I’ve mentioned in the past that ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election to President Trump, she’d become something of a ghost for the Democrat Party. She haunts them even in political death and is someone they wish they could just get rid of for good.
 
And since special counsel John Durham has been releasing bombshell after bombshell surrounding her schemes back in 2016, more and more people, surprisingly including Democrat voters, have come to the opinion that she should be investigated for her actions.
 
A poll taken last month, so before the most recent revelations from Durham that I will get to momentarily, from TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy found that 66% of Democrats surveyed want Durham to focus his investigation on Hillary Clinton, according to The Western Journal. TIPP often asks this same question, and even back in October, 44% of Democrats said they wanted Clinton investigated.
 
And again, this was before the most recent bombshell from Durham, so one can only imagine how much higher it might be now.
 
Back in September, Durham indicted Michael Sussman, a lawyer who represented the Clinton campaign, and was accused of lying to the FBI. And in December, Igor Dachenko, a contributor to the debunked Steele dossier, was charged with five counts of lying to the FBI.
 
On February 11th, Durham expanded on the claims surrounding Sussman’s activity in a filing which “alleged lawyers for the Clinton campaign hired a technology company to infiltrate computer servers and lay a false trail that would implicate the Trump campaign of having contacts with Russia.”
 
The charges also allege that Sussman, while he was doing this, was also working for the Clinton campaign, a claim which was unsurprisingly denied by Sussman.
 
Furthermore, Durham claims that Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
 
In other words, Sussman brought up false evidence to the FBI not only for Hillary Clinton but also for a tech executive who likely has ties to the Clinton campaign and other Democrats, almost certainly including Clown-in-Chief Joe Biden. Naturally, I wish to learn just who this executive is (my money is on Mark Zuckerberg), and hope that Durham will also investigate that person.
 
The filing also claimed that Sussman’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations,” which all but prove his ties to the Clinton campaign as he was trying to defame then-candidate Trump.
 
But we’re not even close to done with the new claims.
 
The filing also claimed that Sussman and the aforementioned tech executive had met with another law partner who served as general counsel to the Clinton campaign, with Fox News reporting that said individual was Marc Elias from the law firm Perkins Coie, although there are other reports which claim that Sussman retained Lathan & Watkins LLP as the legal counsel.
 
Why is this important? Because Liz Cheney’s husband is partner at Lathan & Watkins LLP, thus implicating their involvement, even if minimally, to the Clinton campaign’s crimes.

Why does Fox News say it was Perkins Coie and not Lathan & Watkins? Do you really think RINO Fox News is going to screw over RINO Liz Cheney?

In any case, the filing also said that in July of 2016, Sussman and his colleagues began to “assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data.” “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”
 
“Tech Executive-1,” continued the filing, “tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs’, referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”
 
But this PALES in comparison to the final bombshell claim made by the filing.
 
Finally, the filing claims that Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited domain name system internet traffic regarding “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP),” with the firm Tech Executive-1 having “come to access and maintained dedicated servers” for the Executive Office of the President as “part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP,” said the filing, adding that “Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
 
In other words, Trump was 100% right once again, as his wires really were “tapped.” Not only were Trump Tower and other Trump buildings tapped, so was THE WHITE HOUSE WHILE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT-ELECT.
 
This is MAJOR and indicates a major security breach. This is a private company getting access to data from the highest office in the land, and basically getting the approval of Clinton and most certainly Obama as well to do this.
 
While not for the same purposes, I consider this no less criminally contemptible to what Julius and Ethel Rosenberg did during World War II, and should receive no lesser a punishment.
 
For context, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were spies who gave away American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, helping to facilitate their nuclear capabilities. They were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage for the Soviet Union and received the death sentence.
 
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Michael Sussman, Marc Elias (potentially), Liz Cheney’s husband, Tech Executive-1 and everyone who worked for the Clinton campaign (to the level of knowing about these schemes, obviously not those at the lower levels) ought to face similar charges.
 
Even just spying on Trump Tower and other Trump facilities is grossly criminal, but getting access to White House data is on a league of its own.
 
There are people who are basically being treated like terrorists at Guantanamo Bay simply for having walked into the Capitol on January 6th, after they were basically welcomed inside by Capitol Police. So clearly, these historical buildings hold much significance to these people, and so breaching and “defiling” them ought to bring about serious punishment, no?
 
What the Deep Staters did to Trump is more than a million times worse not only for Trump but the whole of the country than what peaceful protesters did on January 6th.
 
These people deserve the chair, nothing less.
 
And with these revelations being made, it’s not too surprising that even Democrats want to get rid of Hillary. Heck, they didn’t even want her in either 2007/08 or in 2016. She’s the most disliked, or even hated, woman in America and for good reason.
 
Now, even a large majority of Democrat voters want her investigated for her actions in 2016 (which, no doubt, could trigger other investigations, like the Uranium One deal). And no doubt, this ought to also lead to both Barack Obama and Brandon being investigated.
 
They deserve to be investigated, charged, tried, and found guilty of a lot more than just their involvement in spying on Donald Trump. But this, hopefully, would at least be a step in the right direction towards justice.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”

For anyone who doesn’t pay attention to the fake news media, or at least doesn’t think they are in any way truthful, objective journalists, it was immediately clear that the allegation that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election was a load of crap, fabricated by an embittered loser Hillary Clinton and her Leftist associates in and outside the media.
 
However, if you’re like Russell Brand and you watch the fake news media because you think they are at least somewhat truthful in their “reporting”, you’re bound to believe the crap that they spew until, surprise, surprise, you begin to question certain things and discover the lies they have been telling.
 
This is precisely what Brand has apparently been going through recently, as in a recent video which he posted to Rumble (something I will talk about in a moment, as it’s relevant to my overall argument), he expressed his epiphany that Trump was actually correct about Russian collusion being a hoax and that the Clintons and Democrats in general are corrupt and liars.
 
Brand said: “Well, now there’s serious evidence that it was the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton acolytes that were directly involved in the generation of what has proven to be conspiracy – untrue! Think about how much media you watched. Me, a person who I think, broadly speaking, is from the left – a liberal, certainly not a Trump-supporting Republican, with respect to those of you who are – I find myself in awe, gobsmacked, flabbergasted and startled by these revelations.”
 
This might be the first time I’ve heard a Leftist say “with respect to those of you who are” Trump supporters.
 
He continued: “What my concern is becoming is that these are totemic issues pushed to the forefront to mask ordinary, regular corruption like the Russiagate thing, the Hunter Biden laptop, all of that stuff. And it was like, being sort of in a way discussed as if it was just an absolute fact. To discover that this was propaganda, a construct, a confection by the Democratic Party – who, of course, are now in government – is kind of beyond disappointing, because you begin to question and query what other things may not be true. Once you recognize that people create certain truths in order to meet certain ends and aims, the idea you might be able to trust their integrity obviously dissolves.”
 
That is kind of major, all things considered, but perhaps not quite as much as one might originally think. You see, at least ever since the Chinese coronavirus pandemic began, Russell Brand has been surprisingly based and not following the narrative other Leftists follow. It seems his Rumble account (which it’s telling that he has one as well, as that indicates his separation from mainstream outlets, to an extent) is relatively new, with his first video having been published only on September 15th. However, I have seen at least snippets of him on some sort of podcast in which he stands against the COVID tyranny that we have been seeing.
 
