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“)

Noonan’s statement that this may be “the most bizarre presidency in U.S. history” speaks volumes about her, not the Trump presidency. She adds: “[T]here’s an emerging sense of tragedy, isn’t there?” The tragedy is that anyone takes her seriously, or anyone else in the MSM or the thoroughly-despicable Left.

Next, she writes:

Once the circus comes to town, it consumes everything, absorbs all energy.

The “circus” never left Washington, D.C. It is a circus town, which is why it is poison and noxious to so many Americans in the “Flyover States” and elsewhere.

See, e.g., (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“)

Like so many “Never Trump” speakers and writers, who never wanted Donald Trump to become our president and want to destroy his presidency now, Noonan has no credibility with those of us who believe in this president, his lofty goals for our great nation and its people, and his place in history.


23 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Bringing Down A President Is Exhilarating

Dike Rachel Maddow

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Who is the real threat to the national security?

Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?

Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.

President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.

On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.

Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.

But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?

The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.

Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the “Resistance” — like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.

And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.

“Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?” asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.

One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?

In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.

Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.

When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.

And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.

Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer — for Watergate.

The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.

Felt, “Deep Throat,” was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt’s identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Which brings us to the point.

The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.

Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them?

Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests.

The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their identities protected.

This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.

For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The “failing New York Times” has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.

And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”

When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.

When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

See (“A Special Prosecutor for Criminal Leaks“)

Those seeking to overthrow Donald Trump’s presidency, and to bring about a coup, must be destroyed. Nothing less will suffice.

They are our enemies, every bit as much as Kim Jong-un of North Korea is.


24 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Classified Documents Show Obama Illegally Spied On Americans For Years [UPDATED}


John Solomon and Sara Carter have written for Circa:

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true.

“Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries inviolation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

“I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington.

“You have these problems going on for years that only come to the attention of the court late in the game and then it takes additional years to change its practices.

“I think it does call into question all those defenses that we kept hearing, that we always have a robust oversight structure and we have culture of adherence to privacy standards,” she added. “And the headline now is they actually haven’t been in compliacne for years and the FISA court itself says in its opinion is that the NSA suffers from a culture of a lack of candor.”

The NSA acknowledged it self-disclosed the mass violations to the court last fall and that in April it took the extraordinary step of suspending the type of searches that were violating the rules, even deleting prior collected data on Americans to avoid any further violations.

“NSA will no longer collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target,” the agency said in the statement that was dated April 28 and placed on its Web site without capturing much media or congressional attention.

In question is the collection of what is known as upstream “about data” about an American that is collected even though they were not directly in contact with a foreigner that the NSA was legally allowed to intercept.

The NSA said it doesn’t have the ability to stop collecting ‘about’ information on Americans, “without losing some other important data. ” It, however, said it would stop the practice to “reduce the chance that it would acquire communication of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with a foreign intelligence target.”

The NSA said it also plans to “delete the vast majority of its upstream internet data to further protect the privacy of U.S. person communications.”

Agency officials called the violations “inadvertent compliance lapses.” But the court and IG documents suggest the NSA had not developed a technological way to comply with the rules they had submitted to the court in 2011.

Officials “explained that NSA query compliance is largely maintained through a series of manual checks” and had not “included the proper limiters” to prevent unlawful searches, the NSA internal watchdog reported in a top secret report in January that was just declassified. A new system is being developed now, officials said.

The NSA conducts thousand of searches a year on data involving Americans and the actual numbers of violations were redacted from the documents Circa reviewed.

But a chart in the report showed there three types of violations, the most frequent being 5.2 percent of the time when NSA Section 702 upstream data on U.S. persons was searched.

The inspector general also found noncompliance between 0.7 percent and 1.4 percent of the time involving NSA activities in which there was a court order to target an American for spying but the rules were still not followed. Those activities are known as Section 704 and Section 705 spying.

The IG report spared few words for the NSA’s efforts before the disclosure to ensure it was complying with practices, some that date to rules issued in 2008 in the final days of the Bush administration and others that Obama put into effect in 2011.

“We found that the Agency controls for monitoring query compliance have not been completely developed,” the inspector general reported, citing problems ranging from missing requirements for documentation to the failure to complete controls that would ensure “query compliance.”

The NSA’s Signal Intelligence Directorate, the nation’s main foreign surveillance arm, wrote a letter back to the IG saying it agreed with the findings and that “corrective action plans” are in the works.

See (“Obama intel agency secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans for years“) (emphasis added; chart omitted); see also (“Investigate Obamagate!“)

Also, there are reasons to believe that Barack Obama knowingly let in MS-13 gang members, which is despicable unto itself.

See, e.g., (“Obama admin knew gang members were part of illegal immigrant surge: Whistleblower“)


28 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Evil Dems In Disarray

Hillary for Prison 2016

The New York Times has reported:

The Democratic defeat in a hard-fought special House election in Montana on Thursday highlighted the practical limitations on liberal opposition to President Trump and exposed a deepening rift between cautious party leaders, who want to pick their shots in battling for control of Congress in 2018, and more militant grass-roots activists who want to fight the Republicans everywhere.

Rob Quist, the Democratic nominee in Montana, staked his campaign on the Republican health care bill, but he still lost by six percentage points, even after his Republican opponent for the state’s lone House seat, Greg Gianforte, was charged with assaulting a reporter on the eve of the election.

The margin in this race was relatively small in a state that Mr. Trump carried by more than 20 percentage points last year. But Mr. Quist’s defeat disappointed grass-roots Democrats who financed nearly his entire campaign while the national party declined to spend heavily on what it considered, from the outset, an all-but-lost cause in daunting political territory.

This tension — between party leaders who will not compete for seats they think they cannot win and an energized base loath to concede any contests to Republicans — risks demoralizing activists who keep getting their hopes up. It also points to a painful reality for Democrats: Despite the boiling fury on the left, the resistance toward Mr. Trump has yet to translate into a major electoral victory.

In part, this is because the few special elections for Congress so far have taken place in red-leaning districts, where the near-daily barrage of new controversies involving Mr. Trump has not damaged him irreparably and where he remains fairly popular.

The Montana contest was the second special House election this year in a conservative district where rank-and-file progressives rallied behind their candidate only to see Washington-based Democrats shrink from the fight as Republicans launched ferocious attacks to ensure victory.

In Kansas last month — in a Wichita-area district that is even more conservative than Montana — national Republican groups stepped in to ensure that another lackluster candidate, Ron Estes, pulled out a win, while the Democratic nominee, James Thompson, waited in vain for his party’s cavalry to ride in.

“If the national Democratic Party would start getting more involved in these races earlier, then maybe we could flip them,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview. “It’s frustrating.”

For Republicans, the outcome in Montana, where Mr. Gianforte apologized in his victory speech late Thursday night to the reporter he had attacked, is likely to calm nerves at least for a while, staving off what the party feared would be a full-blown panic if Mr. Gianforte lost on such favorable turf. Washington-based Republican strategists had grown increasingly pessimistic about the race in recent weeks, bemoaning their candidate’s political deficiencies and predicting a narrow victory.

For Democrats, though, the contest pointed to an increasingly heated disagreement over where the party has a realistic chance to win. Party officials in Montana and progressive activists beyond the state’s borders grew frustrated last month watching outside Republican groups savage Mr. Quist as Democratic groups remained on the sidelines.

After a special House election in Georgia in which the Democrat Jon Ossoff received more than 48 percent of the vote — nearly averting a runoff and demonstrating the extent of voter enthusiasm on the left — Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat facing re-election next year, called Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the chairman of the House Democratic campaign arm, and implored him to consider spending money on Mr. Quist in the final weeks of the Montana race, according to two Democratic strategists briefed on the call. Mr. Tester also contacted the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, to see if he would carry the same message to the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California.

But House Democratic officials make no apology for their prudence, believing they are more likely to claim the 24 seats needed to capture the House majority in suburban districts with highly educated voters, where anger at Mr. Trump runs high. That includes districts like the one in suburban Atlanta, previously represented by Health Secretary Tom Price, where both parties have poured tens of millions of dollars into a contest that looms all the more consequential after the Democratic defeats in Kansas and Montana.

Even this week, just two days before the Montana vote, Mr. Luján announced new spending in the Georgia race. And in private, Mr. Luján was telling other House Democrats that Mr. Quist stood little chance, based on private polls showing Mr. Gianforte with a healthy, consistent lead of about 10 percentage points, according to one of those present at a closed-door meeting of the caucus. After the election was called, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee circulated a memo declaring that it had “refused to waste money on hype.”

On Friday, Democratic leaders emphasized that Mr. Quist had performed better than the party’s past congressional candidates in Montana, apparently benefiting from the enthusiasm of rank-and-file Democrats even as he fell well short of victory. The party’s nominees, they noted, are outpacing their predecessors on fairly forbidding terrain, and Democratic voters are participating at higher rates than Republicans, despite being outnumbered in these districts.

But other Democrats acknowledged that they must work harder to make inroads with voters who live far beyond major cities and their suburbs, if they want to pick up seats like the one Mr. Gianforte just captured.

While both Mr. Trump and key Republican policy proposals, like the American Health Care Act, are broadly unpopular in public polling, the president and his party retain a strong hold over rural America, potentially limiting the map on which Democrats can compete next year.

Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, the chairman of the Democratic caucus, said that the outcome in Montana had come as little surprise, and that he took heart that it was “not an easy struggle” for Republicans to retain a normally safe seat.

But Mr. Crowley said that his party’s approach to competing in rural areas was a work in progress, and that Democrats were still honing a positive message on the economy and jobs ahead of the 2018 campaign.

“What it says is we can be competitive in rural districts in states like Montana,” Mr. Crowley said of the special election, adding: “With the right candidate, with the right resources.”

The first element of that formula was on the minds of many Democrats on Friday, looking back at the avalanche of opposition research Republicans used against Mr. Quist as a sign that party leaders need to intervene more in primaries to ensure better candidates.

“I’m for grass-roots politics, but if you’re going to actually win seats, you need to focus on helping candidates who will be the most potent for the general election,” said David Axelrod, the veteran Democratic strategist, holding up Mr. Ossoff as an example of someone party officials had coalesced around early. “That’s one of the reasons there’s a competitive race there now.”

National Democratic strategists were deeply skeptical of Mr. Quist from the outset: The party’s campaign committee and House Majority PAC, a Democratic “super PAC,” dedicated only modest sums to the contest. Both groups faced harsh criticism from the left for holding back while Republican groups pounded Mr. Quist early in the race, driving up his personal unpopularity and effectively disqualifying him in the eyes of many voters.

But by not finishing more closely, Mr. Quist mitigated the postelection grumbling on the left. Two groups that had stoked enthusiasm for him — Our Revolution, a committee backed by Senator Bernie Sanders, and Democracy for America, a grass-roots liberal organization — applauded Mr. Quist for his effort but declined to fan grievances against the Democratic Party establishment.

The party will face a more telling test of its favored strategy on June 20 in the Georgia runoff. Democrats are more optimistic about that contest, and the Montana defeat increases pressure on the party to deliver a special election victory at last.

“That race becomes more of an actual test of what might happen in 2018,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The good news for Democrats is that Republicans will be unable to replicate across the map next year the kind of multimillion-dollar spending blitzes they have mounted in this year’s special elections.

Yet while it may be possible for Democrats to win control of the House without staking their fortunes on states and districts like Montana’s at-large congressional seat, the implications of being less competitive in rural precincts could have graver consequences in the Senate, where Democrats are defending a cluster of seats in conservative, sparsely populated states — including Montana.

“Democrats have to compete in Western states and rural areas,” said Tom Lopach, a Democratic strategist and former chief of staff to Mr. Tester. “For Democrats to have a governing majority, they have to listen to folks in rural America.”

Mr. Lopach, who led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2016, said that writing off rural voters would be a betrayal of “our governing philosophy of standing up for working folks and all Americans.”

See (“Liberals Wanted a Fight in Montana. Democratic Leaders Saw a Lost Cause“) (emphasis added); see also (“Greg Gianforte Victory in Montana Underscores Limits of Democrats’ Trump Resistance“)

How sweet it is! 🙂


31 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump Is Securing Israel’s Future

Israel flag burning

George Melloan, a former deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, has written in the New York Sun:

Shortly before the Six-Day War broke out, I attended an Israeli Defense Forces demonstration of military prowess at a site outside Tel Aviv. We foreign reporters were unimpressed as young Israeli recruits scrambled clumsily over the sand dues.

That was exactly what the Israelis intended. The show of ineptitude was part of the Israeli plan to generate over-confidence among Arab forces threatening Israel’s southern and eastern borders. The Israelis even sold a highly respected New York Times military analyst on the myth that their tanks were so decrepit that they had to be hauled into battle on semi-trailers. It turns out that was the fastest way to move them — fueled, stocked with ordnance and with fresh crews — from front to front.

Egypt, Syrian and Jordan would learn the truth on June 5 when the Israeli air force launched a pre-emptive strike against Egyptian and Syrian air bases and wiped out most of their planes on the ground. The IDF thereby gained air superiority which turned Egyptian tanks in the Sinai, Jordanian armor on the west bank, and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights into shooting gallery targets for Israeli fighter-bombers.

The thing I remember best about that earlier flailing pretense of weakness was the pacifist-sounding talks I heard from a young IDF lieutenant involved in the exercise. “Wars don’t solve anything,” he said to a group of reporters with some fervor. Maybe it was premonition. He was killed in the Sinai on the first day when an Egyptian rocket-propelled-grenade hit the half-track from which he was directing fire on Egyptian infantry.

