— Read on themonitor.tx.newsmemory.com/
— Read on themonitor.tx.newsmemory.com/
by Washington Examiner | July 16, 2019 10:44 PM
This week, the Trump administration continued its efforts to bring order to the southern border by imposing new rules on the asylum-seeking process. This is what was needed.
On Monday, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced that migrants wanting to claim asylum in the U.S. must first do so in either their home country or another country before coming to the U.S. Under the new rule, anyone who crosses illegally into the U.S. to claim asylum, without having already applied from outside, would be ineligible.
Word has gotten out south of Texas that anyone hoping to flee violence or poverty in their own country need touch American soil, find a Border Patrol agent, and turn oneself in, requesting asylum. The vast majority of migrants who do this are breaking the law when they float the short distance across the Rio Grande and come ashore without authorization. But that crime is effectively canceled out the moment they say “asylum.” Moreover, 90% of the time, the asylum claim, no matter how frivolous, grants them the right to remain in the country while they await a court hearing that may not come for up to five years.
That is an abuse of American generosity intended to offer refuge for people abroad genuinely fearing for their lives and persecuted by their governments.
We understand why these men and women from Latin America want to be in the U.S. Ours is the land of opportunity, and many of our neighbor countries lack the capitalist economies and robust property rights needed to provide such opportunity.
But the asylum law was not supposed to be an invitation to unlimited economic migration. But that is how the law is currently functioning, with Central Americans making their way here by the tens of thousands every month. They have learned exactly how to push the system’s buttons in order to secure long-term permission to be inside the U.S., and this is why detention centers near the border are overflowing.
Congress has shown no sense of urgency to fix the problem. Democrats oppose every measure to halt or even reduce the gush of migrants crossing into the U.S., many of them deathly ill from the arduous, 2,000-mile journey from their home countries.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday that the administration’s new directive violates the law and will be “swiftly and successfully challenged in court.” This, even though just last week the California Democrat signaled that she could support “initiatives” that would more or less do what the new rule does.
At a press conference on Thursday, Pelosi said, “There are some initiatives that suggest that some review of asylum-seekers’ status could be done in [their] country instead of traveling here, and that’s one thing that I think would be appealing to the administration.” She even said that it wouldn’t be a matter of having to “change the law.” This makes her new objections seem puzzling.
The White House has issued other rules for asylum-seekers crossing illegally into the U.S., such as requiring them to pay a fee and denying them work permits until their claim is approved. Some of the new directives are already in effect and some are not. Even so, it is important that the administration take every action it can to stop this law’s abuse, at least until the flow at the border reaches a manageable level.
There are too many people coming into the country at once seeking refuge. It’s straining the resources of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It has created a crisis at the border, and it is literally putting more lives in danger. We have long called on Trump to take action on this within the law and to get Congress involved as much as he can. This action is a step in the right direction.
AMERICAN THOUGHT LEADERS
The Epoch Times | Doug Wead | Dec 5, 2019
From the time that Ivanka Trump was a little girl, her father was ripping out pages of The New York Times lamenting what America’s elites—both Republican and Democrat—were doing to America, Wead said.
All this time, “he’s hoping that somebody’s going to come along and run for president and clean this up and nobody ever does,” Wead said.
Trump watched as Republican and Democratic presidents welcomed communist China into the World Trade Organization and gave China most favored nation status. They paved the way for the rise of communist China and enabled “the largest transfer of wealth in human history, outside of the Middle East, of America’s wealth to China,” Wead said.
“Imagine how much money it’s taken to pull China out of poverty. And the American middle-class has done that,” he said.
“The president knows that the decisions he has to make vis-a-vis China are the toughest decisions he will make,” Wead said. And he understands that the American people won’t fully appreciate his decisions, such as placing hefty tariffs on Chinese products, Wead said.
Trump is the sixth U.S. president Wead has interviewed; he’s also conversed with six first ladies and 30 siblings and children of different presidents.
In his interviews with the presidents, he says the only common denominator was that they were all great listeners.
“When I found that with Trump, I was surprised because on TV, you only see him talking, you don’t see him listening,” Wead said. “My whole perspective on the president changed immediately when I met him.”
During one of Ivanka Trump’s interviews with Wead, she told him, “he is really very compassionate.”
Wead details in his book: “All her life, even in her teens, Ivanka would be called into his office, where he would tear off a piece of the morning newspaper and say, ‘Ivanka, find this person.’ It might be a person whose apartment had burned, destroying everything he had owned. Once, it was a young woman whose father had been murdered in the Bronx, and prosecutors would not make the arrest.”