Not to mention he is also rather based on other matters as well. For example, that aforementioned first video was titled: “Did Liberals Use Feminism to Justify Afghan Cluster F*ck?”, basically pointing at liberals and feminism and saying that it was they who messed things up in Afghanistan.
 
Other video titles include: “Are You DISGUSTED By This?! Marine’s Viral Video Gets Him Sacked,” obviously referring to Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, who posted a video critical of the military leadership messing up Afghanistan and being basically imprisoned for it; “Facebook Are MANIPULATING Our Stupid Governments & LYING TO US”, which is pretty self-explanatory, and could frankly include all of big tech; “How Everyday People Were SCREWED By Liberal Politics,” which is also pretty self-explanatory and rather telling, seeing as he tends to hold liberal beliefs; “The Mainstream Media Are Trying To Start A CIVIL WAR!!,” “Vaccine Mandates: An ASSAULT On Your Bodily Freedom?”, “SHOCKING Wuhan Evidence. Did Fauci LIE?”, “Is This HYPOCRISY?!,” referring to, among other things, AOC wearing a very expensive dress which had the words “Tax the rich” on it to the highly-exclusive Met Gala, which to answer the question: Yes, it’s very hypocritical; “Thought Biden Couldn’t Sink Any Lower?? THINK AGAIN!!”, and others relating to not trusting Big Pharma, and bashing the establishment.
 
To summarize, Brand, as liberal as he was and in some ways still is, has been rather critical and questioning of the crap that those he considered/s to be on his side have been pushing for, at least as of late.
 
Which is certainly a rather hopeful sight to see, regardless of context. The guy who has been a raging liberal all this time and he would still classify himself as such has begun to see things in a more clear light, as they are, rather than as the Left claims they are. Inundating yourself in fake news means you can’t see reality as well as those who wisely avoid it, which is why it’s taken Brand only until NOW to come to the realization that Trump DIDN’T collude with Russia and that Hillary and Democrats in general are massively corrupt and evil, which has been general knowledge to most of us since this whole nonsense began.
 
Brand even said that he wanted to believe that the Democrat Party is the party of “inclusivity, and diversity and truth and social justice and all great, positive ideas,” but he is seemingly not too sure about that anymore, and with good reason. The only inclusivity the Democrat Party approves of is of Leftists and Leftist thinking. If you’re a conservative, you are less than human and don’t belong even in the job you might hold. The only diversity the Democrat Party approves of is diversity of outward appearance, but only as far as those people are Leftists, as conservative blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, etc. are considered traitors to their race and gender, as though the Left still owns people.
 
The only “truth” the Democrat Party approves of is the relative truth crap that they pass off, while any evidence which contradicts them must be eliminated, as well as those who bring up such evidence. The only social justice the Democrat Party approves of is of disabling police officers from being able to take care of criminals, while people are being illegally held in prison for January 6th, just for being in the Capitol building doing nothing in particular because the FBI agents did their job in setting them up.
 
And anyone who doesn't inject fake news poison into their streams on the regular recognizes that the Democrat Party has no great, positive ideas, certainly none which are of any benefit to anyone other than themselves (this includes Republicans in the establishment, by the way, not just Democrats).
 
In any case, that Russell Brand has been discovering all these things about the side he once supported, or to some extent still supports, is hopeful in that if he, of all people, is figuring this stuff out, so can anyone who does even a bit of research which doesn’t include going back to the fake news well. It certainly means that the Left is nowhere near as popular, particularly with their most recent actions, as they believe themselves to be or even claim to be, even with some of their most recognized celebrities like Brand and, surprisingly, Nikki Minaj, who has done more to fight for freedom in a couple of weeks than the GOP has in decades.
 
Their downfall is a matter of when, not if.
 
Ephesians 6:12
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

We are less than 40 days away from the 2020 presidential election, but even today, we are still finding out new things relating to the corrupt Mueller probe and the attitude of many (though not all) who were a part of said probe.
 
Well, I say “new” things rather liberally here. They are not new things, but more like new details that were previously unknown. We all knew perfectly well that the Mueller team’s primary objective was to just “get Trump” as one FBI agent suggested. The way it was formed was more akin to how investigators in a banana republic work as opposed to a constitutional republic.
 
Time and time again, I have pointed out that the Mueller team was not given a particular crime to investigate, but rather, were given a target to investigate to see what crimes were possibly committed. Actual, legitimate investigators look into crimes to find the suspect(s); they don’t look at the suspect(s) to find the crime.
 
Lo and behold, that concept is further reinforced by an FBI agent who was a part of Crossfire Hurricane, and Crossfire Razor, which specifically investigated Gen. Michael Flynn.
 
During an interview with U.S. attorney Jeffrey Jensen, who is at the head of a DOJ review of the case against Flynn, FBI agent William Barnett noted that “he saw little reason to investigate Michael Flynn and that he believed that members of the special counsel’s team prosecuted the former national security adviser in order to ‘get Trump’,” reported The Daily Caller, who reported on a recently released memo.
 
The memo reads: “BARNETT thought the TRUMP Campaign may have been aware the Russians were attempting to impact the election, but that was far different from the TRUMP Campaign and the Russians having a deal and/or working together ‘quid pro quo,’”
 
The memo also notes that Barnett believed there was little reason to carry an investigation into General Flynn, and once theories of collusion began to float around, Barnett told Jensen that such a theory was “opaque” with no real evidence to suggest illegality.
 
Barnett mentioned that one basis for the investigation into Flynn was a speech that the former General had given in Moscow which was hosted by Russian news outlet RT back in December of 2015, in which Flynn was seated right next to President Vladimir Putin. The FBI agent said that he believed such a trip was “ill-advised” on Flynn’s part, but that there was nothing to suggest that he had committed any criminal acts.
 
The memo specifically pointed out that “BARNETT did not understand the point of the investigation.”
 
Interestingly, on the day of the election, Nov. 8, 2016, specifically at 5:42 p.m., Barnett wrote in a message to colleagues that FBI officials ordered Crossfire Razor to be shut down. However, the FBI heads changed their minds when it became clear that Trump had won, and the investigation remained ongoing.
 
I say this is interesting because it shows just how corrupt and perverse these people are. Had Hillary been an actually decent candidate and won, the FBI would have dropped their investigation into Flynn. They had nothing and at no point did they have anything that showed criminality and a reason to continue to investigate the guy. The ONLY reason they didn’t drop the matter is because Trump won and would subsequently name Flynn to a cabinet position.
 
Again, they had nothing and at no point did they get anything. They thought they might have gotten something following the revelation of Flynn’s call with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, but that had nothing either and yet, they still kept on going.
 
Of course, eventually, they pressured Flynn enough (aka threatening to send his son to jail) to get him to plead guilty to lying during an interview with the FBI at the White House (an interview that Flynn did not think he could get into trouble for the things he said and for which he did not have a lawyer present. Not to mention the FBI agents interviewing him never suggested it was an official interrogation and Comey even admitted he did not think Flynn lied in that interview, only that he misremembered some things, but I digress) and now, Flynn is fighting against the Deep State which has ruined his life and is still in pursuit of him.
 
By the way, the only reason we even know about this memo, and the only reason it exists, is because the Flynn case is still being pursued not by the DOJ but by a corrupt judge seeking to destroy Flynn for political reasons. That memo was written because of the attorneys looking into the Flynn case, which is still ongoing. With the matter dropped, this would not have come out and we would not have gotten such a clear picture of how utterly disgusting and corrupt the Obama DOJ was (not that we needed this to know that, but the details help paint the picture better).
 
