American immigrants fleeing communism are tending to lean right, according to reports. Memories of the dark regimes they escape come flooding back as they watch Democratic talking points. This wasn’t how the Democratic minds planned things to play out.
But, that’s how things play out in a witch hunt. A concluded investigation with no indictment is, by definition, an exoneration. While an opinion may certainly, surely have “middle ground”, prosecution does not—a person is either prosecuted or not prosecuted. Trump is not being prosecuted. Being “not exonerated” is a matter of opinion. Mueller does not write the opinion of the voters anymore than the voters write the report for Mueller.
If Democrats push the Mueller report as a basis to prosecute or even impeach Trump, then they set a precedent to prosecute Hillary. The Democrats lost, if nothing else roughly $20 million dollars (directly and indirectly reported) over two years, but neither indited Trump nor does it look like they will be able to impeach him, given public opinion. Politically, the non-indictment has already exonerated him, regardless of the non-indicting report’s opinion to the contrary.
Rod Rosenstein’s slow exit can easily be explained by his new boss. Since William Barr took over the absent Attorney General’s desk just one moth ago, he needed a veteran so he could catch up to speed. The concern that Rosenstein stayed in office too long after he was supposed to leave could also be applied to the Mueller investigation that should have been over much more quickly. Two endless endings that lack direction should be expected to end together.
The Federal Reserve needs reforming. According to Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman who holds a position appointed by the president, the president had no impact on the Fed’s recent decisions. Especially with so much talk of “accountability” orbiting squanderous theatrics like in the Mueller solar system, entities that lack accountability need it.
This was a week of fakery and desperation. Pacific Daily Times did not pick up the Jussie story of the fake beating because, quite frankly, something about it just didn’t seem newsworthy—until now. Initial headlines weren’t clear as to what exactly happened, except that there was an actor doing something. It seemed reminiscent of—and turned out to actually be much like—Jordan Brown’s story, the homosexual pastor from Texas who dropped his lawsuit about the word “fag” on his cake, after Whole Foods—the bakery—filed a countersuit that he had tampered with the cake. Jussie Smollett was by no means the first, but the fake media just didn’t know how to see a fake for a fake. Perhaps that’s because they’d have to implicate themselves—perhaps.
Pro-Abortion movements are getting laws passed in Democratic-leaning States. This anticipates a likely national ban of abortion from the Supreme Court. Effort itself is not progress. Interpret the times correctly; this effort indicates progress already made on behalf of the Pro-Life movement.
Just the same, Mueller’s coming report is something the Democrats should want to keep quiet, not only because it will acquit Donald Trump of conspiracy with Russia, but because it will likely reveal a breadcrumb trail leading to dirt on the Democrats. With the report not yet delivered, this can’t be certain, but it is how history tends to work. The false accuser’s accusations often turn against him.
The brewing fight between the president and Congress will only strengthen the executive office. Even if a toned-down compromise is reached after a Supreme Court review, whatever the president would get out of it would be more power than he had clarified to him without the lawsuit. In the future, if Anti-Trumpists were to riot again as they have elsewhere, Trump may be able to take executive action against the riots—but having cried, “Wolf!” one too many times, the Left might have no powers left to stop him.
Building the national emergency declaration from components used by Obama serves two purposes. Firstly, and more obviously, are the optics. By opposing Trump’s declaration, opponents would be opposing Obama. But, that is mere optics, no matter how much hypocrisy it may demonstrate. Secondly, and far more importantly, court orders that restrict Trump’s declaration would need to tread carefully in dissent because any dissent against Trump could be used as a precedent to reverse or even take settlement-seeking action against Obama’s executive work in the past. Suing Trump for this order could unwittingly become an attack against Obama from his own supporters.
Russianewsgategate is imploding quietly, as was entirely foreseeable—and social media giants along with it. With Google having shown Taiwanese military secrets to the world, heavy regulation could come faster than thought, but that’s where matters in Asia and America meet in these Pacific times.
The conclusion of the current media analysis of Trump is clear: the Democrats and media sing in unison. Their song is one of contradiction—that Obama’s routine use of executive authority and the Clinton’s scandals should have been ignored—but not Trump, who uses executive authority to obey the Constitution to defend the nation’s borders when Congress will not. His dedication to obey the Constitution is his crime, the lesser-than Obama-Clinton scandals are just the means of punishing him for doing what is right.
At a time when America’s enemies make threats, the people have a president who won’t play the “surrender” role expected by the “great surrenderers” of society. The Russianewsgategate fiasco is about to hit the fan and spray mud all over the Left. Media criticism of the president’s speech at CPAC makes no sense. He celebrates heroes, explains the inside baseball of trade, listens to the wisdom of our military’s generals, and gave the microphone to a young man who was punched in the face for his beliefs. The news media is being seen more and more for the villain it is—and the people know all about it.
Pelosi and Schumer seem to be playing the Washington Generals, acting as if they are sincere, but not putting forward a formidable and convincing effort. Their resistance is a show and, by contrast to Trump, seems pathetic. It perfectly follows the tactic of “appearing to put up a fight”. The most pathetic part is that they are probably sincere.
By standing side-by-side in their televised address, they appear to show unity between them, but the impression is that of weakness: it takes two legislators in order to respond to the president. More importantly, their rhetoric was weak. By mentioning that they would make a statement after his own address, the president positioned himself as the MC who facilitates discussion from all sides. For Democrats, the dual-address to the nation was a botched failure revealing no impression of the playbook sabotage it employed.
Trump is winning the government shutdown for one reason: he set a record. Senator Graham’s desire to temporarily re-open the government was not a cave-in; it was proof of his desire to attempt cooperation of any kind. But, cooperation from Congressional Democrats doesn’t seem likely since they are vacationing in Puerto Rico during the shutdown.
Trump’s efforts to smooth relations with Russia can be interpreted from two perspectives: The first is from the one half of the masses who are suspicious of anyone who creates jobs without government. Those who don’t understand how to create revenue see big and powerful people talking and—for that reason alone—presume themselves to be victims of some malevolent plot that may not even exist. The second perspective from which we may interpret the White House’s policy with Russia is from the standpoint of the approaching conflict with China. The last thing the American people should want is Russia helping China takeover the Western Pacific. Thanks to Trump, that is unlikely. But, it’s difficult to consider the Pacific factor for the narrow-thinking breed of voters whose primary political ambition is to vote themselves money from the Treasury.
The theory presented on September 10 and November 19 proved useful enough to predict White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s departure. No one announces in advance that someone is leaving—before the departure, without also announcing a replacement. Nobody cares about a boss whose boss already announced would be leaving. That’s how to cripple any malevolent powers of an administrator that can’t be quickly unplugged, but needs to go—and do so without raising suspicion that the administrator did anything wrong. Even in his dismissal—not a “retirement”—Kelly fits the bill as the author of the “New York Times essay”, right down to getting tossed out in a way that no one would suspect a darned thing.
France is in trouble. The president who snubbed Trump has fallen into disfavor with his own people. This largely comes down to grandiose promises made by socialist agendas that everyone should have known could not deliver because of foresight rooted in hindsight. Socialism never delivers anything but what we see in France now. As for ado about Brexit, there’s no point in worrying so much since the queen can decide anyway, if she wants to. That’s what the British always tell Americans is so wonderful about the UK’s constitutional monarchy. But, acting like this is a problem helps keep the British press afloat.
A Trump campaign payment is now being compared to a situation with 2004 Democratic candidate John Edwards. But, that has three major holes in its boat: 1. The accusation encircles alleged campaign finance violations surrounding the Trump organization’s lawyer, Cohen, whose job it was to give legal advice; Trump is not a lawyer, Edwards was. Can a lawyer be witness against the client he advised, or secretly recorded? 2. The Mueller investigation sought to understand whether there was wrongful involvement with Russia and Trump. The Fourth Amendment limits the scope of search and seizure to a probable cause and any seized items must be specified by the warrant in advance. By starting with an investigation between Trump and Russia, but ending with a campaign finance accusation against a candidate accused by the lawyer who advised him, this has gone well beyond the scope that the Fourth Amendment was intended to limit. If courts allow this, it shows how much our legal justice system has wandered from the Constitution. 3. The electorate will want a good explanation for why Hillary wasn’t treated this way. The best reason so far would be that the courts have been usurped as a cudgel for political rivals. It’s not Trump who needs to be worried about an indictment; it’s the legal justice system itself that is about to go on trial.