It’s a bitter irony that he was both wrong and right. The war did resolve some important matters, such as whether Israel would survive as a nation state. Israel indeed survived and has strengthened its position in the half-century since. It now has a formal peace with Egypt, thanks to the 1976 Camp David Accords and a largely tacit understanding with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab emirates that the main threat they all face is Iran.

He was right, though, in that the war that would kill him and those fought since would only further aggravate the personal hostility that separates Jews and Arabs living in the territory Israel now controls. I flew back to Israel on the fourth day of the war, landing in a blackout at Lod airport in a DC-10 piloted by the middle-aged managers of El-al, who had taken over from the younger pilots fighting the war. The few passengers, mostly reporters, cheered when they landed us safely.

On the way up to Jerusalem in a rented car next day, I gave a ride to four Israeli soldiers who were hitch-hiking, not unusual in an army noted for improvisation. I asked them if Israel was going to return the land they had just conquered. These were not the clumsy recruits the IDF had put on display weeks before, but tough, battle-hardened men with faces leathered by the desert sun. One, perhaps a Yemeni Jew, used an Arab word, sounding like “feesh,” in reply. Another, who spoke English, translated: “Nothing doing.”

Well, they were wrong about that too. Israel did give back the vast Sinai in return for peace with Egypt. It pulled its settlements out of Gaza with more ambiguous consequences. But it has kept the West Bank of the Jordan River with its largely Arab population under its effective control and shows little inclination to give up this contentious barrier to future aggression.

Israel is now a powerful state with its alliance with America under repair by the Trump administration. It has become a center for technological innovation as it has shed many of the cumbersome trappings of its socialist beginnings. With Syria crippled by civil war, the main threat it now faces is from the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and its array of missiles.

No one can predict the future, especially in the Middle East, but the young IDF lieutenant would probably be reassured by Israel’s strategic position today, had he lived to see it.

See (“How Guile and Guts Won Israel’s Future, And Today’s Optimism“) (emphasis added}

If anyone thinks that Israel’s future would be bright with a Hillary Clinton presidency (i.e., a continuation of Barack Obama’s policies), they would be star-gazing.

Donald Trump is securing Israel’s future. No one should forget that, as the Democrats work toward his ouster.

Compare (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“) with (“Is Israel Doomed?“)


1 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Victories Ahead, And Sedition

Donald Trump Memorial Day Arlington

The Hill has reported:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks there’s a “55 percent chance” President Trump will be reelected in 2020.

Bloomberg, who politically identifies as independent, told New York Times columnist Frank Bruni that he thought Democrats didn’t have an effective message to win the 2016 election and could repeat that mistake in 2020.

“Hillary said, ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman and the other guy’s bad,’” Bloomberg said about 2016.

He said Democrats are still looking for issues and messages. And he worries that too many Democrats are eager to jump into the 2020 race.

“They’ll step on each other and re-elect Donald Trump,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and spoke at the Democratic National Convention, calling Trump a “dangerous demagogue.”

See (“Bloomberg: ’55 percent chance’ Trump will win reelection“) (emphasis added)

Bloomberg is correct.

The evil Dems and Neanderthals in the GOP, and the always-evil media, have been galvanizing the Trump faithful like never before to decimate these “enemies” and win even bigger next year and in 2020.

This is war; and they are far worse than Kim Jong-un or ISIS or Russia or Iran. They seek to destroy our great nation from within, and their practices constitute sedition as discussed in the article above.


3 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Are Afghanistan And the Middle East Lost Causes?

Time cover

In earlier comments I raised the issue, “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan,” which was the title of a Time magazine cover story that featured an 18-year-old Afghan woman named Aisha, whose photo is shown above.

See (“’What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan‘”) and (“Why We Fight In Afghanistan, And Why American Women Should Demand Barack Obama’s Removal From Office By Impeachment Or Otherwise“)

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“We are there and we are committed” was the regular retort of Secretary of State Dean Rusk during the war in Vietnam.

Whatever you may think of our decision to go in, Rusk was saying, if we walk away, the United States loses the first war in its history, with all that means for Southeast Asia and America’s position in the world.

We face a similar moment of decision.

Wednesday, a truck bomb exploded near the diplomatic quarter of Kabul, killing 90 and wounding 460. So terrible was the atrocity that the Taliban denied complicity. It is believed to have been the work of the Haqqani network.

This “horrific and shameful attack demonstrates these terrorists’ comp[l]ete disregard for human life and their nihilistic opposition to the dream of a peaceful future for Afghanistan,” said Hugo Llordens, a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

The message the truck bombers sent to the Afghan people? Not even in the heart of this capital can your government keep civilian workers and its own employees safe.

Message to America: After investing hundreds of billions and 2,000 U.S. lives in the 15 years since 9/11, we are further from victory than we have ever been.

President Obama, believing Afghanistan was the right war, and Iraq the wrong war, ramped up the U.S. presence in 2011 to 100,000 troops. His plan: Cripple the Taliban, train the Afghan army and security forces, stabilize the government, and withdraw American forces by the end of his second term.

Obama fell short, leaving President Trump with 8,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and Kabul’s control more tenuous than ever. The Taliban hold more territory and are active in more provinces than they have been since being driven from power in 2001. And Afghan forces are suffering casualties at the highest rate of the war.

Stated starkly, the war in Afghanistan is slowly being lost.

Indeed, Trump has inherited what seems to be an unwinnable war, if he is not prepared to send a new U.S. army to block the Taliban from taking power. And it is hard to believe that the American people would approve of any large reintroduction of U.S. forces.

The U.S. commander there, Gen. John Nicholson, has requested at least 3,000 more U.S. troops to train the Afghan army and stabilize the country while seeking a negotiated end to the war.

Trump’s conundrum: 3,000 or 5,000 more U.S. troops can at best help the Afghan security forces sustain the present stalemate.

But if we could not defeat the Taliban with 100,000 U.S. troops in country in 2011, we are not going to defeat a stronger Taliban with a U.S. force one-seventh of that size. And if a guerrilla army does not lose, it wins.

Yet it is hard to see how Trump can refuse to send more troops. If he says we have invested enough blood and treasure, the handwriting will be on the wall. Reports that both Russia and Iran are already talking to the Taliban suggest that they see a Taliban takeover as inevitable.

Should Trump announce any timetable for withdrawal, it would send shock waves through the Afghan government, army and society.

Any awareness that their great superpower ally was departing, now or soon, or refusing to invest more after 15 years, would be a psychological blow from which President Ashraf Ghani’s government might not recover.

What would a Taliban victory mean?

The Afghan people, especially those who cast their lot with us, could undergo something like what befell the South Vietnamese and Cambodians in 1975. It would be a defeat for us almost as far-reaching as was the defeat for the Soviet Union, when the Red Army was forced to pull out after a decade of war in the 1980s.

For the USSR, that Afghan defeat proved a near-fatal blow.

And if we pulled up stakes and departed, the exodus from Afghanistan would be huge and we would face a moral crisis of how many refugees we would accept, and how many we would leave behind to their fate.

Fifteen years ago, some of us argued that an attempt to remake Afghanistan and Iraq in our image was utopian folly, almost certain, given the history and culture of the entire region, to fail.

Yet we plunged in.

In 2001, it was Afghanistan. In 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq. Then we attacked Libya and ousted Gadhafi. Then we intervened in Syria. Then we backed the Saudi war to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Given the trillions sunk and lost, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead, how have we benefited ourselves, or these peoples?

As Rusk said, “We are there and we are committed.”

And the inevitable departure of the United States from the Middle East, which is coming, just as the British, French and Soviet empires had to depart, will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.

See (“Is Afghanistan a Lost Cause?“) (emphasis added); see also (“Are Afghanistan, Iraq And Pakistan Hopeless, And Is The Spread Of Radical Islam Inevitable, And Is Barack Obama Finished As America’s President?“) and (“Obama In Afghanistan: Doomed From The Start?“)

Will Aisha and so many other Afghan women, men and children have suffered in vain if we cut and run?


8 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Will Newsmax TV Replace FOX, And Star Bill O’Reilly? [UPDATED]

Bill O'Reilly

When Rupert Murdoch’s two far-Left sons fired Bill O’Reilly, they sent shock waves through America.

O’Reilly’s show on FOX had been the most-watched show on cable TV for more than 20 years, and suddenly he was gone. In his place came MSNBC’s resident dike, Rachel Maddow, who is an affront to everything that vast numbers of Americans hold sacred.

O’Reilly has been appearing on Newsmax TV (see, in unprofessional video interviews that do not do justice to either Newsmax or him.

The interviews must be professionally prepared, instead of looking like second-rate video conferencing. Also, “pros” must be hired from FOX or elsewhere, who will turn the somewhat “hokey” Newsmax TV into a real contender (e.g., jettisoning endless commercials targeted at the geriatric sector of Americans).

Missing from America today is a totally-professional forum that will mirror the voices of conservatives like FOX has in the past.

Will Newsmax TV fill that void, or be nothing more than “small potatoes” in the vast domestic and international media hierarchy? Will it emerge as the missing voice for conservatives and others, now that FOX is in ruins?

Only time will tell.

See also (“Double Down: Destroy America’s Left, And Boycott Political Correctness!“) and (“Bringing Down A President Is Exhilarating“) and (“Grrr 59% say news media make them angry, dissatisfied“) and (Media Mogul “Jerry Perenchio: Kind And Caring“)


9 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

This Is War: To Save Our Democracy, The Far-Left Media And Elites Must Be Destroyed

The Impeach Trump Conspiracy

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Pressed by Megyn Kelly on his ties to President Trump, an exasperated Vladimir Putin blurted out, “We had no relationship at all. . . . I never met him. . . . Have you all lost your senses over there?”

Yes, Vlad, we have.

Consider the questions that have convulsed this city since the Trump triumph, and raised talk of impeachment.

Did Trump collude with Russians to hack the DNC emails and move the goods to WikiLeaks, thus revealing the state secret that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was putting the screws to poor Bernie Sanders?

If not Trump himself, did campaign aides collude with the KGB?

Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly intercept everything Russians say to Americans, why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no?

The snail’s pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump’s frustration. What explains the FBI’s torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age.

We hear daily on cable TV of the “Trump-Russia” scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting CIA Director Mike Morrell:

“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. . . . There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark.”

Where are the criminals? Where is the crime?

As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it appears that Trump wanted a “back channel” to Putin so he could honor his commitment to seek better relations with Russia.

Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what is criminal about this?

Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have used back channels. Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward House to talk to the Kaiser and the Brits. FDR ran messages to Churchill through Harry Hopkins.

As for Trump asking Director James Comey to cut some slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel rotten about having to fire the man.

So, what is really going on here?

All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city’s hatred for President Trump, and its fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency.

For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution to overthrow a ruling regime.

Thus this city has never reconciled itself to Trump’s victory, and the president daily rubs their noses in their defeat with his tweets.

Seeking a rationale for its rejection, this city has seized upon that old standby. We didn’t lose! The election was stolen in a vast conspiracy, an “act of war” against America, an assault upon “our democracy,” criminal collusion between the Kremlin and the Trumpites.

Hence, Trump is an illegitimate president, and it is the duty of brave citizens of both parties to work to remove the usurper.

The city seized upon a similar argument in 1968, when Richard Nixon won, because it was said he had colluded to have South Vietnam’s president abort Lyndon Johnson’s new plan to bring peace to Southeast Asia in the final hours of that election.

Then, as now, the “t” word, treason, was trotted out.

Attempts to overturn elections where elites are repudiated are not uncommon in U.S. history. Both Nixon and Reagan, after 49-state landslides, were faced with attempts to overturn the election results.

With Nixon in Watergate, the elites succeeded. With Reagan in Iran-Contra, they almost succeeded in destroying that great president as he was ending the Cold War in a bloodless victory for the West.

After Lincoln’s assassination, President Andrew Johnson sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a ruthless Reconstruction on a defeated and devastated South.

The Radicals enacted the Tenure of Office Act, stripping Johnson of his authority to remove any member of the Cabinet without Senate permission. Johnson defied the Radicals and fired their agent in the Cabinet, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

“Tennessee” Johnson was impeached, and missed conviction by one vote. John F. Kennedy, in his 1956 book, called the senator who had voted to save Johnson a “Profile in Courage.”

If Trump is brought down on the basis of what Putin correctly labels “nonsense,” this city will have executed a nonviolent coup against a constitutionally elected president. Such an act would drop us into the company of those Third World nations where such means are the customary ways that corrupt elites retain their hold on power.

See (“The Impeach-Trump Conspiracy“) (emphasis added); see also (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“)

Again, to save our democracy, the far-Left media and so-called elites must be destroyed. Nothing less will suffice.

See also (“Trump Victories Ahead, And Sedition“)


11 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

SUMMER SHOWDOWN: Mueller Adds Muscle To Russia Investigation [UPDATED]

Obama Mueller Comey

Mike Allen of Axios has written:

“The Worst Thing That Happened to Donald Trump this Week” — Paul Rosenzweig, on the Lawfare blog: Special counsel “Robert Mueller has hired Michael Dreeben, on a part-time basis, to help with his investigation. Dreeben, a deputy in the Office of the Solicitor General, has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. His specialty has, for the last 20 years, been criminal matters and he has an encyclopedic knowledge of criminal law.”

Be smart: Mueller is amassing the talent arsenal you’d build to bring criminal charges.