And God bless Agent Barnett, one of the actually decent people in the FBI (who is relatively high up, as I suspect most people in the FBI are patriotic Americans, save for the ones at the very top). The memo noted that he wanted out of Crossfire Razor, noting that it was “problematic” and even pointed out an agenda-driven investigator in the Mueller Special Counsel who goes by the name of Jeannie Rhee, who seemed to be convinced Trump colluded with Russia (and really wanted to get him and everyone in the Trump administration).
 
Barnett told Jensen that he believed Rhee “was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.” Not even a little bit surprising, but it is interesting to see that not everyone in the Mueller investigation was on the same boat about trying to destroy Trump. It was easy to assume every last one of them was on that counsel because they were in agreement that they would look into whatever they could to charge Trump with something and get him kicked out of office, but it seems that at least one of them was reasonable enough to recognize that there wasn’t much out there to suggest that Trump colluded with Russia.
 
The Obama administration is easily the most corrupt administration this country has seen, at least as far as I can tell. It worked to undermine, at every step, the incoming Trump administration and sought to make irrelevant the results of the 2016 election. To them, we, the People, should never have been able to elect Donald Trump as President of the United States. We were supposed to pick Hillary and continue on with their evil dominion over us. We never were supposed to have an actual say as to who inhabits the White House.
 
Unlikely as it is, I do hope and pray that before Trump leaves office for good (in 2025), that all of these evil bastards are sentenced for their criminal acts. What they committed was treason against the United States. They ought to serve the due punishment for such a crime.
 
But for now, let’s focus on winning 2020 and ensuring that another remnant of that corrupt Obama administration does not get the chance to set foot in the White House as POTUS.
 
James 3:16
“For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

Hours after President Donald J. Trump assumed office, the Washington Post ran a story titled “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” signifying the insane Left’s desire to get rid of Trump as soon as possible for any given reason.
 
And earlier this week, after two and a half years of Trump-Russia collusion hoax, sex with a porn star garbage, false allegations of campaign finance violations, accusations of obstruction of justice by the mere thought of removing Mueller, accusations of obstruction of justice by firing Comey and accusations of bribery and quid pro quo with Ukraine in what is considered (by the Left) an effort to “dig up dirt” on Biden, the Democrats have announced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
 
What are the articles of impeachment? “Abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”… Really? After everything; after all the fake news stories accusing Trump of X or Y or Z; after all the “concerning” accusations of collusion with a foreign government to steal an election; after all the “concern” surrounding the possibility of Trump firing Mueller (which he was legally able to do); after all the “concern” surrounding Trump’s desire to “dig up dirt” on Biden, “offering” a quid pro quo and maybe even “bribing” Ukraine in order to supposedly steal another election, this is all they have?
 
I suppose I can understand why they wouldn’t go with bribery, considering it would lead to Biden being implicated and maybe even be called by the Republican Senate to testify as part of the removal process and getting rid of that charge would save Biden’s behind, at least for now, but still, what two flimsy and terrible articles of impeachment.
 
For two and a half years, we were told that “Mueller had the goods” and that Trump would face “justice” for “stealing the election away from Hillary”. We were told that Trump colluded with Russia for two and a half years. We were told that Trump was a scumbag for doing a porn star. We were told that he committed campaign finance crimes by paying off said porn star. We were told that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. We were told that Trump bribed Ukraine.
 
Three years of nothing but accusations left and right about some crime that Trump committed or something major that should “concern every citizen of the United States of America” and all the Democrats have are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”?
 
First of all, even Leftist professor Johnathan Turley argued that the charge of “abuse of power” could apply to every president. “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do,” Turley said during one of the impeachment hearings.
 
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) even gave a few examples of conduct by former presidents and asked if they were impeachable under the charge of “abuse of power”:
 
Buck: “So let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me. Lyndon Johnson directed the Central Intelligence Agency to place a spy in Barry Goldwater’s campaign. That spy got advance copies of speeches and other strategy. Delivered that to the Johnson campaign. Would that be… impeachable conduct, according to the other panelists?”
 
Turley: “Well, it sweeps pretty broadly, so I assume so.”
 
I would also assume so, considering Nixon was threatened with impeachment for doing something rather similar.
 
Buck then continued with a few other examples: “Okay. Well, I’m going to go with a few other presidents, we’ll see where we go. Congressman [Ted] Deutsch [D-FL] informed us that FDR put country first. Now, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he was president, directed the IRS to conduct audits of his political enemies – namely Huey Long, William Randolph Hearst, Hamilton Fish, Father Coughlin. Would that be an abuse of power for political benefit according to the other panelists? Would that be impeachable conduct?”
 
Turley said that yes, it would be.
 
“How about when President Kennedy directed his brother, [Attorney General] Robert Kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an East German spy? Would that qualify as impeachable conduct?,” asked Buck.
 
Turley also agreed that it would be.
 
Turley also agreed that it would fall under the terms of an impeachable offense when Buck pointed out that Kennedy ordered the FBI to wiretap Congressional staffers who opposed him politically (what’s with Democrats always spying on their opposition?).
 
Buck then pointed out that Obama appointed people to the National Labor Relations Board outside of Congress and was challenged by the Supreme Court and lost in a 9-0 vote, and asked if that was abuse of power. Turley also agreed that that would fall under the broad definition of the term.
 
Buck also pointed out how Obama ordered his national security adviser and Secretary of State to lie to the American people about whether the U.S. Ambassador to Libya was murdered because of a YouTube video (that never existed) or because of terrorism. Turley also eventually said that it would be.
 
Buck went on to name a few other presidents, including Lincoln and Washington, and named things that, under the broad definition of “abuse of power”, would’ve gotten them impeached.
 
Turley ultimately said the following: “It’s not that abuse of power can never be an impeachable offense. You just have to prove it. And you [the Democrats] haven’t.”
 
Generally, the charge of “abuse of power” would have to be among a long list of other impeachable offenses because it’s so hard to prove and define. For any impeachment process, if that charge is the main one, or even one of TWO charges, there is not much hope for impeachment.
 
President Andrew Johnson was impeached on the grounds of “abuse of power” in 1868, was acquitted by the Senate by one vote (there were only 54 Senators at the time and the vote was 35-19, with 36 having been needed to remove Johnson). The impeachment of Andrew Johnson, though it did come awfully close to actually removing the guy, is widely considered a cautionary tale and an example of what Congress should not do.
 
The Democrats even cite that precedent as a positive and hold that “illegitimate motives”, even if no actual crime has been committed, are cause for impeachment:
 
“Rather than directly target President Johnson’s faithless execution of the laws, and his illegitimate motives in wielding power, the House resorted to charges based on the Tenure of Office Act. But in reality, ‘the shaky claims prosecuted by [the House] obscured a far more compelling basis for removal: that Johnson’s virulent use of executive power to sabotage Reconstruction posed a mortal threat to the nation – and to civil and political rights – as reconstituted after the Civil War… [T]he country was in the throes of a second founding. Yet Johnson abused the powers of his office and violated the Constitution to preserve institutions and practices that had nearly killed the Union. He could not be allowed to salt the earth as the Republic made itself anew.’ Viewed from that perspective, the case for impeaching President Johnson rested on his use of power with illegitimate motives.’”
 