Ivanka eventually found the woman, who had been left impoverished, and her father offered to help her and give her a job, Wead wrote.
One of America’s most shameful secrets was the many U.S. hostages held abroad, Wead told The Epoch Times.
Previous administrations had failed to secure their release.
“I’ve spoken with the families of these hostages. Democrat, Republican—they don’t care. They had loved ones that they cared about who were beheaded and who were tortured and raped,” Wead said.
“They were told by the American government, keep quiet,” Wead said. He says the rationale was that if they increased the publicity surrounding a hostage, it would increase the value of the hostage, and make it harder to free that person. And more Americans abroad would likely be imprisoned to blackmail the United States.
“There was this period of darkness, a shameful period where nothing could be said about the hostages,” Wead said.
“If it’s your son or daughter, your only hope is the federal government. And they won’t keep you informed? They won’t tell you what’s going on? They won’t let you use your money or your abilities to try to bring them home?”
Trump “was outraged by that,” Wead said. Since taking office, he has successfully freed 22 hostages.
Trump refused to offer money in exchange.
“He did the reverse: We’re taking their money, and we’re going to squeeze them until they let them go” was his rationale, Wead said.
In his book, he highlights the case of Pastor Andrew Brunson, who had been imprisoned in Turkey for alleged links to the Gülen movement, a designated terrorist organization in Turkey. The government in Ankara had produced no evidence, so Brunson couldn’t refute any of the charges against him.
The Trump administration made several agreements with Turkey to secure Brunson’s release, but the Turks backed out of them, Brunson told Wead later in an interview.
Trump pressured Turkey by putting sanctions on two of its officials, doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum from Turkey, and engaging Congress and the European Parliament to exert pressure as well. The Turkish lira tumbled, and on Oct. 12, 2018, Trump welcomed Brunson and his family to the White House.
Trump “brought the Turkish economy to the brink over one man, and he got him home,” Wead said.
Before the book was published, Wead said he began receiving death threats against him and his family from different IP addresses in an attempt to stop him from releasing his work.
“They named my family members and details about their life that would only come from a great deal of research,” Wead said.
“These are unusual times,” he added.
Wead believes the anti-Trump resistance wanted to impeach Trump as soon as he won the election.
“So it had nothing to do with Russian collusion, because that came later; it had nothing to do with the phone call to Ukraine because that came later,” Wead said.
“The national media and the establishment,” are still reeling from the humiliation that U.S. voters didn’t vote how they were told to, Wead said.
As Wead highlighted in his book, Trump’s victory defied all expectation: “He had been opposed by Hollywood, academia, Wall Street, and the national media. Every living president, Republican and Democratic, had voted against him. Two-hundred-and-forty newspapers had endorsed his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Nineteen had supported him. Billionaires had voted against him 20 to one.”
In addition, right after the election, economist Paul Krugman wrote, “We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”
But contrary to the predictions of economic fallout, the economy boomed, and now boasts more than 7 million job openings.
“That’s the entire population of the state of Indiana in unfilled jobs,” Wead said.
Wead said Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner—who plays a much larger role in the Trump administration than people think—once remarked to Trump that it was thanks to the media’s total fixation with the Russia collusion narrative that the Trump administration was able to deregulate.
“The cutting of regulations could have been big stories. Instead, they were blind to what we were doing, and we were able to jump-start the economy,” Kushner told Wead.
In writing his book, “What I wanted to do was get accurate stories, real stories down on paper—truth on paper,” Wead said.
“I told Ivanka, you know, in 100 years from now, there are still going to be books written and dramas performed about the Trump family. But whether they’re viewed hatefully as the Borgias or as the Medicis or as grandly as the Kennedys or the Rockefellers or some great family, all of that depends on what is written and said about them now,” he said.
“Not the hearsay, but the primary sources.” American Thought Leaders is an Epoch Times show available on Facebook and YouTube.
That was his instinct:
You’ve got a problem with somebody? You call him. And that’s what he did with Kim Jong Un.
Doug Wead, presidential historian
I told Ivanka, you know, in 100 years from now, there are still going to be books written and dramas performed about the
Doug Wead, presidential historian
President Donald Trump shakes hands with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un before a meeting at the Sofitel Legend Metropole hotel in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Feb. 27, 2019.
SAUL LOEB/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
The Monitor | COMMENTARY | Scott Martelle
Trump winning on immigration
Two down, one to go.
Federal judges in three separate circuits issued injunctions — two nationwide, one limited to the 9th Circuit — against President Trump’s pending “public charge” rule, which would make immigrants ineligible for green cards if they sign up for certain public benefits.
