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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli

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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In what is perhaps the biggest piece of news in the last year or so, Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrapped up his investigation and released his final report clearing President Donald Trump of any assertions that he colluded with Russia and found no evidence that he obstructed justice at any point, leaving it up to AG William Barr to decide whether or not Trump did (and Barr said he didn’t).
 
Finally, the 2-year-long investigation that began because of a long-since-debunked dossier is over and Mueller found no evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice at any point during the investigation. The man whom many had replaced Christmas declarations last year and whom Chelsea Handler said she was “sexually attracted” to ultimately found nothing that tells people Trump colluded with Russia or sought to obstruct justice (this investigation wasn’t justice, but vendetta) during the investigation, so now, the Left is turning on him.
 
Rep. Adam “full of” Schiff said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday: “It was a mistake to rely on written responses by the president. That’s generally more what the lawyer has to say than what the individual has to say.”
 
Kind of like when Michael Cohen met with you for 10 hours before his latest Congressional hearing, then?
 
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said: “Maybe [Mueller] missed the boat here. Why was there never an interrogation of this president? We were told for weeks by experts, ‘You cannot deal with an obstruction-of-justice charge or investigation without getting the motive’… How could they let Trump off the hook?”
 
You can almost feel his utter sadness from that quote alone. First, interesting that he said “interrogation” rather than interview. You interview people of interest, but interrogate criminals, which is what Matthews sees Trump as.
 
Second, that part about “letting Trump off the hook” is glorious to me and tells me the sort of mindset he has. To Matthews, Trump does not get the benefit of presumption of innocence. He’s guilty as sin, in their minds, and Mueller just let him off the hook. The problem with this logic is mainly that THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR EVERYONE and for good reason. Prosecutors don’t exonerate. They prosecute. When there is not enough evidence to find someone guilty of something, they cannot prosecute that person.
 
But because this is Trump we’re talking about, the fact that there wasn’t enough prosecutorial evidence is entirely irrelevant. They think they KNOW he’s guilty just by looking at him, regardless of what reality may be. That’s how much hatred they harbor in their hearts. You’re guilty simply for existing and existing as the opposing force to them.
 
Let’s not forget the reason this started is because Trump BEAT Hillary in 2016 and the Left went bonkers over it, thinking it couldn’t possibly happen and something had to be amiss. That Trump has to have cheated to get where he was. Or that Trump has to have stumbled his way towards colluding with Russia (somehow).
 
The reason they think he’s guilty of collusion is because they are so darn narcissistic that they can’t believe the American people did not choose their favored candidate and turned away from their platform and party.
 
Remember when Bill Maher said that people in red states were jealous of people in blue states? Well, it’s that narcissism that has them thinking “how could these inferior ignoramuses possibly think we are not better and smarter than them? How could they not see the sheer brilliance of the smartest woman in the world? How could they think that orangutan is the better choice? No, they are jealous of us and want to be us, so they must want what we have and what we are. They must’ve wanted Hillary, but Trump somehow stole the election from her! Yes, that is the only logical explanation available!”
 
These people outright have a superiority complex and think they know what’s best for everyone. It is this belief that they are superior that has them believing they can’t possibly be wrong about Trump and the election.
 
And this is backed up by what BILL MAHER said following the findings of the Mueller report: “Did the Democrats put too much trust in the Mueller report? Because I don’t need the Mueller report to know [Trump’s] a traitor. I have a TV.”
 
Again, quite a narcissistic thought that he can SEE Trump’s collusion and treason through his TV screen alone. What exactly has he seen of Trump? The great SOTU address in February? The passion he put towards his speech on the necessity of a southern border wall? The constant love he shows towards America regardless of his audience, whether its his own supporters or even foreign diplomats?
 
What’s treasonous about that? Or is he referring to the JOKE he made about Russia getting Hillary’s emails (which they easily could have gotten given how negligent Hillary was about them)?
 
The Left’s reaction is not surprising at all, to be honest. The Russian collusion narrative has been their driving point for the last two years and are not about to have Mueller, whom they considered their savior (seriously), tell them they were wrong. Because if they take Mueller’s report for what it says, they will have to come to grips with the fact that Trump beat Hillary fairly and was legitimately elected as President.
 
Interestingly enough, I think some did come to grips with that fact. Prior to Mueller finding no collusion, the Left was making the effort of eliminating the electoral college. Why would they if Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election? If Trump colluded with Russia, then it’s not necessarily the electoral college’s fault, but the fault of the perpetrators, right?
 