• Why it matters: “[H]e is quite possibly the best criminal appellate lawyer in America (at least on the government’s side). That Mueller has sought his assistance attests both to the seriousness of his effort and the depth of the intellectual bench he is building.”

• National Law Journal: “The move signals that Mueller is seeking advice on the complexities that have arisen already in the investigations, including what constitutes obstruction of justice.”

• Mueller’s has had a spate of other high-octane hires, including Andrew Weissmann, chief of the fraud section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

• Weissmann was director of Justice’s Enron Task Force, where he oversaw the prosecutions of Jeffrey Skilling, Ken Lay, and Andrew Fastow. While at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, Weissmann helped prosecute high-ranking members of the Genovese, Colombo and Gambino crime families, and fought the infiltration of organized crime on Wall Street.

Coming attractions … Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was going to be pummeled with Russia questions during what was supposed to be a budget hearing before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday, switched yesterday and will appear Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

• Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein will take his place answering appropriations questions. See Sessions’ letter to the Intelligence Committee.

• AP: “The House intelligence committee sent a letter Friday asking White House counsel Don McGahn whether any tape recordings or memos of Comey’s conversations with the president exist now or had existed in the past.”

• “The committee also sent a letter to Comey asking for any notes or memos in his possession about the discussions he had with Trump before being abruptly fired last month. The committee is seeking the materials by June 23.”

The takeaway: All these moves show the Russia probe will remain constantly in Washington’s forefront.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Special Prosecutor For Trump/Russia Investigation Is A Disaster”—”Young members of Robert Mueller’s staff will be cutting their teeth and building reputations and careers, just like Hillary Clinton and others have done before them”) and (“Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors“)

It is clear that a witch hunt is underway, and the targets are Donald Trump and his presidency; and the goals are to reverse last November’s election results, and destroy a democratically-elected American presidency.

The players include Barack Obama, Comey and possibly Mueller himself, wittingly or unwittingly. They are handmaidens with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi (who may suffer from the onset of dementia), Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, Rachel Maddow and others.

This is treason and sedition, and war; and it must be recognized as such, and dealt with accordingly.

See (“Trump attorney signals a firm stance in dealing with special prosecutor”—”Jay Sekulow . . . questioned the appropriateness of Mueller’s advance review of the prepared testimony that former FBI Director James B. Comey delivered last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee”—”Sekulow declined to rule out ordering at some later date the firing of the widely praised Mueller, who preceded Comey as FBI director”—”[B]y vetting his [prepared Senate testimony with Mueller and his aides], Comey provided Trump’s defense team an opening to question his coziness with Mueller. The two had worked together during the George W. Bush administration when Comey was deputy attorney general and Mueller was FBI director”)


13 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

America Is In A Civil War

[Donald Trump’s America]

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.

Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.

Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey’s deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey’s friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: “Look at who Mueller’s starting to hire. . . . (T)hese are people that . . . look to me like they’re . . . setting up to go after Trump … including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. . . .

“This is going to be a witch hunt.”

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War.

The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received “panicky” calls of “Please, my God, can you stop this?”

Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

“It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal “collusion” in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding “unmasking” scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked.

Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president.

The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

Trump has had many accomplishments since his election. Yet his enemies in the media and their deep state allies have often made a purgatory of his presidency.

What he and his White House need to understand is that this is not going to end, that this is a fight to the finish, that his enemies will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace.

To prevail, Trump will have to campaign across this country and wage guerrilla war in this capital, using the legal and political weapons at his disposal to ferret out the enemies within his own government.

Not only is this battle essential, if Trump hopes to realize his agenda, it is winnable. For the people sense that the Beltway elites are cynically engaged in preserving their own privileges, positions and power.

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Time to burn down the Bastille.

See (“Are We Nearing Civil War?“) (emphasis added)


13 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Fix Was In On The Hillary Investigation From The Start [UPDATED]

Ed Klein: Guilty As Sin

In comments entitled “When Comey Did Obama’s Bidding,” Edward Klein—one of America’s most celebrated journalists, and a New York Times best-selling author—has written:

Several people have asked me if I was shocked when James Comey, the former FBI director, admitted under oath that his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ordered him to call the investigation of Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server “a matter”—which was how the Clinton campaign characterized it— rather than what it actually was, “a criminal investigation.”

I wasn’t.

Was I shocked that Comey agreed to Lynch’s language, using the excuse, “This isn’t a hill worth dying on, and so I just said, ‘OK’?

I wasn’t shocked about that, either.

The truth is, the fix was in on the Hillary investigation from the start. President Obama, you will recall, did his best to defend Hillary and her indefensible use of an unsecure and easily hackable e-mail system.

“This,” Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft at the very beginning of the investigation, “is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

After that remark, Comey asked to meet with Obama. This wasn’t their first meeting; they had had dinner several months before. Apparently, Comey developed an aversion to meeting with a president only after Donald Trump moved into the White House.

In addition, Loretta Lynch paid visits to the White House to brief Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s consigliere, about the status of the investigation. It was Jarrett, acting on behalf of Obama, who urged Lynch to order Comey to call the investigation “a matter.”

The meeting between Comey and Obama didn’t go well.

“Comey and Obama held each other in contempt,” I wrote in my book, Guilty As Sin. “Comey complained to his top assistants that . . . the president treated him with a tone of condescension. To Obama, the FBI was like any other cop shop, not the premier law enforcement organization in the country.”

Comey was more worried about appearances than he was about substance. He didn’t want it to appear that the White House was pressuring him to let Hillary go free.

But that is exactly what Obama, Jarrett, and Lynch did.

And we all know how that turned out.

Though Comey found Hillary “extremely careless in the handling of classified information,” he did his bosses’ bidding and refused to press charges against her.

Emphasis added.

A criminal conspiracy has existed between Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Comey, Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and others, which must be investigated thoroughly—and the participants must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison.

This is the scandal that is plaguing America, aside from the “deep-state” leaks and the despicable efforts to destroy the Trump presidency and change last November’s election results—which go to the very essence of our democracy!

See also (“SESSIONS HITS COMEY OVER TALK OF CLINTON EMAILS”—”Attorney General Jeff Sessions says fired FBI director James Comey’s decision to announce that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted over her emails was a ‘usurpation’ of the Justice Department’s authority. Sessions says he recommended Comey’s firing after a number of concerns about his job performance. But his very public handling of the Clinton email investigation was chief among them. He says Comey’s decision to announce the results of the investigation without Justice Department approval was ‘a stunning development’ because ‘the FBI is the investigative team. They don’t decide prosecution'”) and (“The Comey Conundrum: Liberal critics embrace him now that he’s attacking Trump”—”This goes back to 2004, when Comey was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s deputy, got an urgent call and rushed to the bedside of his hospitalized boss. Comey was able to block other Bush administration officials from having Ashcroft sign a reauthorization of the president’s domestic surveillance program. And who did Comey take with him? FBI Director Robert Mueller, who’s now investigating Comey’s charges as special counsel in the Russia investigation”)


14 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The gunman who was killed by cops after opening fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice on Wednesday, the president’s 71st birthday, was a Trump-hating Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter with a long criminal history which included of domestic violence.

James T. Hodgkinson, 66, from Belleville, Illinois, was killed by Capitol Police after firing up to 100 rounds from an assault rifle at a baseball park in Alexandria, Virginia, leaving five injured including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise at 7am on Wednesday.

Scalise’s condition worsened throughout the afternoon and was deemed critical by hospital staff at around 2pm after undergoing emergency surgery on his hip.

The shooter was a staunch Sanders supporter and campaigned for the left-wing senator to get the Democratic nomination for president last year.

A married union tradesman with a home inspection business, Hodgkinson had threatened to ‘destroy’ the president and his administration on social media but was not known to Secret Service.

His criminal record included arrests for punching a woman in the face in 2006 then pointing a gun at her boyfriend. Other charges include DUI and obstructing a police officer.

According to the gunman’s family, he was distraught about Trump’s November election win. They said he traveled to Virginia two months ago and had signed up for a membership at the YMCA opposite the baseball field he attacked.

Relatives said he had been living ‘out of a gym bag’ and had set up a mailbox at a UPS near the baseball field which he visited several times before carrying out his bloody attack.

Shortly after 7am on Wednesday, Hodgkinson opened fire from behind the third base dugout after asking one of the lawmakers if they were Republican or Democrat.

Two Capitol Police officers who were accompanying Scalise were shot as they returned fire. As bullets flew across the field, the congressmen fled to a dugout and huddled on top of one another, using their belts as makeshift tourniquets to treat the wounds of those who were shot.

Zachary Barth, a congressional staffer for Texas Rep. Roger Williams, was shot in the leg but is expected to recover. The two Capitol Police officers, Krystal Griner and David Bailey, are also expected to make a full recovery.

Lobbyist Matt Mika was also injured and is in hospital while Scalise is in critical condition at MedStar Washington Center after undergoing emergency surgery on his hip. Hodgkinson died in hospital.

Afterward the shooting, witnesses told how the shooter turned the park into a ‘killing field’ and seemed determined to murder ‘as many Republicans as possible’.

Hodgkinson documented his hatred for the president in Facebook and Twitter posts where he threatened to ‘destroy Trump & co’ and labeled him a ‘traitor’.

He has a history of gun violence, previously pointing one at a man during a family argument in 2006. He was once arrested for domestic battery and faced other charges for DUI, attempting to elude police and obstructing a police officer.

In 2006, he was arrested for punching a woman in the face. A separate incident, which was recorded in a police report obtained by The Daily Beast, says he also beat his underage daughter.

In that report, officers described how he was seen throwing her around a bedroom. When she tried to escape him, they said he pulled her hair. Another incident involved him cutting the girl’s seat-belt with a knife.

His violent tendencies came as a surprise to people who worked with him on Sanders’ 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

One told The Washington Post: ‘I met him on the Bernie trail in Iowa, worked with him in the Quad Cities area.

‘He was this union tradesman, pretty stocky, and we stayed up talking politics. He was more on the really progressive side of things,’ Charles Orear said, adding that Hodgkinson was ‘quite mellow’.

A friend of the man spoke outside his home in Belleville, Illinois – 800 miles from where the shooting occurred – to say he was a ‘nice guy’.

Despite his hateful social media posts and criminal history, sources told CNN the man was not on the Secret Service’s radar.

Sanders resisted criticism directed at him on Wednesday, and his aides stayed between him and reporters milling near the Senate chamber.

The Vermont democratic socialist said in a statement on the Senate floor that he was aware the shooter ‘apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.’

‘I am sickened by this despicable act,’ he said. ‘Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.’

‘Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.’

The president spoke at a White House press conference at around 11am.

He made a plea for unity and thanked the police and emergency responders involved, making no mention of the gunman other than to confirm his death.

President Trump revealed he had spoken to Scalise’s wife to offer her his support and described the injured Whip as a ‘true friend’ and ‘patriot’.

Scalise was shot in the hip and taken to hospital by air ambulance shortly after the attack. Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks tried to stop the bleeding from his wound as Sen. Paul, a trained doctor, cut his baseball uniform to examine the injury.

Scalise was on the field when he was shot but was able to drag himself to safety in the dugout, where the other men were hiding, as the two Capitol Police who had accompanied him for the practice exchanged gunfire.

Michigan Rep. Mike Bishop earlier described how one man – thought to be part of Scalise’s Capitol Police protection detail – stood his ground to return fire as the congressmen and at least one of their children dove for cover in a dugout and Scalise dragged himself across the field after being hit, leaving a trail of blood behind him.

He told CBS Detroit: ‘As we were standing here this morning, a gunman walked up to the fence line and just began to shoot. I was standing at home plate and he was in the third base line. He had a rifle that was clearly meant for the job of taking people out, multiple casualties, and he had several rounds and magazines that he kept unloading and reloading.’

He said: ‘The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.’

‘We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us.’

‘He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn’t have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank.’


Trump pleads for unity after GOP baseball shooting as Donald Jr. says attack proves why jokes about his father’s assassination AREN’T funny

The president pleaded for unity at a White House press conference to address an attack on his GOP colleagues on Wednesday.

Speaking hours after leaders including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others were injured by gunman James Hodgkinson, Trump said: ‘We are stronger when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.’

Trump referred to the gunman once to confirm his death, describing him only as ‘the assailant’. He devoted the rest of his speech to praising the Capitol Police and emergency responders who attended the attack.

‘Melania and I are grateful for their heroism and praying for the swift recovery of all victims. Congressman Scalise is a friend and a very good friend, He is a patriot and a fighter and he will recover from this assault.

‘Steve, I want you to know, you have the prayers not only of the entire city but of an entire nation and, frankly, the entire world. America is praying for you and America is praying for all of the victims of this shooting. I have spoken with Steve’s wife Jennifer and I pledged to her our full and absolute support. Anything she needs, we are with her and the entire Scalise family.

‘I have also spoken with Chief Matthew Verderosa (of the Capitol Police), he’s doing a fantastic job, to express our sympathies for his wounded officers and to express my admiration for their officers. They perform a challenging job with incredible skill and their sacrifice makes democracy possible.

‘We also commend the brave first responders from Alexandria Fire and Rescue who rushed to the scene. Everyone on that field is a public servant – our courageous police, our aides, and our dedicated members of congress who represent our people.

We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans and that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace,’ he said.

Donald Jr. had an angrier public response. He re-tweeted a post which read: ‘Events like today are EXACTLY why we took issue with NY elites glorifying the assassination of our President.’

He was referring to New York’s Public Theatre and its current production of Julius Caesar in which the doomed emperor is portrayed as his father. The play has sparked outrage and accusations that its directors are glorifying violence against the president.