Rather interesting that the Democrats would cite a failed attempt at removing a president in their own attempt at removing the current president. They argue that the House was right in impeaching Johnson on the grounds of “illegitimate motives” and “abuse of power”. And yet, while the House did impeach him (should be noted that the House was controlled by the Republicans, though Johnson was a Democrat who was Lincoln’s VP until his assassination), the Senate did not remove him (though it was close).
 
The attempt to remove Johnson failed, and yet, the Democrats are going to try and do the same thing, only with perhaps even flimsier reasoning and even less likelihood of success.
 
At least the Republicans had proved that Johnson abused his power as executive. The Democrats have not proven a damn thing in relation to Trump’s “abuse of power”. It’s far too broad of a definition for it to be a viable ground for impeachment, at least on its virtual lonesome. The charge of “obstruction of Congress”, I mean, I don’t even know where to begin with that one. What “obstruction of Congress”? Are the Democrats impeaching Trump for the tweets he sent out during the hearings? Or is it because he refused (with legal means) to participate in this impeachment hoax? Actually, it’s worse than that. The Democrats are accusing Trump of “withholding evidence” of his abuse of power… so, if Trump withheld evidence of his abuse of power, what evidence do the Democrats have that he abused his power?
 
Oh, yeah, all their evidence is hearsay from third or fourth-hand sources.
 
But all things considered, holding impeachment hearings on dubious grounds and for political reasons (which Schiff even admits to, saying that this is about the next election), thus keeping either the House or the Senate from being able to legislate is obstruction of Congress, wouldn’t you think?
 
And what about Schiff’s abuse of power in acquiring and releasing phone records from multiple people, including members of the media, who are public citizens? When will his impeachment come? Or how about Biden’s abuse of power in threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor investigating his son’s company? He doesn’t hold political power anymore (and hopefully never will again), but why isn’t he held accountable?
 
Suffice to say that the grounds of impeachment from the Democrats is actually far weaker than I was expecting. I knew they had nothing to impeach Trump for, but they’re charging him with far fewer things than I expected. Granted, what I expected was charging Trump on the grounds of “being mean” or “being racist” or something else that is equally stupid, but still, only two charges from the people that accuse Trump of being literally Hitler? That’s kind of surprising to me.
 
Regardless, the outcome will not be a surprise to any of you. Democrats will vote to impeach, nowhere near 67 Senators will vote to remove Trump (even if the usual suspects, i.e. Romney, Collins and Murkowsky vote to remove) and Trump will go on to win in a landslide in 2020, keep or grow numbers in the Senate, retake the House and continue to watch as poll after poll attempts to sound the alarm that Trump, not the Democrats, is the one winning on this issue.
 
Romans 8:28
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

Imagine you are in a courtroom, hearing a defense attorney in a murder trial arguing to the judge that his client did not actually commit the murder despite all the evidence clearly pointing to him as being guilty. Imagine the defense attorney then attempts to argue the definition of “murder” and says: “Your Honor, my client did not murder the victim; he simply un-alived her without her consent.”
 
You would think that’s a pretty stupid argument, correct? And yet, that’s the sort of argument the New York Times tried to make recently about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.
 
The NYT ran a piece where they attempted to downplay what will be in the Inspector General’s report regarding Obama-era FISA abuses and FBI spying into the Trump campaign before the 2016 presidential election.
 
Of course, the NYT doesn’t have the IG report yet because it will be released on December 9th. So what is their source of information? “People familiar with a draft” of the report aka anonymous sources that may or may not exist.
 
Here is a chunk of what the NYT wrote:
 
“The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.”
 
“… The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.”
 
“The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page – eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.”
 
It’s interesting that they would say that conservatives were claiming the FBI was spying on Trump, because that is also what the New York Times essentially admits later on IN THIS VERY PIECE.
 
Later in the piece, we read:
 
“The F.B.I was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.”
 
“Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopalous while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an ‘all time biggest political scandal’ when it emerged last year.”
 
“The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopalous in August 2016…”
 
So what exactly do we have here? An outright contradiction within the NYT piece. Read the very first part I shared with you again. The NYT said earlier that the report would find that there was “no evidence” that the FBI tried to “place undercover agents or informants inside” the Trump campaign. And later on, they say that they DID place undercover agents and informants, at least to engage in conversation with members of the Trump campaign under false pretenses to discuss Trump campaign affairs and report any information discovered back to the FBI.
 
That’s called “SPYING”. What’s worse is that this isn’t even the first time the NYT tried something exactly like this. Back in May of 2018, they had the following piece: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
 
Let me go back to my original hypothetical scenario of the courtroom scene. The defense attorney (NYT) has just claimed that his client (the FBI) did not murder the victim (spy on Trump) but simply caused her life to end by his hands without her consent (used an informant to extract information from Trump campaign staffers and report back to the FBI). Do you think the defense attorney is using an even semi-decent argument? OF COURSE NOT! He’s trying to make a distinction without a difference. He’s basically saying the same thing but trying to make it mean something else entirely.
 
“I didn’t rob the bank, your Honor, I just forcefully made a manual withdrawal of all the money in the safe while threatening to kill people with my gun.” It’s an insanely idiotic argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the New York Times. How many stories have I written myself that discuss the outright idiocy of this “news” organization? How many stories have they written that I did not write about myself that are equally as stupid?
 
I don’t know what the IG report will ultimately say, but if it doesn’t fully acknowledge the FBI’s egregious attempts at spying on the Trump campaign, and in particular, James Comey’s actions of using the defunct Steele dossier as a means to try and get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then Horowitz messed up badly. Even by the NYT’s own admission, there were informants looking into the Trump campaign under false pretenses and trying to report back whatever they found. What the FBI did is out in the open and is, as Trump says, the all-time biggest political scandal in American history.
 
If this wasn’t about politics and only about possible ties to a foreign government, why didn’t the FBI look into Hillary’s ties to Russia and Ukraine? If this behavior is perfectly “normal” for law enforcement practice, why didn’t they plant a spy, oh, sorry, I mean an informant, into the Hillary campaign? With all the allegations regarding her and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign assistance, why didn’t the FBI think to look at her too, if this wasn’t about politics?
 
It’s not like there was any actual proof of Russian ties to the Trump campaign or the staffers themselves; just allegations. So if that was all it took, why did Hillary get a pass despite all the allegations surrounding her?
 
Rhetorical questions, all, as we definitely know the answer. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok acknowledged given their texts about the then-POTUS knowing about it and given the “insurance policy” Strzok mentioned.
 
No amount of mental gymnastics and word redefining will erase the fact that the FBI, under orders from Obama, spied on the Trump campaign.
 
Galatians 6:7-8
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”

Multiple times throughout the past couple of years, particularly since Donald Trump became President of the United States, the American Left has insisted that Trump in some way worked with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Specifically, they say, time and time again, that the guy is a “threat to Democracy”. But therein lies an erroneous presupposition: that we are a Democracy at all. However, a Democracy we most definitely are not, given the institutions we have in place and given what the Founders thought about Democracies.
 
First, it is crucial to identify exactly what a Democracy and a Republic are, because both seem to be used interchangeably, which is a detrimental mistake.
 
A Democracy is a system of government in which the entire population or the eligible members of a state, usually elected representatives, rule. In other words, it’s a system where the majority, or the mob, rules. Where the laws are entirely decided by the majority, through a vote, regardless of what may have been there previously.
 