I think deep down, in their subconscious, they knew perfectly well there was no collusion. Despite the fake news media constantly talking about Trump colluding with Russia or people talking about “having mountains of evidence” of collusion, I think they knew they were talking crap.
 
And it’s not just the latest effort to destroy the electoral college (and therefore destroying the republican system of election) that tells me they didn’t fully buy into the Russian collusion story.
 
The fact that Hillary kept blaming everything from Russia to Obama to Bernie to the voters and women’s husbands tells me she did not believe in the narrative. The fact that they tried to go for “obstruction of justice” after Comey was fired tells me they did not have much faith in the narrative. If there was easily-discovered evidence of collusion, any claim of obstruction of justice would be a secondary thought that came at some point in the impeachment hearings. But none of that happened.
 
They needed some sort of explanation as to why they did not get their way. And when that explanation is essentially dead, like children seeing their toy get broken by someone, they cry and blame the person that broke their toy.
 
Chelsea Handler even went as far as to say her sexual attraction towards Mueller (which will never not be creepy to me) is “in peril”. And others simply tried to say Mueller was either wrong in his findings (yeah, the guy who is, in their minds, a brilliant investigator) or missed something or is downright in cahoots with Trump or was somehow compromised by Russians (supposedly the man with the most integrity in Washington).
 
Their little idol, whom I imagine some legit prayed to when they were done praying to RBG, their little god did not deliver the goods. He did not tell them what they wanted to hear because TRUMP DID NOT COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA!
 
So now, they are turning on him. Truly, I do not feel any pity for Mueller. With the way he treated General Flynn, Mueller deserves far worse than the Left’s (fairly mild) ire. Mueller is a dirty cop with absolutely no integrity. His findings do not absolve him of the reprehensible fact he overstretched his power as an investigator and had people punished simply for being associated with Trump.
 
Manafort definitely deserved a sentence, but considering he spent so much time in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT before he was even given a trial and considering people wanted him thrown in jail for life for doing something that TONS OF DEMOCRATS DO SO OFTEN INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY HILLARY CLINTON makes me seriously dislike Mueller.
 
As far as General Flynn goes, it’s a travesty, a shame and an utter injustice what was done to that patriot. Being tricked into having an FBI interview that he did not know was under oath (he thought it was a simple conversation and his words would not be on the record for a future trial), Comey saying himself that, while Flynn does contradict himself in two separate interviews that are months apart, he thinks Flynn simply was misremembering things and not outright lying, and being put into financial ruin just because he had a conversation with a Russian diplomat AFTER BEING PUT INTO A LEGITIMATE POSITION TO DO SO BY THE PRESIDENT-ELECT is a horrible injustice perpetrated by the Deep State.
 
I just hope Trump pardons Flynn soon.
 
I thank God that Mueller did not try and fabricate evidence of collusion. That likely would’ve been tested in a trial, but I have little doubts that upon Mueller saying there was collusion, Democrats and RINOs would move towards impeaching the President (again, they would need two-thirds of the Senate and the ability to override a VP veto to accomplish that, but they would’ve tried).
 
It’s atrocious what the Left in this country has been trying to do to the duly-elected President of the United States. I can only pray to God that they will be soundly defeated not just in the next election, but entirely. This is the corruption of the justice system in America. Supposedly, crimes are investigated to find the perpetrator. In this case, a supposed perpetrator was accused of something and was investigated to see if they committed any crimes. That’s banana republic type of stuff.
 
Again, I have to thank God that the Mueller report did not try and make anything up. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the Russian collusion narrative. The reason people were hyping down the Mueller report is because they likely believed it was not going to find anything so they can move on to another investigation that will try to destroy Trump (which will also fail).
 
Truth doesn’t matter to these people. Power does. And as it is, Trump is an obstacle to them getting the power they desire.
 
It’s evil and there’s no different way to describe it.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

On Thursday, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding a supposed deal Trump had with the Russian government about building a Trump Tower in Moscow and when such a deal was put to an end. Allow me to specifically explain to you just why this means absolutely nothing.
 
First of all, Michael Cohen is not exactly a trustworthy character. He flipped on Trump months ago, alleged that Trump knew about the payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, and had his lawyer “brag” about Cohen knowing things that would help the Mueller investigation. He had already been charged for violating campaign finance law by the time he made this claim anyway.
 