On Monday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., joined fellow jurists in the San Francisco based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in lifting injunctions after the federal government persuaded them that it likely had the legal authority to adopt the new restrictions.
That leaves the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which is mulling an appeal of a nationwide injunction issued in October by a district court in New York City, as the last barrier.
The lower court decisions hinged on complaints by immigrant advocates and several state attorneys general (including California) that the government violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act by adopting an “arbitrary and capricious” policy that exceeded its authority under immigration law. But two appellate courts now say the government likely had the authority to do what it did.
Even if that is true, that doesn’t make the new rule good policy. Much like the government’s effort to require potential immigrants to prove they could cover anticipated health care costs (that also has been held up in the courts), the public charge rule is clearly aimed at reducing the number of poor people admitted to the country and increasing the ranks of the wealthy. You know, fewer people from those infamous “s—-hole countries” in Africa, South American and the Caribbean, and more from wealthier nations in Europe, such as Trump expressed favorite, Norway (good luck with that, as my colleague Paul Thornton once pointed out).
In typical fashion, the White House used the Monday decision as a point of attack.
“The 4th Circuit’s lifting of the lawless nationwide injunction imposed against the administration’s public charge immigration regulation is a major step forward
for the rule of law,” the White House said. “It is our hope that the 2nd Circuit will, like the 9th and 4th Circuits have already done, lift the meritless nationwide injunction a New York district court has imposed against the rule so that it can be enforced, consistent with the plain letter of the law, for the benefit of all citizens and lawful residents of this country.”
But the “public charge” rule is not a benefit to all. It makes life tougher for people who have already immigrated and who are hoping to be joined by their families — allowed under decades of U.S. policy — and it counters our national economic interest.
As The Times editorial board wrote in September when the proposed rule surfaced: “The government estimates that the new regulations would negatively affect 382,000 people, but advocates say that is likely an undercount. And the rules would keep people from coming to the country who economists say are vital for the nation’s future economic growth. President Trump’s xenophobic view of the world stands in sharp contradiction not only to American values, but to the nation’s history. We are a country of immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and as a maturing society we will rely more and more on immigration for economic growth. Research shows that even those who start out in low-wage jobs, and thus are likely to get some financial help from the government, often, over time, learn or improve skills that move them into higher income brackets and help the overall economy.”
So in the administration’s efforts to reduce immigration of all stripes, it continues to push policies that appease Trump’s narrowing base while working against our collective national interest.
Scott Martelle is a member of the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board.
By Janita Kan | The Epoch Times | November 16, 2019
Barr Says Democrats, Courts Are Engaged in Efforts to Cripple Presidential Power
U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Friday that the president’s ability to act in areas he has the power is being undermined by Congress and the courts, saying that they were engaging in efforts to “sabotage” the president’s administration.
During a speech at an annual gathering of conservative lawyers on Friday, Barr defended presidential power and accused opponents of President Donald Trump of “waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance” against him that involves the “systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law.”
He said since Trump was elected in 2016, his opponents had launched a “resistance” which has “rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver” in an effort to “sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.”
Barr pointed to Congress saying that the Democrat lawmakers are abdicating their role as legislators and engaging in actions that are effectively blocking the functions of the executive branch.
He said Democrats are pursuing multiple investigations that are designed to “incapacitate the executive branch” and are drowning the executive branch with oversight demands for information.
“Now, I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its legislative power,” Barr said during his speech to the Federalist Society. “But the sheer volume of what we see today, the pursuit of scores of parallel investigations to an avalanche of subpoenas is plainly designed to incapacitate the executive branch.”
He also accused Senate Democrats of abusing the advice and consent process by systematically opposing and drawing out the approval process of Trump’s appointees, which the attorney general says then prevents the president from being able to build his government.
“That is precisely what the Senate Minority has done from President Trump’s very first day in office,” he said. “As of September of this year, the Senate has been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees, each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay the inevitable confirmation.”
“It is reasonable to wonder whether a future president will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.”
The attorney general was also critical of judges for encroaching on executive responsibilities and usurping its power, which has substantially undercut the functioning of the presidency.
He said the court has done it a number of ways by appointing itself as the arbiter in disputes between Congress and the executive, something he believes the framers of the Constitution did not intend, as well as expanding the scope and intensity of judicial review that allows them to “substitute their judgment for the president’s.”
He used the example of travel bans, saying that the courts placed a hold on the policy after second-guessing the president’s motive for the ban.
“Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an executive official’s real motive often after ordering invasive discovery into the executive branch’s privilege decision-making process, have no more foundation in law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge’s real motive and issuing a decision,” he said.
The president, Barr said, had “certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio” but he had been upfront with what he was going to do and people still “decided they wanted him to serve as president.”