It comes after the comedian Kathy Griffin’s shocking participation in a photo-shoot in which she appeared to be holding a fake representation of the president’s severed head. She apologized for the stunt after receiving angry backlash.


The group was practicing for a charity game which is due to take place on Thursday at Nationals Park when they were attacked. Three men escaped and took shelter in an apartment building nearby.

Another witness, Marty Lavor, dove on top of a congressman. He told CNN that after the gunman’s first shot, there was a break in the gunfire but it began shortly afterwards.

Republican Rep. Mo Brooks was also there but was not hurt. He described using his belt as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding on Scalise’s leg.

Speaking to FM Talk 1065 moments after the shooting, he told how the group was practicing batting when he suddenly saw the shooter.

‘Suddenly there’s this face. I noticed the guy’s got a rifle and he’s shooting at us,’ he said.

As he took shelter with others in the group, which also included Rep. Gary Palmer, Brooks said he watched Scalise crawl to them as the police exchanged gunfire with pistols.

‘He was dragging his body away from second base to get away from the shooter. He was shot in the hip. I think it was not a life-threatening wound. … There was no exit wound I could see.’

‘There was a blood trail about 10 to 15 yards long from where he was shot to wear he crawled to right field,’ he told CNN.

Brooks caught a brief glimpse of the shooter and described him as a white, middle-aged male. He said he described him as being ‘a little on the chubby side’ but not obese. No more information about him is being offered by police.

Scalise, as a member of the House leadership, was the only one in the group who had been accompanied by a Capitol Police security detail.

Senator Rand Paul, who was not hurt, said that without the armed officers, all of those targeted would have died.

‘Had they not been there, it would have been a massacre. As terrible as it is, it could have been a lot worse.

‘Had it not been for them, we would have been at the mercy of the shooter and he had a lot of ammo. All we would have had was baseball bats.’

‘The Capitol Hill police cannot get enough praise for really saving everyone’s life out there,’ he said.

Describing the scene as a ‘killing field’, he added: ‘He would have shot anybody who ran out.’

Ohio Republican Rep. Brad Robert Wenstrup, a doctor and an Army Reserve officer, was on the scene and helped treat the wounded before paramedics arrived.

‘I felt like I was back in Iraq, but without my weapon,’ he told Fox News. Arizona Rep. Senator Jeff Flake described watching as the gunman sprayed bullets on the field, where Scalise lay on the ground.

As his Capitol Hill protection officers exchanged fire, he said the group were helpless. ‘I wanted to get to Steve Scalise, laying out there in the field, but while there were bullets flying overhead, I couldn’t,’ he told ABC.

Scalise’s office initially said while he was undergoing emergency surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center that he was in ‘stable condition.’

‘Prior to entering surgery, the Whip was in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone,’ a spokesperson said.He is grateful for the brave actions of U.S. Capitol Police, first responders, and colleagues.’

The two Capitol Police officers who were shot are both in a ‘good condition’ and are expected to recover.

All who have spoken since the attack said they were saved by having two trained doctors, including Wenstrup, on the team.

He administered immediate aid to Scalise before handing over to Brooks while he cut off his clothing. ‘We were very fortunate to have a physician on the team.’

Sen. Paul is a trained opthalmologist. He said he was unable to get to Scalise because he was separated by part of the field and a fence while the active situation was ongoing.

One local resident was in his apartment with his wife when they were woken by the gunshots. They sheltered three members of the team after seeing them run for their lives from the field.

‘We were able to get them in a safe space for a couple of minutes. They were pretty shaken up,’ he said.

President Trump issued a statement shortly after the shooting to say he was ‘deeply saddened’ and was monitoring the situation closely.

‘We are deeply saddened by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members of Congress, their staffs, Capitol Police, first responders and all others affected,’ the president said.

Vice President Mike Pence cancelled a scheduled speech in order to meet with the president at The White House.

By mid-morning, the president had canceled a planned 3:00 p.m. event at the Department of Labor that was to have focused on his apprenticeship initiative.

All members of the House of Representatives were summoned to a private 11:15 a.m. briefing about the shooting investigation, and all votes were canceled for the day.

Scalise is the Republican majority whip in the House of Representatives – the congressman responsible for counting votes and maintaining party discipline.

The Louisianan, a 51-year-old father of two, is counted among conservatives in Congress who tend to back President Donald Trump’s more controversial initiatives, including calling his famous travel ban a ‘prudent’ measure. [H]e endorsed Trump unreservedly last year.

Scalise came under fire in 2014 for remarks he made in 2002 at a conference run by a group that he later learned was a white supremacist organization.

The infamous former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, who founded the group, blasted Scalise as a ‘sellout’ for apologizing.

The congressional baseball game is an annual tradition pitting members of the Democratic and Republican parties against each other. The game is set to take place on Thursday at Nationals Park.

Democratic members of Congress canceled their own baseball practice on Wednesday morning after news broke about the shooting. Many of those lawmakers gathered to pray for their political opponents in a concrete dugout before leaving under the guard of a Capitol Police escort.

As talk in Washington turned to the political ramifications of a high-profile shooting that affected lawmakers, fault lines began to emerge.

‘This kind of mindless violence must stop,’ California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a statement that hinted at her longstanding support for gun-control laws.

‘I’m dedicated to doing all I can to putting an end to these senseless tragedies.’

On the other side of the aisle, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said he doesn’t know who the shooter is ‘or how he got a gun.’

‘We’ve got plenty of gun laws,’ Graham told a Bloomberg reporter. ‘I own a gun. I don’t go around shooting people with it.’

‘People get shot, run over by cars, stabbed, it’s just a crazy world,’ he said. ‘If we had that debate it’d end like it always ends. We’re not going to tell law-abiding people they can’t own a gun because of some nut-job.’

‘One thing I hope we’ll all do is just watch our words a little bit,’ Graham added. ‘Knock down the rhetoric. That’d be a good thing.’

In corners of the U.S. Capitol where business resumed as usual, the shooting seemed to hit home.

‘Several members of this committee were there,’ Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California declared as he convened a hearing featuring Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

‘This is a sad day for our country.’

‘We still don’t have all the details,’ said Royce, ‘but we do know that there are those who want to use acts of violence to create chaos, to disrupt our democracy.’

‘The American people will not let them win.’

See (“Congress baseball gunman was a Trump-hating Bernie supporter: Hero cops kill white Illinois man, 66, who opened fire on Republican lawmakers on the President’s birthday, leaving five injured“) (emphasis added); see also (“Donald Trump Jr weighs in on Congress shooting as he retweets post saying it shows why ‘we took issue with New York elites glorifying assassination’ of his father“) and (Killer was “SUPERFAN” of dike Rachel Maddow—”One of my favorite TV shows is ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ on MSNBC”) and (Ann Coulter: “The ‘Resistance’ Goes Live-Fire”—”The explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters. They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a ‘piece of s—’ while hosting a show on CNN. The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they’re perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup”—”There is more media coverage for conservatives’ ‘microaggressions’ toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun — than there is for liberals’ physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations. And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it’s Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire”—”The fake news insists that Trump’s White House is in ‘chaos.’ No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art — the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump”) and (“A partial list of threats against GOP and Trump from Hollywood celebrities“)

Obviously, Donald Trump, Jr. and Ann Coulter are correct. Not since the last Civil War—which produced Abraham Lincoln’s assassination—have Americans experienced such viciousness, sedition and treason . . . which has been fanned by the black racist Barack Obama.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a despicable racist, please read his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words and beliefs, which undergirded eight years of his failed presidency—and gave rise to racial and political divisions not seen in our great country in decades.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“); see also (“Classified Documents Show Obama Illegally Spied On Americans For Years“)

As I have stated previously:

A criminal conspiracy has existed between Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Comey, Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and others, which must be investigated thoroughly—and the participants must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison.

This is the scandal that is plaguing America, aside from the “deep-state” leaks and the despicable efforts to destroy the Trump presidency and change last November’s election results—which go to the very essence of our democracy!

See (“The Fix Was In On The Hillary Investigation From The Start“); see also (“America Is In A Civil War”)

The latest is a move by special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, Robert Mueller, to widen the probe to include an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

See (“Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say”—”Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing”); see also (“SUMMER SHOWDOWN: Mueller Adds Muscle To Russia Investigation“)

For those of us who lived through Watergate, as I did when I was leaving the U.S. Senate, such investigations take on an insidious and odious life of their own. The Department of Justice, from which Mueller and Comey hail—along with Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller—is totally corrupt. Mueller, Rosenstein and others should be fired immediately; and the Mueller witch hunt should be shut down completely.

See, e.g., (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice“) and (“[Newt] Gingrich: Republicans Would Do Well to Emulate Sessions”—”Republicans need to realize that ‘this is a real war,’ the former speaker said, as ‘the left wants to destroy them, and being passive and being slow doesn’t count'”—”‘If we elect a Republican to follow Trump, the left is going to keep going crazy'”) and (Renowned civil-rights lawyer and a long-time Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz: “The fact that Mueller is opening an investigation on obstruction doesn’t answer the two basic questions. One — can a president be indicted while sitting? And two — can a president be indicted for obstruction — which is simply doing his job, being the head of the executive branch? I think the answer to both of these questions is still going to be no and no. . . . I think Trump benefits from the fact that [Mueller is] hiring experts on a president’s power, because I think they’ll tell him that the president’s power [is legitimate] ending the investigation”)

The forces within the United States that are trying to destroy the democratically-elected Trump presidency are every bit as evil as external enemies such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and ISIS. They must be destroyed, summarily.

Nothing less will suffice.


20 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Round One Goes To President Trump

President Donald J. Trump

Conrad Black—the Canadian-born British former newspaper publisher, author and life peer—has written in the New York Sun:

It is easy to forget that the credibility battle between President Trump and James Comey is just the latest round in Donald Trump’s long struggle to overwhelm, single-handedly at first, the entire national political power structure. No one who followed closely really believed that the war was over on election night.

The Democrats contested some local results, unsuccessfully, and then, in their stark disbelief, took out television advertisements reaching tens of millions of people, to ask some of the 538 people elevated to the electoral college to break their pledges and vote for Clinton instead of Trump. It was an absurd fiasco.

Democratic Senate leaders Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin made prodigious efforts to block virtually every nominee of the incoming administration to high office. Apart from knocking down Trump’s first candidate for labor secretary, their only achievement was delay and harassment.

From the day after the election Mrs. Clinton fabricated the contention that, first among all those responsible for her defeat (amongst whom she never thought of herself), were the Russians. This wild allegation was first advanced by the egregious John Podesta, Democratic campaign chairman, who had extensive links to Russia himself.

It was then amplified by former Senate leader Harry Reid, and then Mrs. Clinton got the bit in her teeth. Alleging collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign quickly became the favorite theme of the Democratic leaders in the Congress, and the vast gallery of Never-Trump fanatics in the national press, their ranks swollen and made more raucous by the self-exiled snobs of the intellectual conservative movement.

Since Mr. Trump had gone to war against all factions of both parties; Hollywood, Wall Street, the national press, academia, the lobbyists, and the bureaucracy, there could not be a honeymoon, merely a few pleasantries on inauguration day, like a Christmas truce on the Western Front in World War I, followed by the resumption of hostilities. The outgoing Obama administration helpfully conducted surveillance in the Trump Tower and unmasked and leaked to the press the names of prominent Republicans, which had arisen in these dubious practices, but no evidence was found.

The Russians jubilantly exploited the near anarchy in the angry and terrified Washington political and press elites, by an imaginative campaign of disinformation. They planted the infamous Steele dossier, including the claim that Mr. Trump had organized a group urination by prostitutes on a bed in a Moscow hotel because the Obamas had once slept there.

The upper reaches of the Washington civil-service became spigots of malicious and almost certainly criminal leakage to the Trumpophobic press. Every charge, no matter how fantastic, against the incoming president was given immense play by the morally bankrupt, unrelievedly partisan mainstream press, led by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC. All of these outlets had gagged on election night, and all of them refused to accept the legitimacy of the new administration.

There had never been an argument to reelect the Democrats on the merits of the largely failed Obama administration, so their entire campaign was a smear job on Trump. This continued with the Russian collusion scam and as soon as the administration was in place, with the nonsense about racism over the partial travel ban. (The Supreme Court will almost certainly take immigration back from the district and circuit courts and restore it to the president.)

Donald Trump definitely did not make his task easier by some of the bumptious and tasteless comments that he made as this war unfolded. He has generally held the support of his followers, who understood that his assault upon the political establishment was so comprehensive, it would require a full term to implement.

Those well acquainted with the key Democratic personalities in Washington confirm that they realize that they have absolutely nothing to work with for an impeachment but are aiming at the immobilization of the regime until the mid term elections of 2018 when the Democrats will try to retake at least part of the Congress against a do-nothing, blustering government.

Mr. Trump has fought like a fearless but calculating bull. His greatest problem is not spurious charges or press hostility, which is not uniform and provokes a heavy backlash, but the cowardice of congressional Republicans. Most of them are in the Washington sleaze factory Trump initially attacked, but they owe their majority status and the House passage of repeal of Obamacare to the president.

Speaker Paul Ryan was unable as the appointment of a special counsel was announced, even to allow the president a presumption of innocence, and confined himself to declining “to prejudge” the outcome. Soon, they will have to realize that the anti-Trump campaign is just a mudslide and that their only chance of retaining control of the Congress is to pull together and put the president’s radically sensible program through.