So in response to this, Trump has said that Cohen was lying and that he is “weak”.
 
Second of all, let’s just say that Trump, indeed, was working some sort of deal with Russia by June of 2016, which Cohen is now alleging instead of the original January 2016 claim. It was about building a Trump Tower in Moscow. That’s not exactly illegal, even if Cohen was right. This is the equivalent of the media saying: “Breaking news: Trump has been found to have been a businessman before becoming President!”
 
So obviously, they can’t get Trump with that. So what is their best hope here? To further charge, which they’re doing, Cohen with perjury… for giving the wrong dates.
 
If Cohen was lying about when this supposed deal was taking place or was put to an end, then Cohen is the one being punished.
 
Like I said, Trump has responded to this and said Cohen was lying, that he is weak and that he is “trying to get a reduced sentence for things that have nothing to do with me.”
 
Which brings me to my third point: none of this has to do with Trump colluding with Russia to steal the U.S. election. At best, this is a political stunt to indicate to people that Trump had communication with Russians during the campaign, even if it had nothing to do with politics.
 
So for those who were thinking that this could be a “smoking gun” into Russian collusion (which Rosenstein has gone as far as to admit that the election results were not altered), think again. The matter doesn’t even involve the allegation of Russian collusion regarding the election. It just talks about a supposed business deal about building a building in Moscow and when such a deal was put to an end, either in January or June of 2016.
 
This is just a publicity stunt that comes just before another meeting between Trump and foreign officials. The last time this happened was when Rosenstein was announcing some developments regarding the investigation into Russian meddling and collusion, where Rosenstein admitted that not a single vote was changed and there was no alteration of the results of the election.
 
Not only that, this comes immediately following news of Manafort’s lawyers reportedly talking with Trump’s lawyers after Manafort’s plea deal with the special counsel had been rescinded.
 
Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Guilliani, said that Mueller “wants Manafort to incriminate Trump”, in response to learning that Manafort had been interrogated by the counsel to find out whether or not Trump knew about the June 2016 meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian woman who said she had dirt on Hillary (and I’ve already established how that’s not illegal, albeit not exactly morally right).
 
So if you look carefully into every single story regarding something the special counsel has found or is doing, you will find a whole lot of nothing-burgers. There is no criminal activity going on anywhere that the special counsel looks, and the only charges that have been filed have been for process crimes, things that have nothing to do with Trump, or charges to Russians who will never see a U.S. court room to challenge the charges.
 
Following in that same pattern, this story also offers a whole lot of nothing. So to those who think Mueller is “steamrolling” Trump (as I’ve seen people tweet recently), you might want to rethink some things. There is nothing criminal about any of this. And if you wish to allege Trump is lying here, that’s fine. Because he is not under oath and has not gone to the FBI, the special counsel or Congress to testify about this. He has answered some questions for Mueller in written form, and we shall see what that brings about, if anything at all, but he cannot be found guilty of perjury here.
 
Cohen can, Manafort can, but not Trump, not yet at least.
 
This is simply a publicity stunt served to light a fire underneath Leftists and NeverTrumpers to try and get rid of the guy. I don’t know if I should laugh or be sad by this for a number of reasons. Number one, the biggest reason Trump gets the hatred that he does is that he dares oppose the Left. The biggest reason “conservative” NeverTrumpers hate him is because he is brutish, loud and does not pull any punches. The same people that supposedly opposed Obama also oppose Trump because they love being miserable.
 
Number two, these people would need two-thirds of the Senate to impeach Trump. For as much as House Democrats pound their puny chests about how they’re going to impeach Trump, it’s not the House that votes on it, it’s the Senate, which the Democrats LOST GROUND in.
 
Now, I’m sure that RINOs like Mitt Romney and others would vote with Democrats to impeach Trump, but I doubt there are enough such Republicans in the new Senate. John McCain is dead, Flake and Corker are on the way out, and many pro-Trump conservatives won their races, not to mention some previous NeverTrumpers have now seemingly joined Trump such as Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham.
 
And let me remind you that a two-thirds vote in the Senate means getting 66 or 67 votes to just START the process. They would need to gather more votes to also overrule the almost certain veto that the Vice President would give in such an instance.
 