Barr, who has been repeatedly criticized for defending Trump, said he was actually worried about the presidency and the “steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority.”
“I’m concerned that the deck has become stacked against the executive,” he said.
By Terri Harris Hill | Oct. 18, 2019 | Facebook
What is it REALLY like at a Trump Rally? It’s like nothing you could ever imagine and it’s certainly not like anything portrayed in the media. I was incredibly fortunate to be a volunteer at the Trump Rally in Dallas last night, and I want to share with everyone the truth about the these events. A Trump Rally is a beautiful symphony of gratitude, love, appreciation and patriotism wrapped in organized chaos.
Let me address the organized chaos first, because this part is truly incredible. By 2:45 pm, I overheard security talking to each other reporting that from on the ground counts plus sky views via helicopter, they estimated there were 16,000 people in line. Sixteen thousand of anything is a lot, but these were 16,000 individuals, some who had already spent the night outside the American Airlines Arena, others had arrived before daybreak to stand in line. All the hundreds of individuals I spoke with yesterday had already been standing or sitting in line for 17 to 10 hours. No one was upset, frustrated or tired. Around 2 pm security started adding in extra “lanes” for the increasing crowds, so the people that had been sitting or standing all day were now having to get up and move. Then, as I was moving through the crowds I see the diversity of the people in line. ALL economic backgrounds were represented including every other demographic: white, black, Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, straight, gay, etc. All the little boxes the media like to separate individuals into were present, but they were all patriotic Trump supporters. There were a lot of young people (18-25), many late 20s to mid 30s. The majority were 35-55 age range with the second largest age group being 55-75. However, I also met at least two dozen amazing individuals who were 86-97 years old and they patiently and eagerly waited in line over 14 hours to see President Trump.
There were couples, families, friends and co-workers there together, waiting for hours in line with strangers at the beginning of the day, but friends by mid day. They were helping each other move chairs and coolers, sharing drinks, food and snacks, and friending each other on social media platforms. How were all these individuals of various backgrounds kept in line for over 18 hours until the doors opened to the arena? You’d expect there to be a heavy security presence amongst the lines, police intervening often and settling disputes. Here’s the thing – they weren’t needed. There was a plethora of law enforcement at the rally and arena and in the sky and on rooftops. But they didn’t have to watch the 50,000 plus Trump supporters that showed up for the rally. They kept a secure perimeter, monitored media (more on these idiots later), kept the small amount of protestors that showed up away from the crowds and mostly assisted for medical issues. And each time there was a need for medical assistance, such as someone getting hot, tired or dehydrated from standing in line, although the EMTs were quick to respond, before they arrived, fellow Trump supporters in line who were medical professionals would rush to them, assist and begin assessing them in seconds so when EMT arrived minutes later, in most cases, the individual had already been evaluated by a doctor or nurse. Trump supporters took care of each other so there simply wasn’t an urgent need for police to monitor the rally attendees.
As I walked through the lines and spoke with the attendees patiently waiting they all had definitive personal reasons for why they support President Trump. They weren’t regurgitating political talking points, but told me what President Trump meant to them individually. While each were different and unique, many had similar themes. Since I did not ask for permission to share their specific personal stories – or even think to ask at the time – I will share their general sentiments. They respect his honesty and bluntness. His tweets do not offend them and they appreciate the time and effort he makes to speak directly to the public. They do not trust the media AT ALL. They are sad and disappointed that they can’t trust anything they say, but they’ve come to terms with it. They agree with President Trump that Nancy Pelosi is crazy. They think Adam Schiff should be locked up. Another interesting recurring sentiment is while they do not trust or respect any Democrats, they aren’t particularly supportive of Republicans either. They trust Trump and support his efforts and successes on draining the swamp, and they REALLY want a big swamp draining.
Everything they talked about and shared were contrary to anything ever reported by mainstream media. You don’t hear about these testimonies on television nor do you read about them in newspapers or publications. I have always wondered why it is that the media never share pro-Trump interviews. Is it because they don’t want to be interviewed? It it because they tried but their responses were inarticulate and not worthy of publication? No to both of the above scenarios. These individuals are very articulate, extremely knowledgeable and more than willing to vocally speak up on why they unequivocally support President Trump. The reason you won’t see it in media is because THEY IGNORE THEM! Less than 50 yards separated the media entrance to the main vein of the attendee line. Less than 10 yards separated the press entrance from the VIP line. I watched one media outlet after another walk right past thousands of rally attendees without stopping once to interview anyone and went directly into the building. They weren’t running late and didn’t have time. Most had their cameras out and on their shoulders, they just weren’t interested in filming the Trump supporters. It doesn’t fit their narrative and radical left wing propaganda they are so dedicated to promoting. Watching this unfold really put it into perspective how they aren’t at all interested in reporting truth or what’s important to viewers. They only care about transmitting information that fits the narrative they’re selling.