The firing of FBI director James Comey, apparently for needlessly dragging out the Russian collusion nonsense, though his ham-handed political meddling had irritated both parties, and his appearance before the Senate intelligence committee last week, and Trump’s press conference the following day, have torqued up the war to new heights of acrimony, but Mr. Trump is finally winning.

Even relatively unbiased commentators have failed to see how one-sided the exchange has been, though the comparisons with Richard Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox, like the collusion charge itself, the complaints of a back-channel between the Russians and the president’s son-in-law, and the charge of misuse of Israeli intelligence (denied by Prime Minister Netanyahu), have vanished, almost forgotten.

Mr. Comey conceded that he did not object when former Attorney General Lynch told him to refer to the Clinton investigation as the Clinton “matter.” He admitted, as Mr. Trump had claimed and Mr. Comey had not previously acknowledged and the press failed to publish, that even after many months of investigation Mr. Trump was not suspected of collusion with the Russians. He acknowledged that while Russia had tried to interfere with the election, there was no evidence that their efforts had changed any votes.

Mr. Comey admitted that he had leaked his hotly contested version of a conversation with the president about the investigation of former national security advisor General Michael Flynn, in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel. He did attack the press, and generated a retraction at CNN and extreme evasions by the New York Times.

No one is satisfied with Mr. Comey’s explanation of why he took it upon himself as a police chief to recite the likely offenses of Mrs. Clinton with her emails and then declare she should not be prosecuted, which was not his decision to make; nor why he reopened and then quickly closed the “Clinton matter” in the last week of the campaign.

In all of these areas, there is little argument that Mr. Comey exceeded the powers of his position, and compromised the political impartiality and integrity of the Bureau. The chief takeaways are that the Russian collusion argument against Mr. Trump is dead and that the obstruction argument is reduced to trying to claim, as no sane prosecutor would, that the president’s unwise and inconsequential expression of a hope that General Flynn would not be prosecuted constituted an obstruction of justice.

The chances of getting any traction on this issue are also zero. Even the endless brayings of Mr. Schumer and Adam Schiff, the unfeasibly sanctimonious congressman from Hollywood, and Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence Committee, may have to be modulated, (to the acoustical relief of the nation). There is little chance that Special Counsel Mueller will find anything that significantly embarrasses the president.

Donald Trump has won this round, but the war will continue for a while longer.

See (“Round One Goes To Trump, Even If More Tests Await the New President”) (emphasis added); see also (“Conrad Black“)

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Black when he states:

The Supreme Court will almost certainly take immigration back from the district and circuit courts and restore it to the president.

Our Supreme Court is as corrupt as any other political institution in this great country. Anyone who has practiced law at the highest levels knows this, in spades.

It is a disgrace.


22 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Nancy Pelosi

See (“Pelosi faces growing doubts among Dems after Georgia loss“) and (“Nancy Pelosi Faces Heat From Democrats After Georgia Loss“) and (“Cher: ‘GOP runs against’ Pelosi“) and (“Michael Moore: Dems have ‘no message, no plan, no leaders'”) and (“Democrats had the worst May fundraising since 2003“) and (“Pelosi’s Democratic critics plot to replace her“) and (“VIDEO: Pelosi repeats words, garbles speech, asks ‘So you want me to sing my praises?'”)

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has added:

In the first round of the special election for the House seat in Georgia’s Sixth District, 30-year-old Jon Ossoff swept 48 percent. He more than doubled the vote of his closest GOP rival, Karen Handel.

A Peach State pickup for the Democrats and a huge humiliation for President Trump seemed at hand.

But in Tuesday’s final round, Ossoff, after the most costly House race in history, got 48 percent again, and lost. If Democratic donors are grabbing pitchforks, who can blame them?

And what was Karen Handel’s cutting issue?

Ossoff lived two miles outside the district and represented the values of the Democratic minority leader, whom he would vote to make the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

The Pelosi factor has been a drag on Democrats in all four of the special elections the party has lost since Trump’s November triumph.

Prediction: Democrats will not go into the 2018 Congressional elections with San Fran Nan as the party’s face and future. No way. As President Kennedy said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Post-Trump, it is hard to see Republicans returning to NAFTA-GATT free-trade globalism, open borders, mass immigration or Bushite crusades for democracy. A cold realism about America’s limited power and potential to change the world has settled in.

And just as Trump put Bush-Romney Republicanism into the dumpster in the 2016 primaries, Hillary Clinton’s defeat, followed by losses in four straight special elections, portend a passing of the guard in the Democratic Party.

So where is the party going?

Clearly, the energy and fire are on the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren left. Moreover, the crudity of party chair Tom Perez’s attacks on Trump and the GOP, being echoed now by Democratic members of Congress, suggest that the new stridency to rally the angry left is gaining converts.

Trump’s rough rhetoric, which brought out the alienated working class in the ten of thousands to his rallies, is being emulated by “progressives” — imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

Nor is this unusual. After narrow presidential defeats, major parties have often taken a hard turn back toward their base.

After Richard Nixon lost narrowly to JFK in 1960, the Republican right blamed his “me-too” campaign, rose up and nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. A choice, not an echo.

After Hubert Humphrey lost narrowly to Nixon in 1968, the Democratic Party took a sharp turn to the left in 1972 and nominated George McGovern.

A 21st-century variant of McGovernism seems be in the cards for Democrats today. The salient positions of the party have less to do with bread-and-butter issues than identity politics, issues of race, gender, morality, culture, ethnicity and class.

Same-sex marriage, abortion rights, sanctuary cities, Black Lives Matter, racist cops, La Raza, bathroom rights, tearing down Confederate statues, renaming streets, buildings and bridges to remove any association with slave-owners or segregationists, putting sacred tribal lands ahead of pipelines, and erasing the name of the Washington Redskins.

The Democrats’ economic agenda?

Free tuition for college kids, forgiveness of student loan debt, sticking it to Wall Street and the 1 percent, and bailing out Puerto Rico.

And impeachment — though a yearlong FBI investigation has failed to find any Trump-Kremlin collusion to dethrone Debbie Wasserman Schultz or expose the debate-question shenanigans of Donna Brazile.

And where are the Democratic successes since Obamacare?

The cities where crime is surging, Baltimore and Chicago, have been run for decades by Democrats. The worst-run state in the nation, Illinois, has long been dominated by Democratic legislators.

The crisis of the old order is apparent as well across the pond.

Jeremy Corbyn, a Bernie Sanders radical socialist, led his party to major gains in the recent parliamentary elections, as Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May saw her majority wiped out and faces the same seditionist grumbling as Nancy Pelosi.

Western elites are celebrating the victory of Emmanuel Macron, the “youngest French President since Napoleon,” who defeated Marine Le Pen by a ratio of almost 2-to-1 and whose new party, En Marche! (In Motion!), captured the Assembly. But the celebrating seems premature.

For the first time in the history of De Gaulle’s Fifth Republic, neither the center-left Socialists nor center-right Republicans, the parties that have ruled France for 60 years, made it into the finals in a presidential election.

And while the first round of that election saw the ruling Socialist Party’s candidate run fifth, with 6 percent, the votes of the rightist Le Pen and far left-Communist Jean-Luc Melenchon together topped 40 percent. It is the flanks of European politics that seem still to be hard and growing, and the center that seems shaky and imperiled.

Moreover, Macron faces daunting problems. Unemployment is nearly 10 percent, with youth unemployment twice that. Terrorist attacks from within Muslim communities continue to rise, as do the number of boats of Third Worlders migrating from across the Med.

Can anyone believe that, as these trends continue, Europeans will continue to back centrist policies and moderate politicians to deal with them?

Dream on. That is not the history of Europe.

See (“The Passing of the Pelosi Era“) (emphasis added); see also (“Nancy Pelosi struggles to remember latest Russia accusation — 6 mins after making it!“)


22 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


President Donald J. Trump

The Hill has reported:

The Republican sweep of four contested House special elections this year has handed President Trump and his party a much-needed boost to move a healthcare bill and perhaps more of their stalled legislative agenda.

GOP officials in Washington breathed a sigh of relief after their candidate, Karen Handel, fended off Democrat Jon Ossoff in a Georgia runoff election Tuesday night — a race that Democrats had poured tens of millions of dollars into and billed as a referendum on the unpopular president and his policies.

Republican Ralph Norman on Tuesday defeated Democrat Archie Parnell by an even narrower margin — a little more than 3 percentage points — in a South Carolina race that received far less national attention.

If energized Democrats had claimed either of those long-held GOP seats, they could have argued that even traditionally red seats are in play in 2018 and Republicans who back Trump’s agenda do so at their own peril.

But the GOP’s perfect 4-0 contested special-election record in 2017 now gives Capitol Hill Republicans some cover to pass their ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, a major tax-reform package and other legislative priorities. And the media will shift its focus from the special elections back to policy, lawmakers said, even as the Russia investigation continues to dominate the headlines.

“It certainly boosts Republican morale,” said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the House GOP’s campaign arm.

“There are local reasons [why Ossoff lost]. He didn’t live in the district,” added Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). “But I think it bodes well for the president’s agenda for now.”

More specifically, staunch repeal advocates will point to the Georgia results to argue that skeptical Senate Republicans can back repeal of the health law without risking reelection. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to unveil his own healthcare bill on Thursday and put it on the floor next week.

“Clearly Karen Handel defended us on [healthcare] and ran on ‘We need to get this stuff done. This is something we need to finish,’ ” Cole said, “so I think that’s an important message from our base to our members.”

The White House, too, sees the GOP victories in Georgia and South Carolina Tuesday night as a clear-cut vote of confidence for its policy agenda — and proof the Democrats don’t have a winning platform.

“They thought the elections last night were going to be a referendum on this president,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday on “Fox and Friends.” “And once again, he proved, never underestimate him, and that the American people put him and other Republicans in place for a reason: They have an agenda.”

She added, “Frankly, I think Republicans are going to get tired of winning at some point if the Democrats don’t ever get an agenda.”

While many Republicans took a victory lap on Wednesday, not all had been so confident about holding the 6th District seat in the Atlanta suburbs.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who ran the NRCC during the 2014 and 2016 cycles, said he thought Democrats were going to pull off the victory. After all, he said, Democrats appeared to be more energized, had a bigger army of volunteers and outspent the GOP roughly $32 million to $23 million in what was the most expensive House race in U.S. history.

“I didn’t think we were going to win in Georgia three weeks ago … given the overall political environment, the ‘Resist’ movement, the hyperactivity at our town halls,” Walden told The Hill. But the voters “decided the Democrat brand didn’t have the right message, that you can’t just be against something.”

Trump last year narrowly won Georgia’s 6th District, which was vacated when Tom Price became secretary of Health and Human Services.

Vulnerable Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a top 2018 Democratic target who voted for ObamaCare repeal in May, also called the Georgia victory a “surprise” and “impressive win.”

“Obviously, I wasn’t too confident about it, as the Democrats had this massive fundraising advantage and there was all of this enthusiasm” on the left, said Curbelo, who represents a district that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won last year.

But he said he wouldn’t take his foot off the gas after the Georgia win: “We always run like we’re behind. Either you run scared or unopposed.”

Publicly, Democratic leaders aren’t panicking. Despite their four defeats in the Kansas, Montana, South Carolina and Georgia specials, Democrats said they see a silver lining.

“If you look at the numbers, these are all seats where just seven months ago [Republicans] won by double digits, and they were nail-biters after Trump takes office,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. “I think that shows that people have serious questions about whether the Trump agenda is working for them.

“I look at the results and say, ‘Let’s keep competing in places like Georgia and South Carolina where we didn’t necessarily compete before,’ ” he continued. “If people understand that we are for them and he has not delivered for them, I think 2018’s in play.”

To win back the House next year, Democrats need to pick up 24 seats.

See (“Special election sweep boosts Trump agenda“) (emphasis added); but see (“End The Careers Of RINOS Curbelo And Amash Now!“)

It is time to shut down the Robert Mueller investigation completely; fire Rod Rosenstein; and indict, convict and imprison James Comey, Hillary Clinton and others!


25 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Skunks the Democrats [UPDATED}

President Donald J. Trump

This is the title of an article by Leftist Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, which states:

YOU know who is really sick and tired of Donald Trump winning, to the point where they beg, “Please, Mr. President, sir, it’s too much”?


The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump.

If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment.

“It’s Trump four and us zero,” says the Democratic congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. “I don’t want to admit that. When it comes out of my mouth, it bothers me. But Trump does robo calls. He tweets. He talks about the races. He motivates his base, and he moves the needle, and that’s a problem for us. Guys, we’re still doing something wrong here because a) he’s president and b) we’re still losing to his candidates.”

The 43-year-old Ryan, who failed to unseat Pelosi as House minority leader last year, says that the Democrats’ brand is toxic, and in some places worse than Trump’s. Which is beyond pathetic.

The Republicans have a wildly unpopular, unstable and untruthful president, and a Congress that veers between doing nothing and spitting out vicious bills, while the Democratic base is on fire and appalled millennials are racing away from Trump. Yet Democrats are stuck in loser gear.

Trump’s fatal flaw is that he cannot drag himself away from the mirror. But Democrats cannot bear to look in the mirror and admit what is wrong.

“We congenitally believe that our motives are pure and our goals are right,” Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, told me. “Therefore, we should win by default.” But, he added dryly: “You’ve got to run a good campaign. In elections, politics matter. Oooh, what a surprise.”

As Ryan sighs: “If you don’t win, you don’t have power, and you can’t help on any of these issues we care about.”

Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats’ vision, people are doing great and getting along. It is the opposite of Trump’s dark diorama of carnage and dystopia — but just as false a picture of America.

With Jon Ossoff, as with Hillary Clinton, the game plan was surfing contempt for Trump and counting on the elusive Obama coalition. Heavy Hollywood involvement is not necessarily a positive in Georgia, though. Alyssa Milano drove voters to the polls but couldn’t bewitch the Republicans. And not living in the district is bad anywhere.

Democrats are going to have to come up with something for people to be for, rather than just counting on Trump to implode. (Which he will.) The party still seems flummoxed that there are big swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed that now regard the Democratic brand as garbage and its long-in-the-tooth leadership as overstaying its welcome. The vibe is suffocating. Where’s the fresh talent?

In a new piece in The Atlantic, Emanuel and Bruce Reed — who engineered their party’s last takeover of Congress in 2006, the first since 1994 — argue that Democrats need to channel their anger and make 2018 a referendum on Trump’s record, not his impeachment.

In dwindling swing districts, Emanuel told me, Democrats need to choose candidates who are pro-middle class, not merely pro-poor.

They can’t just waltz in and win seats held by Republicans. And they can’t go full Bernie. They have to drum up suburban candidates who reflect their districts, Emanuel says, noting that they wrenched back control of Congress by recruiting a football player in North Carolina, an Iraq veteran in Pennsylvania and a sheriff in Indiana.

It’s shocking that Hillary couldn’t be bothered to come up with an economic message or any rationale other than “It’s My Turn.” “Hillary never got a real message out,” Michael Bloomberg, who eviscerated Trump at Hillary’s convention, told Anderson Cooper. “It was ‘Don’t vote for that guy’ and the gender issue. Whereas Donald had us saying ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”

Ryan says Democrats need to stop microtargeting. “They talked to a black person about voting rights, a brown person about immigration, a gay about gay rights, a woman about choice and on and on, slicing up the electorate,” he said. “But they forgot that first and foremost, people have to pay their mortgages and get affordable health care.”

He also urged his fellow Democrats to stop obsessing about Trump and Russia and start obsessing on globalization, automation and wage stagnation.

“The crazy thing is that there’s a great opportunity here, because neither party has figured out how to thrive in the new economy,” he said.

Carrier and Boeing, where Trump visited to boast about saving jobs, announced layoffs last week, and Ford is shifting some production to China. And news flash for Donald: King Coal has been dethroned.

“Trump leveraged his wealth to convince working-class people that he could deal with these changes,” Ryan said. “But just saying, ‘The Chinese rent from me,’ doesn’t mean he’s figured this stuff out.”

Trump may be nuts enough to blow up the world. But the Democrats are nuts if they think his crazy is enough to save them.

See (emphasis added)

Liberal Dan Balz has added in the Washington Post:

The loss in last week’s special congressional election in Georgia produced predictable hand-wringing and finger-pointing inside the Democratic Party. It also raised anew a question that has troubled the party through a period in [which] it has lost ground politically. Simply put: Do Democrats have a message?

Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. What’s needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.

The defeat in Georgia came in a district that was always extremely challenging. Nonetheless, the loss touched off a hunt for scapegoats. Some Democrats, predictably, blamed the candidate, Jon Ossoff, as failing to capitalize on a flood of money and energy among party activists motivated to send a message of opposition to the president. He may have had flaws, but he and the Democrats turned out lots of voters. There just weren’t enough of them.

Other critics went up the chain of command and leveled their criticism at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She has held her party together in the House through many difficult fights — ask veterans of the Obama administration — but she also has become a prime target for GOP ad makers as a symbol of the Democrats’ liberal and bicoastal leanings. Pelosi, a fighter, has brushed aside the criticism.

Perhaps Democrats thought things would be easier because of Trump’s rocky start. His presidency has produced an outpouring of anger among Democrats, but will that be enough to bring about a change in the party’s fortunes?

History says a president with approval ratings as low as Trump’s usually sustain substantial midterm losses. That could be the case in 2018, particularly if the Republicans end up passing a health-care bill that, right now, is far more unpopular than Obamacare. But Trump has beaten the odds many times in his short political career. What beyond denunciations of the Republicans as heartless will the Democrats have to say to voters?

Though united in vehement opposition to the president, Democrats do not speak with one voice. Fault lines and fissures exist between the ascendant progressive wing at the grass roots and those Democrats who remain more business-friendly. While these differences are not as deep as those seen in Trump’s Republican Party, that hasn’t yet generated a compelling or fresh message to take to voters who aren’t already sold on the party.

Hillary Clinton, whose rhetoric often sounded more poll-tested than authentic, never found that compelling message during her 2016 campaign. She preferred to run a campaign by demonizing Trump and, as a result, drowned out her economic platform. This was a strategic gamble for which she paid a high price.

The absence of a convincing economic message did not start with Clinton. Former president Barack Obama struggled with the same during his 2012 reelection. He wanted to claim credit for a steady but slow recovery while acknowledging forthrightly that many Americans were not benefitting from the growth. It was a muddle at best, but he was saved by the fact that Mitt Romney couldn’t speak to those stressed voters either. In 2016, however, Trump did.

Clinton’s loss forced Democrats to confront their deficiencies among white working-class voters and the vast areas between the coasts that flipped in Trump’s direction. Their defection from the Democratic Party began well before Trump, but until 2016, Democrats thought they could overcome that problem by tapping other voters. Trump showed the limits of that strategy.

The Georgia loss put a focus on a different type of voter, the well-educated suburbanites, particularly those who don’t live in deep-blue states. While losing ground among working-class whites, Democrats have been gaining support among white voters with college degrees. In the fall, Clinton advisers believed she would do well enough with those college graduates to overcome projected erosion among those without college educations. She fell short of expectations, however, allowing Trump to prevail in the pivotal Midwest battlegrounds.

The Georgia district had the highest percentage of college graduates of any in the nation. Ossoff tried to win over those suburban voters with a moderate message on economic issues, but it wasn’t powerful or persuasive enough to overcome the appeal of the Republican brand in an election in which the GOP made Pelosi-style Democrats a focus. Loyalty to party was strong enough to allow Karen Handel to prevail.

The long-running debate over the Democrats’ message probably will intensify as the party looks to 2018 and especially to 2020. It is a debate that the party needs. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, writing in the American Prospect, sees a problem that goes beyond white working-class voters to those within the Democratic base who also were left behind by the post-2008 economic gains. He argues that the party’s problem is with working-class voters of all types, not just whites.

Greenberg has long been critical of the tepidness of the party’s economic message and puts some of the blame on Obama. He believes the former president’s economic message in 2012 and 2016 focused on progress in the recovery largely to the exclusion of the widespread pain that still existed. “That mix of heralding ‘progress’ while bailing out those responsible for the crisis and the real crash in incomes for working Americans was a fatal brew for Democrats,” he argues.

For progressives, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in government’s role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been aggressive in promoting exactly that, as he did during the 2016 campaign, with calls for a big investment in infrastructure and free college tuition at public colleges and universities. He has said he intends to introduce legislation he calls “Medicare for All.”

That kind of message probably will spark more internal debate, particularly among Democrats from swing districts or swing states. It points to one of the biggest challenges Democrats face as they move beyond being the anti-Trump party. That is the question of whether they are prepared to make a robust and appealing case in behalf of government in the face of continuing skepticism among many of the voters they are trying to win over. Trump might not succeed in draining the swamp, but he has tapped into sentiments about Washington that Democrats ignore at their peril.

Nor can Democrats ignore voters’ concerns about immigration. The Democrats’ message on immigration and immigrant rights (and some other cultural issues) plays well in many blue states, but it draws a much more mixed reception in those parts of the country where Trump turned the election in his direction.

In this divided era, it’s easy for either party to look at the other and conclude the opposition is in worse shape. That’s the trap for Democrats right now as they watch Trump struggle in office. But Democrats are in the minority in the House, Senate, governorships and state legislatures. Clinton may have won the popular vote, but that proved about as satisfying as coming close while losing last week in Georgia. It’s no substitute for the real thing. If continued frustration with losing doesn’t prompt rethinking about the message, what will?

See (“Beyond opposing Trump, Democrats keep searching for a message“) (emphasis added)

Notwithstanding all the hang-wringing by the looney and totally-despicable Left, it is clear that Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein must be fired; Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and others must be investigated, indicted, convicted and imprisoned; and Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, Rachel Maddow and others must be destroyed politically.

Nothing less will suffice.

See, e.g.,–House%20Democrats-Pelosi/id-874858ed7bcf46978f9adbb98ff04e7a (“Some House Democrats mull over how to oust Pelosi as leader“) and (“Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election“) and (“Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators“) and (“NAPOLITANO: FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH COULD FACE 5-10 YEARS IN PRISON“) and (“Gingrich: Mueller’s Team of Liberal Lawyers on ‘Hunting Expedition'”)


1 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Trumps depart White House

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who also teaches constitutional law at American University, has predictably failed to attract any Republicans to his banner.

But the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president’s cabinet, or ‘such other body as Congress may by law provide,’ to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote.

Vice President Mike Pence would also have to agree, which could slow down the process – or speed it up if he wanted the levers of power for himself.

The 25th Amendment has been around since shortly after the John F. Kennedy assassination, but Congress has never formed its own committee in case it’s needed to judge a president’s mental health.

Raskin’s bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president.

The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee’s chairman.

Once the group is officially seated, the House and Senate could direct it through a joint resolution to conduct an actual examination of the president ‘to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically,’ according to the Raskin bill.

And if the president refuses to participate, the bill dictates, that ‘shall be taken into consideration by the commission in reaching a conclusion.’

Under the 25th Amendment, such a committee – or the president’s cabinet – can notify Congress in writing that a sitting president is unfit. In either case the vice president must concur, and he would immediately become ‘acting president.’

Presidents have voluntarily transferred their powers to vice presidents in the past, including when they are put under anesthesia for medical procedures.

In the case of Raskin’s plan, the Constitution holds that both houses of Congress would hold a vote within three weeks.

If two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate agreed that the president couldn’t discharge his duties, he would be dismissed.

Raskin’s plan could have a fatal flaw, however: Legal scholars tend to agree that when the Constitution’s framers first provided for the replacement of a president with an ‘inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office,’ they weren’t talking about mere eccentricities.

And when the 25th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification in 1965, the Senate agreed that ‘inability’ meant that a president was ‘unable to make or communicate his decisions’ and suffered from a ‘mental debility’ rendering him ‘unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.’

So far two dozen members of the House, all Democrats, have signed on to cosponsor the bill.

Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a far-left liberal Democrat, claimed Friday in a Fox Business Channel interview that Congress can remove ‘incompetent’ presidents.

‘The 25th Amendment is utilized when a president is perceived to be incompetent or unable to do his or her job,’ she said.

Raskin has made no bones about the fact that his intentions are specific to President Trump.

‘Trump’s mental incapacity is no laughing matter,’ he tweeted last month. ‘#25thAmendment gives us a way to deal with this problem.’

Raskin summed up his reasoning for Yahoo News on Friday: ‘In case of emergency, break glass.’

‘I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets,’ he said.

‘The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.’

Also on Friday, MSNBC co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski authored an op-ed in The Washington Post whose headline argued ‘Donald Trump is not well.’

The pair were responding to a widely criticized tweet in which Trump complained about their behavoior around the New Year and alleged that Brzezinski was bleeding from a bad facelift.

During a press conference on Thursday, Raskin called Trump a ‘barbarian’ and said: ‘Something is deeply wrong at the White House.’

He called on ‘whoever is in control over there’ to ‘pull back from this terrible situation.’

See (“Two dozen Democrats get behind bill to lay foundation for removing Trump for being mentally ‘incapacitated’ (but they’d need Mike Pence to agree)“) (emphasis added); see also (“LEFTIST HATRED PRODUCES MURDER“)

As indicated at the link cited immediately above:

The gunman who was killed by cops after opening fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice on Wednesday, the president’s 71st birthday, was a Trump-hating Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter. . . .

Can we expect that the Democrats (e.g., Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, Kamala Harris, Rachel Maddow) will be targeted as well?

At the very least, it would not be surprising if Jamie Raskin, Sheila Jackson Lee and others were targeted.

See, e.g., (“Threats against lawmakers already higher than all of 2016“)

While the black racist Barack Obama’s presidency was opposed, no attempts were made by his opponents to assassinate him or destroy his presidency.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


3 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Press Will Lose To Donald Trump

President Trump

Piers Morgan has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

‘Good publicity is preferable to bad,’ said Donald Trump in his best-selling book Art of the Deal, ‘but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells.’

Never has this mantra seemed more appropriate than today.

Trump’s savagely personal assault on the US mainstream media – aka the MSM – in the past week has ignited a firestorm of controversy and bad publicity.

It began when he tweeted that MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ host Mika Brzezinski was ‘low IQ crazy Mika’ and claimed she had been ‘bleeding badly from a face-lift’ during a New Year’s Eve visit to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort.

This was obviously a grotesquely offensive thing for the President of the United States to publicly state about anyone.

To say it about a woman, any woman, also smacks of crass misogyny.

But before we martyr poor Ms Brzezinksi too fervently, it is worth pointing out that she herself is no innocent little lamb in the personal abuse stakes.

The reason for Trump’s tirade was that she spent the previous day’s ‘Morning Joe’ repeatedly mocking him for his ‘teensy hands’.

In fact, she devotes a lot of her time to ridiculing Trump for the way he looks and behaves.