So believe me, Trump is not going to be impeached. Unless it is found that he has done something so egregious, criminal and unbelievably horrid that it would cause literally everyone who has ever supported him to turn their backs on him, it’s not happening. And considering what the special counsel has found out after ALMOST TWO WHOLE YEARS of “investigating”, I doubt they will find anything even remotely close to that.
 
This latest stunt really does nothing to criminalize Trump. Those who want him gone already believe the bullcrap of Russian collusion, and this hardly does anything to further that belief beyond saying “Trump was communicating with the Russians during the campaign, so he must’ve colluded!” There are a lot of things wrong with that, apart from the simple fact that that very well could be a lie fabricated by a long-time Democrat lawyer who secretly recorded his conversations with his clients (at least with Trump) who is in cahoots with an Establishment hack of a lawyer investigating a person rather than a crime, banana republic-style.
 
Every single time there is any sort of news regarding the special counsel, and now Cohen, the Left and NeverTrumpers get giddy over the possibility of seeing Trump finally crumbling. And yet, after some remote review of the facts, it’s clear that the supposed “smoking gun” is just a Nerf gun at best and there’s nothing criminal going on.
 
And that’s even assuming that what is being alleged is true at all, given that those who are alleging these things are not exactly reputable and trustworthy people.
 
On a separate note, since it’s very clear that lying to Congress is a crime, I’ll just wait for similar charges to drop on Comey, Brennan, Jack Dorsey, Peter Strzok, Mark Zuckerberg, Christine Blasey Ford and just about anyone who has gone before Congress and has willingly lied to them (the textbook definition of perjury).
 
I wish I could be serious about that previous paragraph, but since there exists a double-standard in our justice system where we only punish those whom the Left wishes to punish, such charges will almost certainly never be brought up. The Left is making sure that Lady Justice peeks under the blindfold.
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

No, I have not joined the dark side, I can assure you. The fact that Hillary Clinton might run for 2020 makes me happy not because I admire her or some literally insane nonsense like that. I don’t want her to win the White House, knowing full-well she would be terrible for the country. However, I will explain why I am happy to hear this momentarily.
 
First of all, while nothing’s exactly official yet in terms of the Hillary campaign, the reason this is even being talked about in the manner that it is is because of a Wall Street Journal article titled “Hillary Will Run Again”.
 
I don’t know about you, but when I first saw that, I honestly thought of the phrase “The South will rise again”. Funny, considering it’s Democrats who fought to keep black people as slaves. I even tweeted that that title sounded like it was Hillary’s “The South will rise again” moment.
 
In any case, let’s dive further into the article. The sub-headline reads: “Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.”
 
Yet another statement that brings a smile to my face.
 
For further context, this piece was written by Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser to both Clintons from 1995-2008, and it was also written by Andrew Stein, who was the Democratic Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.
 
Here is their lead paragraph: “Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle – back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”
 
To be 100% honest with you, upon reading the subhead and the lead, I honestly thought the writers were trying to roast (make fun of) Hillary to some extent.
 
Let’s go over a few things from the subhead and lead. First, they mention she is “reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand…”, they mention this is Hillary Clinton “4.0” and that she is coming full circle, back to “the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994”.
 
I’m sorry, I must’ve missed something important, because that’s exactly the same Hillary Clinton I voted against in 2016, will vote against in 2020 should she miraculously “win” the nomination again and the same Hillary Clinton I have seen for quite some time. How do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you are?
 
The other thing that made me think these two were roasting Hillary was when they mentioned: “She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way…”
 
Maybe I took it to mean something else, but that sounded a tad bit condescending, don’t you think? Not condescending to Obama and Trump, but to Hillary. It’s like saying “this boxer won’t let a little thing like getting his butt kicked for 11 rounds stop him from winning in the 12th”. It might sound like they’re trying to uplift Hillary, but it also comes off as giving a back-handed compliment. Like saying “she messed up majorly and screwed herself to a post twice before, but now, she’s ready to hopefully avoid screwing herself again.”
 
The article then says: “Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian ‘It Takes a Village’ appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.”
 
“As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama – but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.”
 
Okay, I have a few things to say. First, I shall repeat an earlier question: how do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you were? The fact that they use “2.0” and “3.0” and now “4.0” indicates they believe Hillary is somehow different today than she was as a New York Senator, Secretary of State, or DNC candidate.
 
Second, I thought it was Trump colluding with Russia that cost Hillary the election. How would Trump “stealing” white working-class voters be a factor whatsoever if Trump and Putin were colluding behind closed doors, offering each other gay sexual acts (and that’s something the Left has been saying, ignoring their hypocritical homophobia) and ultimately stole the election from Hillary. We even have an investigation into the matter, don’t we? If that’s not what happened and it was the fact that Trump “stole” the white working-class and others who were legitimately left in the dust by a Democrat Party that is trying to become the Democratic Party of Mexico, then why do we have an investigation into something that didn’t happen and something that even they don’t actually believe happened?
 
(All of that was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell. I know precisely why this hoax of an investigation that some on the Left don’t even really believe is still ongoing.)
 
Finally, Trump didn’t “steal” the white working-class. The white working-class was altogether abandoned by the Democrat Party. Though they may have been the party of unions at one time, that’s not something they even care to keep anymore. They hope to ride on minorities’ backs to win them elections (yet another slavery reference?). And if they don’t win them, they can blame the white working-class and white women for their losses, which is the equivalent of touching a hot stove and being surprised that it burned them.
 
Turns out that abandoning an entire class of voters doesn’t exactly encourage those voters to vote for you.
 
In any case, the WSJ article is not done. They still offer hilarity and back-handed comments:
 
“[Hillary] will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”
 
“Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of ‘Lock her up!’ This must be avenged.”
 
“Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat – the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.”
 
That is an awful lot and I don’t think I can go over absolutely everything. This article is plenty long as is and I have yet to even state why this whole thing makes me happy.
 
So allow me to do just that. The reason I am happy Hillary is running again is because after her defeat, she has only gotten worse in my eyes, and likely in many people’s. After the election, she went on a long trip of mental breakdowns and even wrote a book titled “What Happened” to try and reason why she lost. Now, I didn’t read that book, but I take it it mentioned Putin, Russia, racism, sexism, bigotry, and all the excuses she could possibly get out of her hot sauce bag.
 
And this is ignoring the fact that there have been revelations that it was HER campaign that tried to steal the election and still managed to lose somehow. HER campaign hired foreign agents to write a fake dossier about Trump. HER campaign was the one that was helped by the Obama DOJ, FBI and FISA court.
 
She tried to steal an American presidential election. And this is ADDING to her rap sheet of crimes connected to the Clinton Foundation including selling 20% of our Uranium supply to, well, what do you know? VLADIMIR PUTIN! And let’s not forget that she also STOLE the Democrat nomination away from Bernie back in 2016 as well. Now, I’m personally glad she did that, considering the disaster that a possible Bernie Sanders presidency would’ve wrought (I still think Trump would’ve won, but just barely, kind of like in 2000). However, one cannot deny the dishonesty and overall wrongful act that was committed by the DNC to crown Hillary with the nomination.
 
If she runs again, and if she becomes the nominee again as these two writers say she will, then she will be utterly crushed even worse than last time.
 
What Trump didn’t have in 2016 was experience in the field and a record of successful policy, which is natural given he was an outsider at the time. Now that he’s had 2, and by the time 2020 comes around, 4 years of experience, he has only improved his chances of winning in 2020 to the point even Michael Moore legitimately believes he will be reelected if facing against anyone but Michelle Obama (and I think he could even beat her).
 
So I sincerely hope she wins and she becomes the nominee once again.
 
Now, regarding the last few paragraphs that I just shared with you, some of it returns to my earlier question of reinventing yourself into something you already were. They mention she is now left-leaning, partisan and all-Democrat as though she wasn’t in the past. Don’t make me laugh.
 
And one last thing. She didn’t get beat by an amateur. She got beat by TWO amateurs. Here, they were only thinking about Trump, who never held public office and was most definitely an amateur at the time. But we can’t forget that she lost in 2007 against an amateur who was US Senator for only TWO years, after serving in the Illinois State Legislature and was a “community organizer” before that.
 
But in any case, I look forward to the 2020 campaign on the Democrat side. Even if Hillary loses, her running will create some form of divide. If even Nancy Pelosi’s speakership is in peril because of young socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, then Hillary likely doesn’t stand a chance. Ironically, the writers also mention towards the end that Hillary would “trounce” all other candidates, including Joe Biden, but I really doubt the Democrats want to allow Hillary anywhere near their nomination once again… if they’re smart, that is.
 
James 1:17
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
 
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. While Democrats like Hillary might promise everything for free, you can rest assured that this does not have hidden fees or taxes to be paid at a later date. If I say it’s free, that means it’s free. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.