I didn’t get into the arena until around 6:30 pm. The Trump Team volunteers fortunately had a suite reserved so there wasn’t a rush to find a seat. The place was packed floor to ceiling. Around 7:15 pm I walked out of the suite which overlooked the entrance and there were still people pouring into the arena.
At 7:42 pm, President Trump arrived and the cheering was so loud you could feel it in your internal organs. It shook you physically and emotionally in the most amazing way. I’ve watched several rallies on television or live feed from YouTube and while you could get a sense of the crowd response to certain things he would say, to witness it first hand is completely different. When the crowd roars with applause, you physically feel it. When he mentions the fake news media and the crowd boos, the vibration is indescribable. I can state without any hesitation that Trump supporters absolutely do not trust the media & they resent them for lying to the public. I loved being there and watching the 20,000 plus crowd cheer, boo and then fall silent to listen to their President speak. They love him, respect him and they trust him. Looking in front of the stage where the VIPs were standing, I could see three men close together with their arms around each other. They were veterans and two of them were holding up their friend in the middle who was a double amputee so he could see Trump. It was such a powerful image and one I’ll never forget. A few times I found myself wiping away tears because I was seeing and experiencing such beautiful moments that not only warmed my heart, but strengthened my resolve. When President Trump says the media and democrats are not fighting him, they’re fighting us, he’s right. When he chose to run for President, he made a decision to stand in between the corrupt politicians of the deep state and be our gladiator to fight them off from destroying our country and the values we hold so dear.
I’ve heard media pundits and ignorant politicians refer to Trump supporters as a cult, as ignorant and that we blindly follow him without knowing what we’re doing. That’s a flat out lie. Every single person I spoke to was extremely knowledgeable and knew exactly what the truth was and saw through every lie presented by the fake news media and the politicians who only care about themselves. They don’t look at President Trump as a god, but they love and respect him as a hero. They care about him and his family and they pray for their health and safety. These are people who cannot be bought, manipulated or swayed by lies. President Trump awakened a sleeping giant. He has empowered a nation with truth, honesty & keeping his campaign promises. Trump supporters believe in him because he’s earned our respect. He’s fought for us, so he’s earned our affection. He has made America great again in every sense of the phrase and people have noticed. One of the things that I loved most about this experience was the realization that in every city at every rally, tens of thousands of supporters wait 10-24 hours just for the opportunity to attend a free event to see and support President Trump. And anyone that will do that, will certainly turn out to vote. Trump is unbeatable & any candidate hoping to win any election needs to only say three words and mean them to win any election, “I’m with Trump.” Because here’s the truth, you’re either with us or against us and WE ARE WITH HIM!
By James O’Keefe | Project Veritas | Oct. 17, 2019
BREAKING: #ExposeCNN PART 3 – FIELD OPS MANAGER AT CNN: ZUCKER’S 9AM CALLS ARE ‘BULLSHIT;’ “WE’RE TOTALLY LEFT-LEANING…(BUT) WE DON’T WANT TO ADMIT IT”
By: Bill O’ReillyOctober 16, 2019 | NewsmaxTV | http://www.bor.com
Hey Bill O’Reilly here, this is the Talking Points Memo for Newsmax. The real story of the impeachment madness.
So Democrats believe that President Trump should not be president. That’s where we start. So for two years we had the Russian collusion situation and then the special counsel, Robert Mueller after spending 30 million dollars of taxpayer money came back and said, you know there really wasn’t any collusion. Obstruction of justice, I don’t know and on and on. It was a big nothing.
So Americans said, well all right let’s move ahead, President Trump has two more years but the zealots, the anti Trump forces said no way and now they’re trying to impeach the president over a phone call he made to the Ukrainian president. I’m not going to get into that because if you’re following the news, you know it’s just insane. All right.
But the real reason this is happening is about the U.S. Justice Department and a man named John Durham. That’s why impeachment is happening. So listen up. Attorney General William Barr appointed Mr. Durham, who is a respected U.S. attorney from Connecticut to investigate the origins and alleged crimes involved by federal agencies in the Russia collusion investigation. Mueller did not do that.
So Mr. Durham is now looking into FBI,CIA, State Department and Department of Defense, those four. The word is that John Durham is accumulating information at a rapid rate. The information says elements within the federal government were determined to ruin the Trump presidency by selective leaks to the press about stuff that may or may not be true.