And let’s not be naïve here, she does it knowing full well that Trump will eventually retaliate, and when he does, she and her show will dominate the news for a few days and get a substantial ratings boost.

Those increased ratings lead to increased profits.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Trump responded to the inevitable furore with another stinging tweet about Brzezinksi and her co-host and fiance, branding them ‘Crazy Joe Scarborough and dumb as a rock Mika’.

Now, I happen to think Scarborough and Brzezinksi are two very smart and able broadcasters. But since their old friend Trump won the White House they’ve gone rogue on him. Why? Partly because I believe they genuinely have issues with the way he has started his presidency. But also, I suspect, because MSNBC is making a fortune from whacking the president.

Indeed, at the weekend Joe Scarborough was able to boast on Twitter about record ratings for their show.

Trump then turned his Twitter turret sights onto his favored enemy: my old employers, CNN.

They gifted him a massive PR goal last week by firing three top journalists for an entirely false story linking a Trump associate to Russian financial skullduggery.

And, as I predicted, the president has embarked on immediate ball-spiking frenzy.

‘I am extremely pleased to see that @CNN has finally been exposed as #FakeNews and garbage journalism,’ Trump tweeted. ‘It’s about time!’

Doubling down, he re-tweeted a mashed-up viral video of an old clip of him at a World Wrestling Entertainment event in which he appears to be pummeling an opponent, who now has the CNN logo on his head.

Trump leaves his battered opponent lying on the ground and walks off triumphant.

‘#FakeNewsCNN,’ was his simple, scathing caption.

This sparked outrage, not least from CNN [that] said in a statement: ‘It is a sad day when the president of the United States encourages violence against reporters. We will keep doing our jobs, he should keep doing his.’

But Trump, who recently had to endure CNN star Kathy Griffin posing for a photo with his mocked-up severed head, would argue that challenging the hyper-aggressive, and in his case, endlessly mocking media IS part of his job.

At a rally in Washington on Saturday night, he made his position crystal clear. ‘The fake media is trying to silence us. But we will not let them because the people know the truth. The fake media tried to stop us from going to the White House. But I’m president and they’re not!’

The partisan crowd leaped to their feet and cheered.

I don’t agree that networks like CNN or NBC, or papers like the New York Times are ‘fake news’.

But they are all driven by a very liberal view of life.

And what the MSM forgets, or chooses to ignore, is that there are vast swathes of the country that don’t share those liberal views.

These are the swathes that voted for Trump and all the polls suggest they would do so again tomorrow.

The more the MSM self-indulgently clears their news schedules to pompously fume and rage about Trump’s attacks on them, the more people outside the liberal elite media bubble just shake their heads in amusement or dismay at what they see as rank hypocrisy.

The American public have good memories.

They know what happened in the election campaign when the MSM competed to give Trump as much friendly airtime as they possibly could.

Back then, the MSM loved candidate Trump’s incendiary tweets because that gave them another ratings-surging bone for their pundits to gnaw on all day long.

They lapped it up when Trump branded his opponents ‘Little Marco’, ‘Lying Ted’ or ‘Low Energy Jeb’ – more outrageous headlines, more outrageous ratings, more outrageous profits.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Then Trump won the GOP nomination and everything changed.

The MSM, having joyously played along with the Trump Train for months, suddenly realised to their horror he might actually win the presidency. Even worse, THEY might get the blame!

So they abruptly turned on him and tried to kill the monster they had themselves created.

To their delight, they found that Trump-bashing was even more popular than Trump-slathering.

Negative headlines came thick and fast, and ratings soared ever higher, as did profits.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Trump, as his is way, fought fire with fire.

The harder the MSM punched him, the harder he punched back.

And to HIS delight, he found that HIS popularity rocketed too. So much so that he ended up beating Hillary Clinton, the ‘most qualified candidate in presidential history’.

Controversy, in short, sells.

After Trump won the White House, I hoped there might be some kind of truce called between these warring parties.

Fat chance.

The battle has grown ever more ferocious, the rhetoric ever more vulgar.

On both sides, it’s ugly, puerile, self-obsessed and frankly, pathetic.

Yet they continue doing it because they’re all winning.

The MSM’s relentless Trump-bashing is driving record newspaper subscription numbers, and cable news and late night show ratings.

But Trump’s winning too, because his base likes nothing more than their guy standing up to the big, bad media beast and going at them toe-to-toe, slug-for-slug.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on in bemused horror and wonders what the hell is happening to America?

As someone who worked with and likes Donald Trump, and who worked for and likes CNN, I don’t have a sensible answer to that question.

But I do know this: Trump is deliberately sucking his media foes into a spiders-web from which they will not be able to easily escape.

He’s got the MSM all mindlessly hooked on his drug of choice: Twitter.

Trump knows ego-fuelled journalists can’t resist his abusive and personal tweets about them, and so long as they obsess about those then they are not doing their real job, which is to examine the issues most important to the American people like healthcare, jobs or immigration.

It’s a rough, tough, occasionally very nasty strategy that provokes perpetual outrage in the hysterical liberal community still reeling from the fact he ever won the presidency in the first place.

But it’s also crudely very effective.

I was down in Florida recently and they love Trump more than ever.

They especially love him beating up on the MSM.

As one of the very few people to repeatedly predict Donald Trump had a good chance of becoming President of the United States, let me now make another prediction: if the MSM in America continues to make the biggest story in town their own mutually abusive battle with Trump, it will help not hinder him and he will be re-elected in 2020.

Controversy, in short, sells.

See (“Winning all round: The dirtier the fight gets between Trump and the media the more they BOTH seem to gain but it’s his game, his rules and in the long-run the press will lose, writes PIERS MORGAN“) (emphasis added)


14 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Do Not Blame Trump: Clinton And Bush Are Two Failed Ex-Presidents, And Obama Is A Racist

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Taking veiled jabs at President Donald Trump, former US presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton told a forum in Dallas on Thursday that they were able to forge mutual bonds of respect and friendship because the other had been gracious in victory and respectful of presidential power.

The two did not mention Trump once during a nearly hour-long discussion where they traded quips and insights.

But they offered indirect references that many in the crowd of about 300 people at the George W. Bush Presidential Library took to be references to the current president.

‘He (Clinton) was humble in victory, which is very important in dealing with other people,’ Bush said at the event to mark a graduation at the Presidential Leadership Scholars program, a partnership among the Bush, Clinton, Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush presidential centers.

The 43rd president said he was impressed by the fact that his predecessor was gracious to his father when he defeated him to win the presidency in 1992.

‘[It] starts with [him] being a person refusing to lord his victory over dad,’ Bush said.

‘Dad was willing to rise above the political contest. Both men displayed strong character. Why do I have a friendship with him? Well, he’s called a brother with a different mother.’

Clinton said: ‘If you want to be president, realize it’s about the people, not about you.

‘You want to be able to say “things were better off when I quit, kid´s had a better future, things were coming together”. You don´t want to say, “God, look at all the people I beat”.’

Current President Trump has come under criticism from Democrats who have said he fires off excessive and unwarranted criticism against his predecessor, Democratic President Barack Obama and the person he beat in the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton.



When asked by a moderator what is the most important attribute for anyone who aims to be president of the United States, Bush said: ‘Humility.’

‘I think it’s really important to know what you don’t know and listen to people who do know what you don’t know,’ Bush added.

‘Realize it’s about the people, not you,’ Clinton said.

‘A lot of these people who are real arrogant in office, they forget. … You don’t want to say, “God, look at all those people I beat”.’

Bush spoke of the friendship that developed between Clinton and his father, George H.W. Bush.

‘[Clinton] was humble in victory which is very important in dealing with other people,’ Bush said.

‘And I think Dad was willing to rise above the political contest.

‘In other words, it starts with the individual’s character and both men, in my judgment, displayed strong character.’


Republican Bush said while in office he sought Democrat Clinton’s advice.

Clinton said when he left office he told incoming President Bush that he would offer him help and treat him with respect.

Bush and Clinton said they have enjoyed their lives after the presidency but would not trade their current status for their eight years in office.

‘The decisions you make have a monumental effect on people,’ Bush said, adding humility is a key quality for any president.

‘Presidency is often defined by the unexpected. It makes the job interesting,’ he said.

Clinton said: ‘If you don´t deal with the incoming fire, it will undermine your ability to do anything else. If all you deal with is incoming fire, you can´t keep the promises you made when you were running.’

The two also exchanged jokes about being grandfathers, with Bush saying his grandchildren call him ‘jefe,’ Spanish for ‘chief.’

‘The best thing that can happen to you when you are in politics is to be consistently underestimated,’ Clinton said.

‘I was pretty good at that,’ Bush returned.



Political opposites turned friends, former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush could easily be mistaken for a comedy routine when they get together.

The two former presidents – one a Democrat, the other a Republican – shared laughs and a buddy-like banter on stage Monday, talking about presidential leadership while trading stories about their famous families and life after the White House.

Bill Clinton said he and Bush laughed about people coming up to them at restaurants and asking to take ‘selfie’ photos.

Quipped Bush: ‘At least they’re still asking.’

Clinton revealed that he and Bush would speak twice a year during Bush’s second term, 30-to-45 minute conversations about policy and politics.

While they didn’t always agree, Clinton said he never talked about their discussions and said the talks ‘meant a lot to me.’

Clinton said the test of any democracy is finding ways of having a vigorous debate and still reaching resolution to the nation’s problems.

‘If you read the Constitution, it ought to be subtitled: “Let’s make a deal”,’ Clinton said.

Assessing each other’s leadership qualities, Clinton said Bush did things he thought was right and ‘consistently benefited by being underestimated – and so did I for totally different reasons.’

Bush said Clinton was empathetic and ‘an awesome communicator’ who could ‘really lay out a case and get people all across the political spectrum.’

Ending his comments, he asked Clinton: ‘Is that enough?’

George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000 on restoring ‘honor and dignity’ to the White House following Clinton’s impeachment over a sex scandal.

But the two former presidents have developed a bond, strengthened by their mutual admiration for the elder Bush, whom Clinton has visited in Maine.

Clinton and the younger Bush worked together on relief efforts after Haiti’s devastating earthquake in 2010 and have been active in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Bush noted that his book, called ’41: A Portrait of My Father,’ is a ‘love story. It’s a story about seeing someone you admire and learning from them.’

See (“‘He’s my brother with a different mother’: George W. Bush gushes over his tight friendship with Bill Clinton as both former presidents hit out at Trump with some veiled jabs about ‘humility’ and ‘arrogance'”) (emphasis added)

Both Clinton and Bush are failed ex-presidents, whose terms in office opened the way for eight years of a black racist being elected.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Clinton should be in prison with his wife, Hillary.

Lots of us voted for Bush, and are ashamed now that we did so. He and the neocons and their state sponsor were responsible for the Iraq War in which thousands of Americans were killed or maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

To defame President Trump diminishes their tawdry statures and legacies even more, not his. They are part and parcel of the “swamp” that must be drained.

It is sickening to watch these two abject failures, Clinton and Bush, berating their successor. Needless to say, our enemies both domestically and abroad (e.g., North Korea, Russia, China) are salivating.


15 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Each And Every Democrat Must Be Targeted For Removal Next Year [UPDATED]

Black Racist Maxine Waters

Fred Lucas of the Daily Signal has reported:

It’s a movement that began before President Donald Trump was sworn into office and the drive for impeachment has gone through many iterations.

The earliest rationale was the Constitution’s “emoluments clause,” which came amid loose talk of the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia and emerged as the dominant theme. In lieu of a smoking gun in the Russian matter, the prevailing justification became that Trump tried to obstruct an FBI probe of his former national security adviser.

More recently, the emoluments issue re-emerged when Democratic lawmakers filed lawsuits., Democracy for America, and other progressive or “resistance” groups have been advocating for it. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., appears to have gotten the most airtime of anyone in Congress talking about impeaching the president on talk shows and public events.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered the first House floor speech calling for impeaching Trump. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., called impeachment “really the only way we can go.”

But only Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., actually has introduced articles of impeachment. Green’s speech and Sherman’s measure focused on allegations of obstruction of justice.

The House’s Democratic leadership hasn’t taken up the call, in part because such actions are unlikely, based on known facts, to go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Before getting elected to anything, Boyd Roberts, a California congressional candidate, filed documents with the Federal Election Commission to start a political action committee called Impeach Trump Leadership PAC, as The Hill reported.

The shifting rationales demonstrate a weak argument, said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group.

“If they had a good case based on real information, I think they would mention it by now and put their cards on the table,” Boehm, a former Pennsylvania state prosecutor and former counsel for the board of directors at the Legal Services Corporation, told The Daily Signal. “They don’t have high crimes and misdemeanors. They don’t have low crimes and misdemeanors.”

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution includes “high crimes and misdemeanors” as grounds for impeachment, along with treason and bribery.

But impeachment is ultimately a political question and Republicans control the House of Representatives. Even if Democrats managed to flip the House and Senate in the 2018 election, it would require a majority vote in the House to impeach a president and two-thirds of the Senate to remove a president from office.

Boehm said overheated impeachment talk now will delay justice if the president is involved in a legitimate, verifiable scandal.

“Democrats should save the heavy artillery for substance,” Boehm said. “They run the risk of being the boy who cried wolf if they say ‘impeach’ about everything.”

The early framework was set in December 2016, six weeks before Inauguration Day, when five Senate Democrats—Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Chris Coons of Delaware, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon—sponsored a bill that would require the president, vice president, and their family members to divest from anything that could create a conflict of interest.