A Republic, however, is a system of government where, yes, people have a vote and they elect representatives, but where the majority does not inherently rule in a nation. The Electoral College is an indication of our status as a Republic.
 
One of the Left’s most recent complaints (of which there are plenty because these are perpetually angry people) has been that the Electoral College is a “scam” and that that’s the only reason Trump won. And while Hillary did win the popular vote, there is a good reason the Electoral College is what is used to decide elections: so that big states with bigger populations don’t choose the president of the entire country.
 
Let’s look at a couple of things. First, the popular vote. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes as opposed to Donald Trump’s 62,984,828 (granted, many of those Clinton votes were most likely from illegal aliens, so the real number probably isn’t that, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s say they are all legitimate). Rather close, but Clinton is the clear winner here. However, let’s move on to the counties: Donald Trump won 2,622 counties as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s 490. Donald Trump also won 30 states, as opposed to Clinton’s 20. Looking at an electoral map, be it by county or by state, you mostly see red.
 
So while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, far more states and especially counties voted for Donald Trump. The reason for Clinton winning the popular vote is largely attributed to California and New York, states with some of the biggest populations. California alone has nearly 40 million people living in it (obviously, not all are citizens, but still).
 
The Electoral College allows for states with lower populations to have a say as to who they want to be their President. With it gone, despite how many more counties and states Trump won, Clinton would’ve become President, even though the vast majority of the country (again, by counties and states) wanted Trump.
 
In a Democracy, Hillary would’ve won with the simple majority because that’s all a Democracy does: rule by majority. But since we are a Republic, we have systems in place to keep that from happening.
 
Now, you might be asking why it is we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Well, apart from the reasons I just gave, the Founding Fathers absolutely LOATHED Democracies.
 
Thomas Jefferson is attributed for saying: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
 
John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 
Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
 
And Alexander Hamilton said: “We are a Republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
 
Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of a democracy: mob rules. If the majority wanted, they could have voted to remain a part of the U.K. following the Revolutionary War (unlikely, but there were those who were anti-federalists and loyalists to the crown in the colonies who were against the rebellion).
 
Likewise, a Democracy can vote on just about anything else with impunity. If the majority wanted to arrest people wearing MAGA hats, they would be able to in a Democracy, but not in a Republic where we have basic Constitutional rights pertaining to things like freedom of speech, etc.
 
So every time I hear an idiotic Democrat insisting that Trump is a “threat to Democracy” or that we are a Democracy at any capacity (might I also mention that our Pledge of Allegiance says “to the Republic for which it stands” not “to the Democracy for which it stands”?), I can’t help but think how ignorant one can be.
 
We are not a Democracy by any means. We use facets of Democracy, such as voting, in our Republic, but we are not ruled by the majority. The Constitution is the backbone of our legal system and the Bible is the foundation upon which Western society is built. A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution because we are not a Democracy. In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all. A simple majority does not rule here.
 
This is because we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And thank God for that.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Earlier this week, a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit brought forth by the DNC against the Trump campaign “for its alleged role in the hacking and dissemination of internal Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential race,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
This is MASSIVE news, and terrible for Democrats, that really should be brought to people’s attention (though I think most of it will go to responses to the 2nd round of the Democrat debates, which surprisingly featured a candidate pretending he was a moderate).
 
Anyway, Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York relayed his opinion on the case after dismissing it, completely destroying the very argument the Democratic National Convention was trying to make in many different ways.
 
The DNC’s lawsuit, according to The Daily Wire, was “filed against Donald Trump, his campaign officials and ‘defendants’ – including Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopalous, Richard Gates and Roger Stone – WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and various Russian individuals.”
 
The DNC alleged in the suit that the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia and WikiLeaks to release official Democrat Party emails in order to benefit Trump’s campaign.
 
However, as Judge Koeltl points out, there are several problems with this suit.
 
First, you can’t sue a foreign government in a U.S. court. Koeltl writes: “The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal activity is undoubtedly the Russian Federation. [However] under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…, the Russian Federation cannot be sued” in American courts. They can be sued in the individual country’s court system - provided the countries actually allow for people to sue the government, which, considering this is freaking Russia we’re talking about, I doubt people can (and trust me I tried looking but nothing turned up)-, but they cannot be sued within the U.S. court system. So Russia has to be taken out of the suit for it to even remotely work. Well, that would be the case if it weren’t for one other thing.
 
Second, WikiLeaks, the ones who actually released the information, have a First Amendment right to do so, as any other media organization would have the First Amendment right to expose something for people’s viewing and learning benefit. “The DNC seeks to hold the second-level participants in this alleged activity (that is, the Trump campaign, defendants and WikiLeaks) liable for dissemination of stolen materials. But… the First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest…”
 
So WikiLeaks, in obtaining and releasing the emails, is protected by the First Amendment as any news network would be in publishing, say, emails from the Trump campaign and trying to push the Russian-collusion narrative and getting the dates wrong, or as they would be in publishing the details of a Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya, where they discussed Russian prisoners and other things, not dirt on Hillary Clinton.
 
What’s more, even if it had been the Trump campaign who had obtained and released those emails, they would’ve been within their right to do so in a similar manner. Koeltl wrote that Trump could’ve done that because the documents released “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election… [and are] entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”
 
“Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants… they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern. The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability,” Koeltl wrote in sum.
 
I think this is a good call, particularly considering just what is behind the suit in the first place: the Left being ticked off that Trump won the 2016 election and that he joked about Russia having the Democrats’ emails. That particular Trump rally joke is what has led many people to think that Trump had been colluding with Russia, when all it was was a JOKE at the Democrat Party’s expense because one of their high-ranking officials fell for a phishing scam (and it didn’t help that they didn’t want the FBI to look into the case, giving it to a third-party investigator).
 
The ONLY reason this suit was made in the first place is to further drive the narrative that Trump had colluded, in one way or another, to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Whether that way was through influencing votes (though Rod Rosenstein himself said that no votes had been altered, not that anyone on the Left will acknowledge that) or by getting dirt on Hillary Clinton (which is what politicians often do anyway, but when Trump does it, it’s apparently criminal) through Veselnitskaya or through WikiLeaks, the Left was adamant about proving that there was some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
But along the way, we only found more and more evidence of HILLARY CLINTON colluding with Russia, whether it be through the funding of the phony Steele dossier or through the Uranium One deal (which was apart from the campaign, but still extremely shady and not something people often talk about). And all that, without even TRYING to find Hillary colluding with Russia.
 
This suit, filed early last year, has thankfully been dropped by a judge (though it’s rather surprising it was by a Clinton judge). Of course, both the DNC and Trump have responded to this, with the DNC saying that this decision “raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.”
 
Yeah, yeah, cry me a river, why don’t you. You know perfectly well that the election was not interfered with and that Trump won the election perfectly legitimately.
 
In any case, President Trump hilariously responded by saying: “Wow! A federal Judge in the Southern District of N.Y. completely dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against our historic 2016 campaign for President. The Judge said the DNC case was ‘entirely divorced’ from the facts, yet another total & complete vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big ‘stuff’ especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!”
 
This most certainly is “big ‘stuff’”, considering both the ultimate decision of the case and who it was that made the decision. The Democrats likely went to the SDNY because they felt confident they would be able to get this to go through and successfully sue Trump, though it likely would’ve been decimated in actual court, given not only the inability to sue a foreign government and First Amendment rights, but also due to how little evidence they would’ve been able to bring forth to implicate any liability on Trump, who is their main target. They might’ve been able to at least get WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but the Trump campaign has not been proven at all to have taken any part in this, but again, the First Amendment would be in the way. The fact that it was dismissed is certainly a good thing, and good news in my eyes, but who it was that dismissed it is also rather important (not to mention surprising).
 
As a Clinton-appointed judge, you would’ve expected him to have let the Democrats get away with whatever they wanted. I certainly think that that’s what the Democrats were expecting as well. But it appears that this judge is at least rather aware of how the laws work, including our First Amendment rights, and is not so corrupt as to ignore them. There is nothing criminal that can be proven that the Russians did (and even if they had, they still can't be sued), there is nothing criminal regarding what WikiLeaks did with the information (and the Trump campaign only benefited from it, not took part in it, so there is even less culpability to be placed on them).
 
Of course, this hardly means much to the Left. They will look for other ways to attack Trump and will have to regroup and re-strategize for now (which I think is part of the reason they are so adamant about calling Trump a racist now, of all times, despite how often they’ve used that card in the past anyway).
 
But regardless of what they might throw at Trump and us in the future, I’m confident it will not work.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. ‘This is the heritage of the Lord’s servants, and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

While the rest of the country has largely gotten over the Russian collusion narrative that ended up being exactly what I thought it would be: a nothing-burger, House Democrats and Leftists tried to hang on to the ever-diminishing edge of a massive cliff that was the Special Counsel investigation into Donald Trump. After yesterday, the entire narrative fell off that cliff.
 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning and the House Intelligence Committee a few hours after the first hearing, which ran a little long. And I think it’s safe to say it was exactly the opposite of that the Left was hoping it would be and it’s not exactly what even I thought it would be.
 
For the Left, they thought Mueller was about to pull off a Deus Ex Machina and “save the day” at the last moment, bringing forth evidence of collusion and/or obstruction that he (somehow) did not include in his own report (and we’ll talk a little bit about the report itself in a moment).
 
They fully expected yesterday to have been a huge day for the Dems, and that they would finally be able to get rid of Donald Trump by hearing Mueller speak himself. And to the surprise of, I think, plenty of people, including myself, not only did Mueller not deliver the goods for the Democrats, he outright looked lost, confused and like he had no idea what was happening in the last 2 and a half years.
 
In the run up to the hearings, I expected Mueller to simply stick to what the report said and that he wouldn’t be contradicting what his report said all that much, certainly not enough to claim and definitively prove that Trump had done something, ANYTHING, criminal at any point in the 2016 election and beyond. But what I saw and heard here made me think the guy was just a figurehead for the Special Counsel and was not, in actuality, very involved with, much less in charge of, the Special Counsel and its investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian collusion.
 
Apart from repeatedly refusing to answer even the simplest of questions like the origins of the Steele dossier, he contradicted what he understood to be the definition of collusion being synonymous with conspiracy. The Mueller report read: “[A]s defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy,” and yet, Mueller went on record in front of the House Judiciary Committee that the two words were not synonymous.
 
Of course, I understand the reason he contradicted himself here is to keep the farce alive. Mueller can’t dispute that the Special Counsel didn’t find any actual collusion between Trump and Russia, and while that’s what he wrote in his report (which he may not have actually written, to be honest, but let’s say that he did for the sake of the argument), he doesn’t want the narrative of Russian collusion to end just like that. So, he insists that collusion and conspiracy aren’t synonymous to say to the Democrats: “I may not have found collusion, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t conspire to do something. Go get him on that.” That’s the whole point of that sort of contradiction. Of course, at the end of the day, it will not work either, but hey, they tried.
 
In any case, that’s not even the worst part for the Democrats. Mueller appearing like a senile old man who barely knows much about his own investigation might destroy his reputation moving forward (with those who still respected him up to this point), but he completely wrecked one Democrat talking point they had been using since the Mueller report was released: that the only reason Trump was not charged with anything was because he is a sitting President.
 
Of course, anyone who is not dishonest could tell that that was not the case. Mueller didn’t charge Trump with anything not simply because he is POTUS but because Mueller couldn’t determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had committed any crime. In the hearing, he corrected an exchange he had had with Ted Lieu earlier in the day about the reason for not charging Trump, saying: “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
 
That goes against what the media and the Left were saying. They were howling that the only reason Mueller didn’t charge Trump was because you can’t indict a sitting President. But Mueller has gone on record both in yesterday’s hearing and, as it should be painfully clear, in the Mueller report, that there was not enough evidence to determine that Trump had obstructed justice.
 
Multiple times, Mueller was asked if his investigation was impeded in any way, and every time, he said that it wasn’t. In the Mueller report, he alluded to there being suspicion of obstruction with a bunch of bologna arguments. As I said in my original article on the Mueller report, what the report cites as “evidence” of possible obstruction of justice (that did not amount to anything at the end of the day) were Trump complaining about the Mueller investigation being a “witch hunt” (which it was, considering the lengths they were going to frame Trump for a crime he didn’t do), Trump reacting to the WikiLeaks leaks regarding the Clinton campaign, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Trump campaign reacted to reports of Russian support for Trump, reports from the media about collusion with Russia, Trump firing FBI Director James Comey and Trump reportedly ordering the removal of Mueller as head of the Special Counsel, which didn’t happen in the end, anyway.
 
And as I said in that article, NONE OF THAT CONSTITUTES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Just from reading the Mueller report, one can make that logical assertion unless he or she is heavily biased against Trump and doing anything short of Trump breathing would constitute criminal activity in their eyes.
 
But the fact that Mueller went on record to clarify the exchange he had with Lieu about the reason behind not charging Trump being that they could not determine whether or not the President had committed a crime (which, again, is in the report) is utterly DEVASTATING for the Left.
 
Ever since the Mueller report was released, after the initial shock (for the Left) that Trump DIDN’T collude with Russia and it could not be determined whether or not he obstructed justice, the main points of attack against Trump (apart from calling him “racist” and a “Nazi” on a daily basis) were that the ONLY reason he wasn’t brought up on charges was because he was POTUS and that Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything (which is irrelevant because prosecutors work to determine guilt, not innocence). This had left the Democrats with a path to charging Trump with *something* once he was out of office, whether that be in January of 2021 or January of 2025. This narrative gave them hope that they could’ve seen Trump behind bars once he was done being President of the United States (it would’ve likely failed, and the Mueller report would’ve been cited, but the attempt would’ve been made). But that is gone now. Mueller killed the Left’s last golden goose relating to the Russian collusion narrative.
 
Does this mean they won’t still go after him once he’s done being President? Doubtful. These people have hatred in their hearts, as I’ve asserted time and time again (and as they have proven time and time again), and with that comes vindictiveness. They have seen, for the past two and a half years, every single narrative and attack against Trump fail right before their eyes. They thought Comey was going to get him, then Mueller, then a porn star, then a porn star’s lawyer, then Trump’s own snake former lawyer, then a soccer player, and most recently, they circled back to Mueller.
 
ALL OF IT FAILED. In their minds, if they can’t get Trump kicked out of office, they will get him once he is out of office. If they can’t impeach him or even defeat him at the polls, they can at least try and charge him with every crime under the Sun until something sticks that lands him in jail for the rest of his life. This is how vindictive and evil they are.
 
Whether or not it will work, I don’t know. I know Trump hasn’t done anything that would warrant jail time, but the Ted Stevens and Enron cases ought to make people cautious about the Department of Injustice’s power. However, there is a VERY good case for Trump if he is ever actually brought up on any charges (which it’s likely he will, knowing the blood-thirsty Left).
 
In any case, all Wednesday was was a massive disappointment for the Left (which I’m always happy to see) and not exactly what I was expecting. Again, I thought Mueller would stick to things relating to the report, but it appeared as though he was barely in-the-know about what was in it, apart from the biggest talking points to come out of the report. It’s almost as though he was just a figurehead in the investigation and Andrew Weissman was really running the show, alongside other angry Democrats who all supported Hillary Clinton. I’m not even convinced, at this point, that Mueller had much to do with the actual writing of the Mueller report.
 
And while this might make some NeverTrump Republicans puff their chests and say: “see, Mueller isn’t the evil hack Trump made him out to be,” that doesn’t mean he still isn’t a dishonorable prosecutor. Any honorable prosecutor would’ve taken a look at what the Special Counsel was doing and either put a stop to it or bolted. You don’t have to be too involved in something evil like that for alarms to blare inside your head telling you that you should bolt. And it’s not like Mueller was Grandpa Simpson for these past few years. I refuse to believe he didn’t know of a little bit of what was happening in the Special Counsel. I’m certain he knew but still decided to stick around because he’s not exactly a fan of Trump and if anything turns up, he could claim credit for taking down Trump.
 
The fact that the Left was literally idolizing him didn’t help convince him that he shouldn’t stick around. He wanted the fame and the glory of taking down Trump, loved the attention and praise he was receiving both from Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans, and didn’t think it could’ve ended in this much of a whimper.
 
The Special Counsel investigation was still a witch hunt, with or without Mueller running it. And after two and a half years of constant yammering from the fake news media that Trump colluded with Russia, obstructed justice, and most recently, that he is not sitting in jail only because he’s the sitting President, this matter should, theoretically, be put to rest.
 
At the end of the day, there was no collusion, not enough to even get close to determining obstruction, and Trump being sitting POTUS isn’t the only reason he was not charged. Most of America has already moved on from this. The fact that Democrats can’t will hurt them come 2020.
 
John 8:32
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

After weeks of the Left crying up a storm about Barr being on Trump’s side and saying that Mueller did not find any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion and not enough evidence to definitively say that Trump obstructed justice (he didn’t), Attorney General William Barr has released the 448-page Special Counsel report on the investigation.
 
Now, I’m certain you can read the title and see my own opinion of the Mueller report. The reason I say it is sketchy is because it is largely written for the Left to try and continue to claim that there was collusion and that the President obstructed justice, even though it is explicitly stated that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and even though it is explicitly stated that Mueller did not find enough that could constitute as criminal behavior regarding obstruction.
 
Let’s begin with what I consider the most important thing of Volume 1 (the report is separated into two volumes: one for Russian collusion and the other one for obstruction).
 
In page 2 of Volume 1, the Special Counsel ultimately determined that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
 
The Counsel did find that Russia did, in fact, try to interfere with the election, but the most significant and notorious effort of doing so came in the form of the hacking of the DNC servers, which the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI for investigation, instead opting to turn it over to a third-party organization.
 
The Counsel also had to clarify that the term “collusion” and even “coordination” do not have any actual definition in federal law. To collude with someone or coordinate with someone is far too broad of a term and can mean anything, not necessarily something criminal or nefarious. The term “conspire”, on the other hand, does have a definition and often carries with it the negative connotation that some nefarious scheme was concocted or executed. So the Counsel largely sought evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but ultimately did not find that such a thing occurred.
 
And while that easily can be summarized in less than a page, the Special Counsel still tried to at least make it look like there was some suspicious activity going on, especially when the report gets to the part about George Papadopalous, where it ignores the fact that Papadopalous had spoken with a member of the FBI whom suggested to Papadopalous that the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails, while Papadopalous then went on to try and boast about him having such exclusive information to other people.
 
The Counsel makes it look as though Papadopalous gained that information through means apart from the member of the FBI, suggesting that there was some form of collusion between at least a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
 
But despite how bad or negative Mueller may have wanted the report to look for Trump, with all the suggestions it brings up, and despite his efforts to try and keep the narrative alive for the Democrats and the media to use, he still can’t escape the unavoidable fact that Trump did not collude, coordinate or conspire with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton.
 
And the point of a prosecution and investigation is to find conclusive evidence that someone is guilty of a crime. Now, usually, a crime is investigated as opposed to a specific person with the purpose of finding a crime committed by said person, but the Left thinks we live in a banana republic.
 
In any case, the Mueller report, regardless of what is insinuated within it, ultimately finds no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians.
 
But then we get to Volume 2, the part about obstruction of justice, and that is where Mueller really wants people to suspect that there was obstruction even though he did not find anything.
 
In page 2 of Volume 2, the Mueller report has the following paragraph:
 
“… if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime it also does not exonerate him.”
 
Special Counsel, your job is not to determine someone’s innocence. Your job is not to exonerate the President of any accusations. Your job is to find evidence that would, without a shadow of a doubt, irretrievably conclude that the President of the United States succeeded or even attempted to obstruct justice.
 
You did not find such evidence, which is why you were forced to say “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.” That overall statement is tantamount to saying: “well, I didn’t find that the subject did something criminal, but I also didn’t find that he didn’t do something criminal.” Do you see the logical fallacy here? The contradiction in that statement? If he didn’t find that Trump committed something illegal, then he can’t say that he didn’t find that he didn’t do something. Not finding that he didn’t do something is equivalent to not finding that he did something. If Mueller found that Trump did something, he would so state without “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. There are only two logical options here: either Mueller found something that Trump did that was criminal or he didn’t. He can’t say both are the case at the same time and in the same relationship.

Not to mention you also can't prove a negative. No one can prove that someone DIDN'T do something. There's no way to do that, that's why the system works as "prove guilt".
 
But do you see the intention from Mueller here? He knows very well that the job of any prosecutor is to PROSECUTE not exonerate. Yes, they have to present exculpatory evidence that they might find under the Brady rule, but the objective of a prosecutor is to prove guilt, not innocence. Matter of fact, that’s how our entire judicial system works: you do not have to prove innocence – you have to prove guilt. It’s “innocent until proven guilty” for a reason.
 
And while the court of public opinion (from the Left) might find Trump guilty of obstruction, collusion, and overall being a big, huge meanie to them, in the real judicial system, one must find that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Despite the fact that everyone and their grandmothers (myself included) think that O.J. killed his ex-wife and her friend, he was found not guilty by the court due to insufficient evidence. Say whatever you will about the entire case and the trial, but that is how the judicial system found him: not guilty of the crime.
 
And it is the prosecution’s job to get that guilty verdict. Bob Mueller was the prosecutor in all of this, his job was to find that Trump colluded with Russia and/or obstructed justice in the investigation and found neither.
 
The Google definition of “exonerate” is to “absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.” And if Mueller did not find guilt, even explicitly stating so, the only other option left is to find Trump to have been exonerated under this definition.
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that Mueller has to come out and say “Trump did nothing wrong! Everyone stop trashing him!” but that is basically what he ultimately found: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG or at least anything criminal.
 
As far as obstruction of justice goes, the things that Mueller looked into are things like how Trump reacted to the WikiLeaks thing, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Campaign reacted to reports about Russian support for Trump, reports from the fake news media about Russian collusion, Trump firing Comey and supposed efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
 
NONE OF WHICH COULD ADEQUATELY CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
 
First, reactions to anything don’t matter at all. With the reports of Trump colluding with Russia, how exactly do you expect Trump to react? Of course he’s going to be angry! HE WAS BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO! It was being alleged that his election victory and subsequent presidency were illegitimate! Frankly, I would’ve been concerned if Trump did not react like ANY NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD UNDER SUCH A SITUATION!
 
Second, and perhaps most importantly since this is what people will largely point towards as evidence of obstruction, Trump has the authority, as head of the Executive Branch, to remove the head of the FBI, the CIA, and anything else that is technically within the Executive Branch. Trump firing Mueller would’ve been virtually no different to Trump firing Comey. HAD HE DONE SO, which he did NOT.
 
So while the Mueller report suggests that Trump at least tried to fire Mueller, it was within his authority to have done so, but ultimately DID NOT.
 
But again, Mueller is writing this report for the Democrats and the media to try and keep the narrative alive with a summary of all the b.s. lies they have spread over these past couple of years, even though within the report it very specifically says that the Special Counsel did not find evidence of “collusion” or enough to prove Trump obstructed justice.
 
By all accounts, the Mueller Report should be seen as something that has definitively ended the allegations and speculation, but Mueller wrote it with enough ambiguity for the media to keep the ball rolling and for Democrats to launch their own investigations into this manner, despite the report’s ultimate findings.
 
Not that it’ll matter in the end, as any subsequent investigation and report from the media will be bologna and will ultimately find nothing, just like Mueller did, but this ought to tell you what we are up against: these people are completely irrational and will stop at nothing to get their way.
 
Again, the report ultimately finds no collusion and not enough to conclude obstruction. That alone is enough for me to fight back against the b.s. that will surely come from the Left.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

After roughly two years of Attorney General Jeff Sessions doing nothing to run his Department of Justice, choosing to look into low-priority weed-related crimes, new Attorney General William Barr has already done more for this country in a couple of months than Sessions did in his entire time as AG. And as far as we can see, this is only the beginning for AG Barr.
 
After telling Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up his investigation, leading the Special Counsel to find no evidence of collusion and leaving it up to Barr to determine whether the firing of James Comey and the Twitter rants against the Special Counsel were considered obstruction of justice (spoiler alert: they’re not), Attorney General William Barr is set to “assemble a team to investigate the origins of the Obama administration’s FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
This also comes a day after William Barr had spoken to the House Judicial Committee, where he mentioned that he believes that there was spying of the Trump campaign (why would he even say, under oath, that he thinks so and plans to investigate it if he didn’t honestly believe there was anything wrong there?), saying he would look into whether such spying was warranted or not (which is likely just a means to keep the Dems from looking too much into what he is doing).
 
During the hearing, Barr said: “I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”
 
What’s more, Fox News has reported that “the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) is separately looking into whether Comey mishandled classified information by including a variety of sensitive matters in his private memos” and will look into “the FBI’s FISA application process.”
 
And if they find what I think they will find – an FBI director (and perhaps a former CIA director) using the FBI as a political weapon against someone he doesn’t like with the purposes of swaying, if not outright fixing, the results of an election – then we could see James Comey in some serious trouble at some point down the line.
 
And that would only likely be the beginning of it. People like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and whomever was involved in the spying on the Trump campaign could face some time as well. And that’s just from these two investigations alone. If they result in what I think they will result (or at least hope they will result), other investigations could be opened as well, namely things like investigating the Steele dossier, investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mails again (remember: Comey said there would be no charges against her, but he was overreaching his power as he was not the AG at the time and there was never a trial, only Congressional hearings, so double-jeopardy does not apply here), investigating the Uranium One deal, investigating the Clinton Foundation with regards to Haiti (reportedly, the Foundation stole money that was donated to the people of Haiti after a terrible earthquake back in 2010), and some other things.
 
Of course, this is largely a pipe dream at this point. Possible, but I don’t know if entirely likely. For one, they would likely have to wrap up this planned investigation before moving on to other things. Not to mention I am not entirely certain that the DOJ will ever actually prosecute the Clintons for anything. And as far as Obama goes, while I think he was the head honcho of the FBI spying on Trump, I am not certain the DOJ will prosecute him either for some of the same reasons as with the Clintons.
 
Still, this is definitely a step in the right direction of applying some seriously overdue justice on those who have sought to use the power of the State to influence an election and overturn its results when it wasn’t what they wanted.
 
For two years, the media has insisted that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And while this 100% is not going to stop, regardless of what Mueller has said in his report (Schiff is so full of it he claims the evidence is plentiful and out there for anyone to see, despite Mueller’s findings pointing to the contrary), we are at least beginning to turn the tides a little bit.
 
Rush Limbaugh theorizes that the Mueller investigation was the “insurance policy” as noted in one of the released text messages between Strzok and Page. He theorizes that the investigation is meant to be a sort of cover-up for the Obama administration spying on Trump and people working for Trump, as well as a sort of cover-up for Hillary for her role in the Steele dossier (you know, funding the thing?).
 
I’m not 100% sure if the Mueller investigation in itself was meant to be the “insurance policy” considering Strzok wrote that text months before the election even took place, but I do think the FBI spying on Trump (at the behest of Obama, whom Strzok and Page mention in their texts) was supposed to be the “insurance policy”, with the Mueller investigation eventually being a sort of bonus after Trump fired Comey (which a lot of people honestly should’ve expected).
 
But whether I am right or Rush is right, what is important here is the fact that, after two years of investigative resources being wasted in a witch hunt, Attorney General William Barr has the guts to do what Sessions could not be bothered to do: investigate the rotten stench coming from the Left.
 
Sessions should’ve looked into SOMETHING when the Strzok-Page texts were revealed. He should’ve looked into something when we discovered that the FBI was, indeed, spying on Trump. He should not have recused himself from the Russia investigation, which sought to look at everything in Trump’s life going back to the day he was born, seeing if he was colluding with Russians in the utero.
 
Instead, the biggest news Sessions announced since his recusal was his intention to look into weed farms and other dumb things. Yeah, because in the midst of one of the biggest political scandals in American, if not world, history, one of the few people who can do something about it ought to spend his time busting potheads.
 
Thankfully, we now have an Attorney General who is not afraid of actually investigating wrongdoings (not people, for the record, but reportedly criminal actions, as investigators in countries not in a banana republic tend to do).
 
Because what we know, and what AG Barr knows, is that the FBI did, indeed, spy on the Trump campaign. One can make the case for this being legitimate or illegitimate (guess which side I am taking), but that’s precisely what Barr is going to look into. Not Comey specifically to find if he did something wrong, but a particular action that Comey was involved with, or at least heavily responsible for, and investigating if there was reasonable cause for what he did.
 
But regardless of the findings, this is at least a step in the right direction. The FBI spying on Trump is a big deal that should be looked into, regardless of whether or not the FBI had a legitimate reason for doing so (I’m willing to bet they didn’t if the Steele dossier is all they had to go on, which has been confirmed to be garbage).
 
We should thank God for this.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!