Now, you know the head of the FBI, James Comey was fired, the assistant head of the FBI McCabe was fired and a whole bunch of other people are suspect. So if Durham comes back and he has the power to indict, so we think there’s a grand jury already in place. We don’t know for sure. This is ultra ultra secret.
But if Durham comes back with indictments against Comey, McCabe, people in the CIA, people in the State Department under Barack Obama, Department of Defense. If he says they did illegal things, the government’s gonna prosecute them. That’ll take a while and it’ll overlap the presidential election. President Trump can rightly say the government of the United States has indicted former Obama administration officials for trying to upend his administration and his campaign.
Donald Trump can make that a huge campaign theme.
So the anti Trump forces in the media and the Democratic Party cannot allow that to happen without something to balance it. Therefore, you have impeachment. Now I’ve said from the very beginning there’s no crime here. There’s no reason that a sitting president, no matter who he was or she was would be removed for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
It’s not going to happen. Everybody tries to dig up dirt on their opponents. Now you don’t inject a foreign government but President Trump can rightly say, I was looking into corruption attached to the Ukrainian government that influenced the United States. And we know Joe Biden, we know that story.
So there is a legitimacy to the president’s position. I can’t read his mind. I don’t know what his intent was, but certainly what he says his intent was has to be taken seriously.
Now, the other thing about this impeachment thing this week is that all of the testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee is secret. The reason the Democrats are doing that, is they can leak little parts of the testimony out to the press to make it look like President Trump is being hammered in those hearings, when that might not be true.
You’re not supposed to leak and that’s what Durham is investigating but the congresspeople leak all the time. It’s different by the way, with a congressional leak than a FBI CIA leak. It is a different thing. Although you can get trouble if your congressperson leaking in the Ethics Committee, whatever that is.
So summing up, impeachment is being used to blunt the State Department investigation into massive corruption. Trying to undermine the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency. That will be the big story of 2020, in addition to the presidential race and it could help President Trump very much.
That’s the Talking Points Memo. I’m Bill O’Reilly for Newsmax. We’ll see you soon.
By Victor Davis Hanson | AMERICAN Greatness | Oct. 6, 2019
The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.
Strangest among all the many melodramas of the last two weeks were the blaring headlines that President Trump had dared to talk with the Australian Prime Minister—and referenced the role of foreign governments and in particular Australia in U.S. electoral politics in 2016.
Given the hue and cry of Democrats in the last three years, they should have been delighted that the president was peremptorily warning foreign nations to cease to currying favor with presidential candidates and asking them to hand over what information, if any, they had of past “collusion.” In fact, they were outraged and once again returned to “collusion” charges, as if Trump were subverting the 2020 election.
I Accuse You of Doing What I Did!
Unfortunately, projection is now an encompassing explanation for almost everything the Left alleges. After all, the Australian government’s own connection with U.S. elections is only on the American political radar because in 2016 its former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, who had steered a large Australian donation to the Clinton Foundation, may have colluded with intelligence agencies to entrap George Papadopoulos, a minor and transient Trump campaign employee, to find dirt on the Trump campaign. Bringing up Australia is like the Left leaving a scented trail to its own past miscreant behavior.
Take the Ukraine. It would be hard for any Democrat politico to argue that Ukraine was not involved in 2016 to feed faux-charges of “collusion” to Hillary Clinton—a fact even the liberal press once repeatedly conceded. Ukrainians were only too happy to meet and consult with U.S. intelligence officials when they assumed Hillary Clinton was to be elected, and their yeoman service in frying the sure loser Trump would somehow be appreciated and awarded.
When Joe Biden makes the accusation that Trump was colluding with the new Ukrainian president to reopen investigation of the Biden influence-peddling conglomerate, naturally we knew that Ukraine in general had been leveraged in the past to help the Clinton campaign, and by Biden himself in particular to enrich his own son. Poor contorted Ukraine now backpedals as fast as it can—from trying to help destroy Trump in 2016 to suggesting in 2019 that it regrets having done so. And soon it will hedge its cooperation in 2020—unsure whether the Democrat colluders of 2016 will return to power and it can expect to be punished for renouncing them in 2019.
In surreal fashion, every charge that Biden levels against Trump’s supposed thought crimes amounts to more evidence of his own real wrongdoing in using threats to cut off aid to a foreign nation in exchange for dropping investigation of his wayward son. The latter’s only apparent qualifications for employment are shameless readiness to play on his father’s position.
Projection as a Leftist symptom came to the fore during the Mueller investigation when Mueller’s dream team of progressive attorneys began pressuring a number of minor Trump former campaign officials, and eventually his national security advisor, on trumped up charges—from leaking sensitive documents, to obstruction of justice, to lying to federal officials, to collusion (whatever that non-legal term denotes) with foreign governments and in particular Russia. In each case, Mueller ended up hunting down possible misdemeanors while ignoring likely felonies.
Leaking? By James Comey’s own admissions he had leaked confidential presidential memos he composed for the expressed purpose of later using them as insurance policies against Trump, some of which material was classified as secret.
As far as lying to federal officials, Mueller simply ignored that Andrew McCabe was under federal referrals for lying to investigators about his own strategic leaking of FBI investigatory material. Both McCabe and Comey likely lied to a FISA court by not apprising judges that their prime evidence, the Steele dossier, was not verified, its foreign author severed from FBI contractual employment, and many of its assertions known to be demonstrably untrue.
The Left has accused critics of Biden of indulging in supposition and hearsay and using unnamed sources—despite the fired Ukrainian prosecutor’s insistence that he was dismissed due to Biden’s interference and demands to end the investigation into the likely criminality of Biden’s own son Hunter. Yet, the so-called “whistleblower” complaint admittedly is without any firsthand evidence, and rests entirely on two nothings—second and third-hand information the complainant claims he heard, and sources within the White House for such rumors that remain anonymous, in other words accusers of the president who refuse to identify themselves.
In truth, the “whistleblower” is no such thing. He or she is a disgruntled and partisan intelligence bureaucrat, who violated the whistleblower statutes by first going to Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D.-Calif.) staff on the House Intelligence Committee to get help in translating his narrative into Mueller/Steele dossier legalese, and in strategizing the timing of his accusations. Expect a series of John Brennan-surrogate intelligence agency whistleblowers to follow once it is established that now hearsay is admissible and there is no downside to violating the statutes by first conferring with Adam Schiff’s staff.
Conflict of Interest? We are hearing allegations that Attorney General Barr cannot investigate any of the whistleblower’s accusations because he is mentioned as interested in learning from the Ukraine any information available concerning 2016 interference into the U.S. election—this coming at a time when a nondescript, mostly unethical and quite disturbed Hunter Biden parlayed his ignorance about foreign affairs, the oil business, and Ukraine into a lucrative “consultantship,” predicated on the wink and nod reality that his dad, who knew quite well what his heretofore miscreant son had landed upon, was overseeing U.S.-Ukrainian aid.
But conflict of interest is in fact the entire basis of the last three years of endless investigations of the 2016 election and purported Trump “collusion.” Do we remember the contortions taken by Andrew McCabe to ignore the fact that he was “investigating” Hillary Clinton emails, shortly after Clinton-related funds were given to his own wife, a candidate for the state legislature in Virginia?
A blatant conflict of interest was the intertwine of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, two of Mueller’s investigators and previously at the nexus of investigating almost every alleged wrongdoing of Trump. Neither disclosed that they were conducting FBI business as supposed independent investigators while conducting an affair.
Neither disclosed that they were investigating supposed Trump crimes while communicating daily their disgust for Trump, their disdain for his supporters, and their boasts about stopping the Trump candidacy and later his presidency. Neither disclosed why and when they were fired from the Mueller team, perhaps in deference to Robert Mueller’s unethical gambit of staggering their departures, claiming each was merely “reassigned,” and not disclosing their absences until weeks after they left.
Their conflicts of interest turned to farce when we learned that the two helped reclassify their former boss James Comey’s secret memos of presidential conversations as non-felonious “confidential”—a sort of replay of Strzok’s earlier rewording of the Comey assessment of the Clinton email scandal to ensure she would not be charged with a felony.
The locus classicus of conflict of interest was the Loretta Lynch/James Comey investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton. Comey has admitted he handled the Clinton examination in expectation she would win the presidency (and thus become his new boss). Lynch has confessed (but only after being caught by the media) that she met secretly with Bill Clinton at a time when the Justice Department was supposedly investigating his wife. We are asked to believe that their respective private jets actually bumped into each other on the Phoenix tarmac (someone should count the nation’s average daily landings of private jets and compute the possibility of such a happenstance meeting) and that they suddenly decided to have a chat about their grandchildren and other mutual family gossip.
Collusion? Mueller found no proof that Trump colluded with Russian officials. But to come to such a conclusion, by needs he had to ignore all the evidence leading to an open and shut case, that Hillary Clinton used three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie legal firm, and Fusion GPS opposition research team—to hide her payments to British national Christopher Steele, an admitted Trump-hater, who hired Russian fabricators to find dirt on Trump, and then created a mostly mythical “dossier” on Clinton’s opponent.
In turn, the dossier was seeded among fellow traveler Trump haters in the DOJ, FBI, DNI, and CIA like Bruce Ohr, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe. These partisan allies of the Democrats working in government made sure that it was leaked to the media before the 2016 election.
Obstruction? Trump was not referred for wrongdoing on obstruction, because even the partisan Mueller team believed that they could never indict him after his tenure was over, given the paucity of actionable evidence. After all, it is hard to obstruct justice if a crime did not take place. But given that a FISA court was deluded, classified documents leaked, government officials caught lying, and foreign governments found to have compiled dirt on a presidential candidate, and no one yet has been charged—the question arises, “Why?”
Who made the decision to quash the investigation of Hillary Clinton after she destroyed over 30,000 emails under subpoena? Who excused Obama officials after they knowingly misled federal FISA court justices? Who leaked information about a surveilled phone call between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador? Who decided that it was acceptable for Samantha Power to request over 260 times the unmasking of names of American citizens swept up in government surveillance, many of which were illegally leaked to the press and most of which Power denied requesting and alleged others had used her name to do so? Somewhere, somehow there was a great deal of obstruction and distortion of justice that so far has prevented the pursuit of these criminal acts.
Destruction of evidence? House Democrats are demanding that the supposed transcript of the Trump phone call to the Ukrainian president be kept safe, as if it might “disappear.” This in the aftermath of revelations that Hillary Clinton bleach-bitted over 30,000 of her emails under subpoena, and had her mobile devices crushed. This in the aftermath of the Mueller teams and FBI sheepishly conceding that hundreds of text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok simply “disappeared.” This in the aftermath of the hard drives of the supposed hacked DNC computer never being turned over to the FBI but instead to the Ukrainian connected Crowdstrike, and whose current whereabouts are not really known to this day.
Recently David Gergen warned that if the “whistleblower” were injured, it would be Trump’s fault. I am assuming Gergen knows that three presidential candidates have boasted of their desires to beat up the president or see him disappear for good in an elevator. Rhetorically killing the president is a favorite pastime of Hollywood celebrities. Does Gergen remember the fate of Rep. Steve Scalise (R.-La.) and the attempted take-out of the many Republican congressional leadership by an unhinged Bernie Sanders zealot? Or the threats issued by Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.) to hound and harass Trump officials throughout their daily routines?
A cynic might conclude that the last past wasted three years were really not about Trump at all. He was entirely irrelevant, and was referenced largely as a means to preempt investigation of massive Obama-era illegality in 2016, which centered on warping the law to destroy his supposed widely detestable and dangerous campaign that threatened Democratic control of the government. As a result, in almost every instance of alleged Trump wrongdoing the accusers only bring attention to themselves and their own actual wrongdoing.
What is behind this strange collective psychological condition of projecting one’s own guilt on to another? In part, out of embarrassment that Hillary Clinton blew an election despite having the edge in money, the media, and the popular culture, Trump was recalibrated as a cheater. Otherwise it was impossible to accept that the Manhattan wheeler-dealer had outsmarted, out-campaigned, and out-hustled the progressives’ best and brightest—and worse yet might have every intention of keeping his campaign promises to undo the entire Obama agenda.
For tens of thousands of government careerists, by and large political partisans of the Democrats, using any means necessary was justified by the supposedly noble ends of ending the coarse Trump. Groupthink ensued that led to mass hysteria, as the fantasies needed to invoke the 25th Amendment, the Logan Act, and the emoluments clause, meant that their own “collusion” and “obstruction” simply no longer mattered. One would have thought Trump got caught on a hot mic offering a quid pro quo to Vladimir Putin or monitoring the communications of Associated Press reporters.
Instead the zeal and loudness with which one advanced Trump collusion narratives brought both careerist and psychological rewards. The old scandals like Uranium One, the shenanigans around the Iran Deal, the hot mic Obama quid pro quos, and the Hillary email fix were shrugged off, as proof of progressive zeal put to a good cause. To raise the question of unequal application of the law is now dismissed as “whataboutism.”
In sum, had Trump just lost the election, the illegal use of the intelligence agencies by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s administration would have been an insider topic of pride. A now defeated and humiliated Trump would never have been charged with collusion and obstruction during the 2016 campaign. Instead, he would be written off a naïf who never understood leftwing warnings analogous to Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D.-N.Y.) later admonition, that Trump was being “really dumb,” given that, “You take on the Intelligence Community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Or Samantha Power’s postelection smirk, “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”
The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win, which then “pissed” off the wrong people and of course amounted to acting “dumb” with the intelligence agencies. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact email@example.com.