The Democrats’ bill also states:

Adopting a sense of the Congress that the president’s violation of financial conflicts of interest laws or the ethics requirements that apply to executive branch employees constitute a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution . . .

Before he took office, Trump put his liquid properties such as hotels and golf courses into a trust and resigned from official positions with his businesses, turning the Trump Organization over to his adult sons.

In January, a liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, began raising questions about Trump’s businesses and the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which states that:

. . . no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Essentially, the clause prohibits personally profiting from public office. Trump’s children run his businesses now, but there is not a blind trust.

In February, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., filed a “resolution of inquiry” into Trump’s investments that a Huffington Post column framed as the “first legislative step toward impeachment.”

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, or CREW, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 22, two days after Trump took office.

“We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action.”

A spokeswoman for the organization told The Daily Signal she would try to set up an interview with board Chairman Norman Eisen. However, Eisen didn’t respond as of publication deadline.

However, emoluments faded as grounds for impeachment as some juicy stories about Trump and Russia emerged. After a report in The Washington Post accused Trump of talking about classified information with two Russian officials in the Oval Office, Waters said it rose to the level of impeachment.

In May, Waters referred to that alleged sharing of secrets during the Oval Office discussion at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. The California congresswoman said:

We don’t have to be afraid to use the word impeachment. We don’t have to think that impeachment is out of our reach. All we have to do is make sure that we are talking to the American public, that we are keeping them involved, that we are resisting every day, and we are challenging every day.

Yet another major story occurred after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey while the bureau’s Russia investigation was going on. Some politicians and commentators compared to President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” the multiple firings related to the investigation of the Watergate scandal.

Through a leak Comey admitted to planting, Americans learned of his accusation that the president asked him to “let go” of the FBI’s investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, for misrepresenting his pre-inaugural conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Comey said Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Democrats were quick to suggest this amounted to obstruction of justice.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told CNN that Trump’s request to Comey “may well produce another United States vs. Nixon on a subpoena that went to the United States Supreme Court. It may well produce impeachment proceedings, although we’re very far from that possibility.”

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, was asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “If these allegations, Senator, are true, are we getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?”

King replied: “Reluctantly, Wolf, I have to say yes, simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense.”

Obstruction of justice has a significant place in impeachment history. President Bill Clinton was impeached on this charge in the House in 1998, and it was the basis of one article of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 before Nixon resigned.

Obstruction of justice also is the basis for Sherman’s impeachment draft.

After Comey’s June 8 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee provided few revelations, and the obstruction case became more difficult to make, the focus shifted back to the emoluments clause. Democratic state attorneys general sued for information on Trump’s business ties—including his elusive income tax returns.

Comey told the panel the president didn’t order him to drop the case and, when questioned, said he knew of no prosecution based on someone’s “hope.”

Numerous legal scholars said they didn’t believe there was a viable obstruction charge based on the Feb. 14 Oval Office conversation between Trump and Comey.

With an impeachment case based on Russia and obstruction of justice not as strong, emoluments made a comeback in June.

“The I-word is not something you should throw around that much, and the Democrats are playing fast and loose with the emoluments lawsuits, where the merits are weak and the standing claims are laughable,” John-Michael Seibler, a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation who has written about Democrats’ various suits, told The Daily Signal.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, both Democrats, sued over the emoluments clause, accusing the president of violating the Constitution regarding foreign governments doing business with the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

Following that, 198 congressional Democrats filed a lawsuit making essentially the same claim.

“The lawsuits would define emoluments so broadly [that the provision] would be used against anyone,” Seibler said. “It’s basically an op-ed before the court.”

“You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,” he added. “The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.”

See (“Democrats Hatch Plans A, B, and C to Impeach Trump“) (emphasis added)

This is war!

The removal of each and every Democrat must begin with the despicable black racist Maxine Waters, who is worse than Barack Obama.

See also (“Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman?“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


20 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Ugly Face Of A Vile Disgusting Black Racist

Black Racist Maxine Waters

Kyle Olson has written in the American Mirror:

Is 78-year-old “Auntie” Maxine Waters seriously going to make a run for the White House in 2020?

Speculation is increasing as it’s revealed the California congresswoman and darling of Trump haters nationwide will be making an appearance in the early presidential primary state of New Hampshire on Sunday.

“According to an invitation, obtained by WMUR from Democratic sources, Waters will be in the state on July 23 for the picnic to be held at the Miller Farm in New Durham,” WMUR reports, where she will hobnob with the Strafford County Democratic Committee.

President Trump has been a favorite punching bag for Waters, who seems to spin a new conspiracy theory about his administration and aides every few days.

Waters has been intentionally antagonistic towards the president’s supporters, as well.

During a screed on the House floor in March, Waters played the race card and the patriotism card against supporters of the president.

“Mr. Speaker, my position against this president and his administration is clear. I oppose this president. I do not honor this president. I do not respect this president,” Waters said during a nearly 9-minute speech.

“African-Americans have struggled and fought historically, many African-Americans have paid a huge price fighting for justice and equality in this country, have died for it. I don’t have to call the names of Martin Luther King and all the others. We have paid a price, we have fought.

“But guess what? Despite the fact that America has not always been there for us, we’ve always been there for America. We have fought in America’s wars. We have suffered discrimination, we have suffered isolation and undermining. But we stand up for America, oftentimes when others who think they are more patriotic, who say they are more patriotic, do not,” Waters said.

“When we fight against this president, and we point out how dangerous he is for this society and for this country, we’re fighting for the democracy. We’re fighting for America. We’re saying to those who say they’re patriotic but they’ve turned a blind eye to the destruction that he’s about to cause this country, ‘You’re not nearly as patriotic as we are.’”

Waters made it clear her mission is not to represent her constituents, but destroy Trump.

The president “is not good for America,” she said.

“African-Americans know this. The Black Caucus understands this. And for those members of the Black Caucus representing our leadership, who went to meet with him, they have laid out to him all of this, what our care and concerns are all about. But in the final analysis, we really don’t expect anything from him.

“And my mission and my goal is to make sure that he does not remain president of the United States of America,” Water said.

Waters already has the backing of key far-left thought leaders.

In April, Salon Editor-at-Large d. Watkins published a video on Twitter in which he provided 5 reasons “why Maxine Waters should be our next president.”

“Maxine understands the people,” Watkins said as his #5 reason.

“Number 4, Maxine Waters has an amazing reputation of being a fearless, outspoken advocate for women, the poor, children, people of color — pretty much everybody that was left out of the Trump campaign,” he said.

Watkins said #3 is because of her opposition to the war in Iraq.

“That’s something that (Hillary) Clinton, (George W.) Bush, (Donald) Trump, (John) McCain, all of those people couldn’t really figure out,” he said.

Watkins said Waters “loves the Millennials and we love her back,” he said.

His justification was that Waters’ is “learning our language and using the internet.”

Watkins’ number one reason?

“She’s not afraid to attack the right,” he said.

“These are tough times and in tough times we need a tough leader,” Watkins said. “That’s why I nominate Maxine Waters to be our next president.”

See (“MAXINE 2020? Waters appearance in NH on Sunday“); see also (“Each And Every Democrat Must Be Targeted For Removal Next Year“) and (“Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman?“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


21 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Shut Down The Mueller Witch Hunt, And Drain The Swamp! [UPDATED]

President Trump

Justin Sink and Steven T. Dennis have written for Bloomberg Politics:

President Donald Trump’s interview with the New York Times on Wednesday has stirred speculation he may consider firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller for investigating Trump’s business dealings as part of the Russia probe.

But Trump can’t fire Mueller directly, according to the law that authorizes Mueller’s probe. If he tried, he could set off a chain-reaction that would throw the Justice Department into upheaval.

Only the person acting as attorney general, currently Rod Rosenstein on matters related to the probe, can fire Mueller, and he’s said he won’t do it without “good cause.” So Trump would first have to purge the upper ranks of the Justice Department until he finds someone willing to follow his orders and dismiss the special counsel.

He’d almost certainly begin by dismissing Rosenstein, whose political loyalties Trump questioned in the Times interview on Wednesday in which he also warned Mueller against broadening his investigation. Such a scenario would parallel President Richard Nixon’s 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre,” when Nixon forced out the top two officials in the Justice Department in order to oust the Watergate special counsel.

“I don’t think that’s politically survivable, and it’s not clear how much collateral damage he has to do to in order to put himself into a position to have somebody fire Mueller,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

Expanding Investigation

Mueller’s investigation has expanded to examine a broad range of transactions involving the president’s businesses, including dealings by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a person familiar with the probe told Bloomberg News. Trump told the Times that if Mueller examined his family’s finances beyond any relationship with Russia he’d consider it “a violation.”

“There is no possible way anybody at the White House could be seriously thinking about firing Mueller,” said Senate Bob Corker of Tennessee, a Republican. “I don’t even want to comment on that because that’s so far out of bounds it couldn’t possibly be a serious discussion.”

Undercutting Mueller

Trump has indicated he would try to undercut Mueller’s credibility. In the New York Times interview, Trump said Mueller has “many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.”

Separately, the Washington Post reported Thursday night that Trump’s legal team is exploring ways to question Mueller by building a case that he has conflicts of interest in overseeing the investigation. The Post also cited one unidentified person familiar with the effort as saying that Trump has asked his advisers about his authority to grant pardons to aides, family members or even himself.

A conflict of interest is one of the grounds that an attorney general can cite to remove a special counsel under Justice Department regulations, according to the Post.

A Congressional Research Service report lays out how a special prosecutor can be removed.

“To comply with the regulations, the Attorney General himself must remove the special counsel, not the President or a surrogate (unless, as noted previously in this report, the Attorney General has recused himself in the matter under investigation),” the agency concluded from its legal research.

Trump’s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, when asked on Thursday if Trump would try to remove Mueller, said that “the president has no intention to do so at this time.”

Brand, Boente

But Trump does possess authority to fire Rosenstein for any reason, including refusal to remove Mueller from the post. If Trump did so, the decision would then fall to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department.

That’s what happened in 1973, when then-Solicitor General Robert Bork became the acting attorney general and fired the special counsel after the department’s top two officials quit rather than carry out Nixon’s order.

Brand is a conservative who served in the department under President George W. Bush and doesn’t have a background in criminal prosecutions. If Trump fired Rosenstein, Brand might resign because she and Rosenstein were nominated together, have a close working relationship and went through their confirmation hearings as a team.

Dana Boente, the acting assistant attorney general for national security, would be next in line if Trump also removed Brand. Boente has carried out controversial Trump orders before; in January, when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend the president’s travel ban against predominantly Muslim nations, Trump replaced her with Boente, who defended the ban.

‘No Intention’

To be sure, there’s plenty of reason to believe Trump will not actually carry out his implicit threat against Mueller. For one, there is not yet indication that the special counsel is probing Trump Organization businesses outside of its connections to Russia or Russian citizens.

And while Trump allies have floated the idea of firing Mueller before, Sanders said he wasn’t planning to do so.

Still, Trump’s other precedent-shattering decisions have underscored that he doesn’t feel bound by Washington’s traditions, or a fear of the political ramifications.

He defended his dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey in his interview Tuesday with the Times, saying that while he agreed it had caused him a political headache, it was “a great thing for the American people.”

The president’s attack on his own attorney general in the same interview also reinforced notions that he is agitated by the Russia investigation.

Trump said Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation after failing to disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during his confirmation hearing was “very unfair to the president.” And he indicated that had he known Sessions would give up control of the Russia probe, he never would have appointed him to the job.

“Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Trump said.

‘Constitutional Crisis’

Across town, the Trump interview and the larger controversy over the Russia investigation was palpable in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing during which the panel unanimously advanced Comey’s replacement, Christopher Wray.

“Now what happens next?” said Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. “Will the president move again to try and dismiss Mr. Mueller, the special counsel? Will he do his best to try and end the investigation of the FBI? Will Attorney General Sessions be complicit if he moves in that direction?

“We don’t know the answers to those questions but I would tell you that we’re on the footsteps, doorstep I should say, of a constitutional crisis in this country.”

See (“Here’s the Chain Reaction Trump Could Set Off by Trying to Fire Mueller“) (emphasis added); see also (“Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions“)

Clearly, both Presidents Clinton and Obama used their constitutional pardon powers broadly (e.g., the pardoning of Marc Rich, in the case of Clinton).

See, e.g., (Marc Rich: “U.S. indictment and pardon”) and

Politics is a rough-and-tumble business, which is especially true in our nation’s capital these days—where the Democrats, their far-Left “Mainstream Media” (MSN) cohorts, and Neanderthals in the GOP are bent on destroying the Trump presidency and reversing last year’s presidential election results.

This has been “war” since the Left realized that our President might actually be elected. It must be fought as a war, with no niceties involved. Those of us who lived through Watergate understand the stakes, and know who our domestic enemies are—which are just as “lethal” to this great nation’s future as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and our other enemies globally.

President Trump’s supporters elected him to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., which is putrid to say the least, and has been for decades. Most Americans realize this; and there will be a “constitutional crisis” if it is not drained as the president promised.

No guts, no glory. President Trump did not get his party’s nomination and become our president by being a timid soul. We elected him to be bold and to defy Washington’s decadent, “do nothing”-positive traditions.

For openers, he should pardon those close to him who are or may become targets of the despicable Mueller’s witch hunt, and shut it down completely.

Nothing less will suffice.

See also (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“)

Lastly, Christopher Wray is not a Trump loyalist, and his nomination for FBI Director should be pulled by the Trump White House.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: