Former President Obama’s role in the Russia hoax was revealed last week, as you probably know already, through the Motion to Dismiss charges against General Michael Flynn document: we now know Obama was the one giving direction to his FBI to target General Flynn, and pursue the Russia narrative.

The document released last week shows that the Obama FBI began an investigation on Flynn back in August 2016, before the Presidential election, because Gen Flynn was “cited as an adviser to the Trump team on foreign policy issues February 2016; he has ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by open-source information; and he traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open-source information.”

The document also shows that at a January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Obama had asked Comey and Yates to “stay behind.” Obama told them he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russian diplomat Sergeiy Kislyak, where they discussed sanctions his administration had levied against Russia. The former President said he “did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.”

Just as a side note here, please remember there’s nothing wrong with an incoming Administration having contacts with Foreign Diplomats as a way to understand each other's priorities and begin a diplomatic relationship.

But let’s go back to the document. In it we read “Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act, but can’t recall if he specified there was an ‘investigation.’ Comey did not talk about prosecution in the meeting. It was not clear to Yates from where the President first received the information. Yates did not recall Comey’s response to the President’s question about how to treat Flynn. She was so surprised by the information she was hearing that she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time,”

So the cat’s out of the bag now. What do we do?

We know and have evidence that proves former President Obama was the mastermind behind the Russia hoax and knew all along that there was nothing wrong with the conversation between Gen Flynn and Kislyak, but nevertheless they conspired to set Flynn up to eventually destabilize the Trump Administration.

We know now that under oath, nobody from the Obama FBI said they had seen any evidence whatsoever of Russia collusion. Yet, when going to the Fake News Media for interviews, they implied that they did. This, naturally, is a plot or conspiracy to overthrow a duly elected president. And we now know that former President Obama was not just aware of what was going on, but actually directed it.

Will Obama EVER be indicted? Will he EVER be punished?

Some say that it’ll never happen because we just don’t do this type of thing to former Presidents.

But is this true? Is this who we are? Can Obama go shoot someone dead, the DOJ have evidence of it, and still not prosecute? Because that’s essentially what’s happening here. We have evidence now that Obama was behind the Russia Collusion hoax all along, in a coup attempt. This is criminal. Like Rudy Giuliani said, it’s as close to treason as you can get. Is Obama going to get away with it?

I don’t know the answer to this question. But I know this: releasing these documents without any intention whatsoever to get to the bottom of this and prosecute everyone involved makes no sense to me. Up until now, most of us suspected Obama HAD to be involved. But now we know. Not only do we know,  but we have EVIDENCE that proves his culpability. Is AG Barr NOT going to act upon it?

Let’s pray that AG Barr gets the wisdom and strength that he needs to do what’s right in the sight of God. He was raised to this position for a reason. He needs to do his job to the best of his abilities, and in this case, he needs to put together the case to prosecute everyone involved, even if one of them is a former President. The fact that we haven’t done anything like this in the past is no excuse not to act now if there’s sufficient evidence. 
 
James 4:17
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin”
Author: Danielle Cross  

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.

As NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio joins the other 2000 candidates to run for President of the United States on the Democrat ticket, President Donald Trump is enjoying the best poll numbers he has had as POTUS.
 
According to a recent Zogby poll, President Trump is enjoying a job approval rating of 51%, the highest in his tenure as president in this poll. It is also higher than Barack Obama’s was at the same point in his own presidency, which was at 48%.
 
But that’s not the only thing that is great news for The Don. The poll also found, rather interestingly, that 51% of people in the age range of 18-29 approve of the job he is doing as president while 53% in the age range of 25-34 approve of him. In other words, a little over half of MILLENNIALS are approving of the job Trump is doing as President.
 
Zogby largely attributes his rise in numbers to the strong economic news we’ve had as of late with record-breaking stock market numbers, consistently low unemployment where there are virtually more jobs available than there are people to fill them, as well as consistently strong GDP growth.
 
Zogby writes: “President Trump’s job approval rating has seen a post Mueller report boost! We called it a few weeks ago. But that’s not the complete story as to why the president has reached a peak in his job approval rating. Trump is also riding high on positive economic news – a record high stock market, low unemployment, and solid GDP growth at home.”
 
Yes, they also attribute the Mueller report finding no collusion and no obstruction to Trump’s rise in his numbers, though they don’t quite count for everything. I hold the belief that those who completely bought into the idea that Trump colluded with Russia will never change their minds about the guy no matter what happens. Even when their supposed “savior” was supposed to deliver the goods, and failed to do so, they still hold firm to the belief that Trump colluded with Russia despite no evidence having popped up at any point in the two years of this “investigation” and despite Mueller’s findings that there was no collusion and flimsy, but ultimately not-good-enough, evidence that the POTUS obstructed justice (complaining about the unfairness of a so-called “investigation” is not obstruction, FYI).
 
The people who bought the collusion story hook, line and sinker were never going to be convinced that Trump was doing a good job as President. However, the vast majority of people, I believe, are completely exhausted of the entire narrative and are simply happy that there was no foul-play during the elections, at least not enough to actually alter the results (Russia did still meddle a bit, but even Rod Rosenstein said no votes were altered in the election, so the results of the election were not altered either).
 
But while the Mueller report finding no collusion or obstruction certainly helps Trump in the long-run, especially on the campaign trail when Democrats are entirely likely to still peddle the idea that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (and will likely peddle the idea that he will try to do so again for 2020, especially if he wins), what really helps Trump’s approval numbers is the fact that “the new normal” of the Obama administration, 1% GDP growth, was absolute garbage and not a new standard which we would have to get used to.
 
Trump has shown that capitalist policies like low taxes, deregulation, etc. heavily boost the economy and provide millions of new jobs for people who were out of work, either seeking it or giving up on seeking it.
 
The boost in Millennial support is part of that, considering they actually have jobs now, at least many of them do. Rush Limbaugh theorized that the reason Bernie Sanders was so hot back in 2016 but not quite so much now is due to the fact that under Obama, these Millennials were out of work and Bernie was promising them a socialist paradise where they wouldn’t have to worry at all about that because the government would take care of every problem under the sun (seriously, I saw a Bernie Sanders poster on Facebook that said he would solve racism in America).
 
Millennials saw that they were in a poor financial situation, being the first generation likely ever to not be expected to do better than their parents’ generation. But instead of recognizing they were in such a poor state because of 8 years of Leftist, socialist policies from the Obama administration, they were led to believe that capitalism was the culprit, since there are those who are billionaires and were led to believe that under capitalism, there are winners and losers. They were led to believe the billionaires and rich people of America came to that sort of wealth by screwing the little guy and stealing from them. And who can blame them? Obama had been saying the same thing about America in general, about how America stole from other countries to build itself as a super power.
 
All a massive crock, but the Millennials believed it. But now, after only 2 years of a Trump economy that is so good Obama is envious about it and tries to claim it for himself, Millennials are noticing that they have jobs, their paychecks are increasing, they don’t have to pay as much in taxes (depending on where they live, at least) and are overall not quite in the same tight financial situation that they were in under Obama.
 
Now, despite all of that, many are still socialist and still support Bernie. He is, after all, in second place in a race that involves 20 other equally-as-Leftist candidates as him, with the only person ahead of him being the former Vice President to the former President many Millennials were indoctrinated to love (despite the fact he was the one who was constantly screwing them over financially). So while Bernie is not quite as hot as he was in 2016, he is not quite out of it yet either.
 
I don’t know who will be the Democrat nominee (despite what I have written previously, it looks like Joe Biden will be the nominee, but Hillary was in his place in 2007 before she was beaten by Obama, so you never know) but Bernie’s brand of socialism is still attractive enough to get him a decent place in the polls despite how many more Democrats are running.
 
But in any case, there is a majority of Millennials now who come to approve of the job Trump is doing as President, especially when it comes to the economy.
 
Zogby also reported that 58% of men approved of Trump while 48% of women approved of him. And while one will immediately notice the big difference in numbers between the two genders and claim that Trump is unpopular with women because “he’s a pig” or “he’s a misogynist” note that the number of women who approve of him is, while still a minority, pretty high, just not as high as the number of men who approve of him. Nearly half of women approve of Trump. Put that into a headline and watch as the fake news media goes haywire over the news.
 
When it comes to suburban voters, 48% approve of Trump while 60% of rural voters approve. That makes sense considering that rural voters tend to be more conservative and Trump’s economy really helps rural areas.
 
Zogby also added that, “One of the demographics to give Trump a very good job performance rating were self-identified social networkers (59% approve/40% disapprove – people who engage with social media)… The president also made strides with college educated voters (55% approve/45% disapprove), and saw support increase slightly with non-college educated voters (47% approve/50% disapprove).”
 
These numbers are fairly interesting to me. When it comes to the “self-identified social networkers” I don’t exactly know what to make of that. Who are “self-identified social networkers”? Does that mean people who use social media? Or people who have a heavy presence on social media like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham, etc.? I imagine the former, which is still rather impressive, considering that the common belief is that the majority of social media users are at least Left-leaning and utterly Trump-hating (social media companies certainly want people to hate Trump and conservatives/conservatism).
 
And when it comes to the college educated voters vs. non-college educated voters, that one also surprises me. Considering college is the place where education goes to die and indoctrination is heavily engrained in young people’s minds, such strong approval of Trump is surprising.
 
But regardless, as Zogby says, the increase in approval rating is likely due to strong economic numbers. Numbers that you simply do not see under socialistic policies.
 
We must thank God for these great news and continually pray to Him that these numbers stay strong like this, improve, and that He would ordain for Trump to win re-election in 2020.
 
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
 
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 it is not exactly news anymore that AG Barr is being held in contempt of Congress, I did not write anything about it because it’s not going to amount to anything substantial. This is the most clear-cut case of the Left putting on a show for their base that will do absolutely nothing in the end that we’ve seen since Trump took office.
 
However, it is always fun for me to find some Leftist who looks at what the Democrats are doing and slams them for it. Such is the case for Leftist law professor Jonathan Turley, who despite being a liberal, has largely chosen to keep politics from clouding his judgment regarding the law, a rarity in today’s political landscape.
 
Turley wrote a scathing piece on The Hill titled: “Democrats showing contempt by holding William Barr in contempt.”
 
While many on the Left have aired many grievances against Barr, with fictitious charges of misleading and lying to Congress, the piece focuses specifically on House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who is holding Barr in contempt over not releasing a full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
 
Turley writes: “The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with the White House… As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to ‘first do no harm.’ This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for the House… Barr promised to release as much as of the report as possible, and he has delivered. Indeed, he is not expressly given the authority to release the confidential report. Yet, he not only released it but declared executive privilege waived on its content. The key obstruction portion of the report is virtually unredacted. Just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress had only 2 percent redacted. Democrats are therefore seeking a contempt sanction on a report that is 98 percent disclosed and only lacks grand jury material.”
 
Basically, Nadler is holding Barr in contempt of Congress for NOT breaking the law. Barr was not under any obligation to make the report public whatsoever. He still did, but with 8 percent of it redacted. He also gave another version of the report for Congress to read, with only 2 percent of it being redacted.
 
Democrats have 98% of the report, with none of the key findings being redacted, and still are holding Barr in contempt for not releasing the last 2%, which was redacted in order to protect grand jury material and other ongoing investigations. The Mueller report ultimately found no collusion and not enough to say there was obstruction of justice. This is the Democrats’ panic move.
 
Allow me to make a few things clear:
 
First, Barr LEGALLY CANNOT release the full report completely unredacted. The biggest reason even a liberal law professor is destroying House Democrats over this is that House Democrats are essentially charging Barr for NOT breaking the law.
 
Second, none of the Democrats who were given access to the vastly unredacted report EVEN READ IT! According to a National Review article, Democrats have a Mueller report that is unredacted except for two full and seven partial lines in the second part of Mueller’s report, the one about obstruction.
 
“… not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for [seven redactions]…”
 
That article was written on May 8th. Barr gave House Judiciary Democrats an almost completely unredacted version of the Mueller report, which they didn’t even bother to read, and they still hold him in contempt over the redactions.
 
That is how pitiful and pathetic the Democrats are. Their attempt to hold Barr in contempt is not for legal reasons. THE REASONS ARE THAT BARR DIDN’T BREAK THE LAW! Their reasons for doing this is to satisfy an unhappy base who, for two years, was promised the Mueller report would deliver the goods. That the Mueller report was going to destroy Trump, utterly humiliate him, and find obscene amounts of Russian collusion as well as all kinds of attempts at obstructing justice. When literally none of that was found to be the case, their base was ticked off and I can’t say I blame them.
 
Republicans promised to get rid of Obamacare pretty much since it passed in 2010 and have failed time after time. Democrats promised to get rid of Trump pretty much since he won the election and have failed time after time. Democrat voters expected results and the only results found were that Trump did not collude, did not obstruct justice and will have to try and move on from 2016.
 
So in an effort to satisfy a rabid Democrat base who wishes to see Trump’s head on a platter, the Democrats are doing whatever they think will help, which in this case would be holding the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress for… not… breaking the law.
 
Sure, they will claim that he was breaking the law and say that we are in a “constitutional crisis” as a result of that, but it will amount to absolutely nothing.
 
Now, I, for one, do think we are in a constitutional crisis, but not in the same way that Nadler and Pelosi think. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of an administration spying on a political opponent, a political party staining the electoral process and tainting democracy, a political party insisting there was Russian hacking or collusion (which is not a crime anyway, but they would’ve treated it like one in impeachment proceedings) and doing this ad nauseam for two and a half years. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of a political party trying to undo the results of an election just because they lost. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of investigating an individual to look for potential crimes rather than investigating a crime looking for the perpetrator(s).
 
The constitutional crisis comes in the form of having lower district activist judges deciding on national policy. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of charging military heroes with perjury despite even the former FBI director admitting he didn’t think the military hero was lying so much as misremembering things. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of the FBI planting a spy into the Trump campaign to lead George Papadopalous to “brag about” having “knowledge” that the Russians have dirt on Hillary. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of using a dossier that the FBI knew perfectly well was bogus to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign at the behest of the Obama administration. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of intelligence agencies trying to rig an election in favor of a political ally. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of having a foreign agent write a fictitious dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign to use to spy on Trump.
 
The Democrat Party is a walking constitutional crisis. They constantly undermine the constitution, as Obama did heinously for 8 years, and pretend there are things in it that are not. They insist on allowing for First Amendment rights for the press (which are not being taken away anyway) but simultaneously defend the deplatforming of political opponents under the guise of “banning hate”.
 
They will protect themselves and their families with guns and with people who know how to use guns but fully expect you to give up yours and have dreams about confiscating them and imprisoning you should you not comply.
 
They will hold someone in contempt of Congress for not breaking the law but walk out when Republicans LEGITIMATELY hold a Leftist AG in contempt of Congress for not turning in documents relating to the Fast and Furious scandal (though granted, some Democrats did vote with Republicans on this). A walk out, which, by the way, Nadler took part in.
 
Do you know what else Nadler took part in? The insistence that the Starr report, the one about Clinton’s office affairs with Monica Lewinsky as well as prior sexual harassment lawsuits levied against Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas (and other things) not be released to the public. Nadler did a complete 180 with the Mueller report, after insisting that the Starr report not be released, he wants the Mueller report fully released, despite the fact that it is not legal to do so.
 
As Turley said, this is the weakest possible case for holding someone in contempt. Even a liberal law professor (whom to his credit keeps his politics and profession separate) understands just how pathetic this latest effort from the Left is.
 
I just hope and pray that these people will taste justice.
 
Proverbs 24:24-25
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
 
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.

That can perhaps be counted as yet another one of my “no, duh” titles, but it is important to note just why I am talking about this now. After all, Rush Limbaugh has had his show for 30 years and has been the “Big Voice on the Right” for pretty much all of these years, but I do not think I have ever specifically talked about him or things he said.
 
Obviously, there is not much point, as one can listen to his 3-hour-long radio show any day of the week and find what he said himself (unless you work for the MSM and can’t stand to listen to him and have to rely on what other people say he said). However, he sometimes appears on other shows, notably with Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace and other Fox News anchors. Earlier this week, El Rushbo appeared on Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum” to discuss a number of things ranging from the 2020 presidential election and Democrat candidates to the Mueller report and investigation.
 
Let’s begin with what he said about the Democrats’ chances at beating Trump in 2020: “Here’s the thing: Joe Biden is probably the best chance they’ve got, and he doesn’t have a chance. They’re probably… I mean, Joe Biden and Crazy Bernie and Mayor Pete? I mean, you’ve got three white guys, two of them are brontosauruses from Jurassic Park, and that isn’t gonna sit well with the rest of this party which has gone so far left. You know, Biden’s putting off this announcement. I don’t know how badly he really wants this, and you have to really want this if you’re gonna have any chance of winning it.”
 
I’ve already written an article about how I seriously doubt that the Democrats would nominate Joe Biden for those precise reasons. Of course, I could be wrong, but those reasons are still very important to the Leftist Democrat base. For the last few years, old, white people have been victimized, harassed and attacked simply for being old and white. Jussie Smollett blamed white people for his hoax of an attack, the Catholic Covington kids were attacked for being white and Trump supporters, there are hundreds of instances where a white person was attacked for being white (and/or supporting Trump). So for the Democrats to have a nominee that is old, white and male is not going to jive with many on their base. Whether or not that means they would skip voting on election day, I cannot say, but the fact Joe is an old, white male is going to be a problem for him because his party hates that sort of person now (and I believe secularists would call that “karma”).
 
Rush was then asked if Trump is “vulnerable” to Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, particularly when she promises “free” stuff like college debt forgiveness and other things.
 
Rush said: “’Fauxcahontas’ is not gonna be the nominee. But, you know, these Democrats are all in the process of trying to out-leftist or out-liberal each other, and they’re in a contest of who can give away the most. But with Elizabeth Warren, forgiving college loans – forgiving that debt – and then promising free college and Medicare for All and a Green New Deal? Why is anybody gonna need to go to college? Because nobody’s gonna need a job, because the Democrats are gonna be giving everybody a universal basic income. So why does any of this matter? None of this is real. None of this can happen. This is disinformation. I think it’s an indication of just how little they think of their own voters, that their own voters don’t even want to work. They don’t even want to achieve. They don’t want to pursue excellence. They just want to have their hands out and vote for whoever is gonna give them the most?... What a way to ruin a life. Nobody would raise kids this way.”
 
And he’s completely right (I know, what a shock). Back in the beginning of April, I wrote an article about how college students support socialism unless they are affected by it negatively, such as redistributing the good grades they were getting to give to someone else who was not doing as well. College kids strive (for the most part) to get good grades because they want the best scores and the best chance to earn a degree and hopefully get a good job (even if that’s not exactly the way things work now because just about everyone is getting a degree and the value of a degree is diminished due to its surplus. Supply and demand works in a lot of ways).
 
Most college kids try to work hard to earn good grades and don’t expect to simply be given good grades. In real life, most people work the same way. They work hard at their jobs to hopefully get a promotion or a raise. And what the Democrats think of their own base is that they are all lazy and need the government’s help to even stay alive. It’s disrespectful, even if some of them are this way.
 
There is value in hard work. And even if a lot of parents don’t teach that value to their kids, the kids will come to understand it eventually once they start working themselves. Again, with those college kids, they all understood the value of working hard for their grades: they worked and studied hard and receive good grades for it.
 
That’s the way things work, even in a society where the value of hard work is not necessarily taught anymore by parents. Those who are successful work hard, whether that success means millions and billions of dollars or getting an A on a term paper.
 
But anyway, let’s get back to the Dean of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Rush was then asked about Hillary Clinton saying Trump should be “indicted” on obstruction of justice concerning the Mueller investigation, he said: “For Hillary – you talk about irony – for Hillary Clinton to be talking about impeaching Donald Trump… Hillary Clinton needs to be investigated, she needs to be indicted, and she needs to be in jail, and many of her co-conspirators in this whole sordid affair, which amounted to nothing more than a silent coup to overturn the election results of 2016.”
 
“Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump – you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008. She had to rig the primaries against Crazy Bernie in 2016 to get the nomination. [Hillary] is the last person who ought to be listened to about what ought to happen to Donald Trump. She hasn’t accomplished anything anywhere near what Donald Trump has accomplished. She is in no position to sit here and say what she saw in the Mueller – well, she can say it, she’s an American. But she doesn’t have any credibility on any of this as far as I am concerned. And I’m not alone here.”
 
And he’s right in many ways. Hillary is in no position to be saying anything here about obstruction, considering her own HUSBAND was impeached for obstruction of justice, which the media tried to bury and say it was about “sex” and Monica Lewinsky. And without even mentioning the fact that SHE IS THE ONE WHO COLLUDED WITH FOREIGN AGENTS TO RIG THE ELECTION IN HER FAVOR!
 
America’s Real Anchorman then continued, talking specifically about the Mueller probe: “there was never any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. The collusion, as I said, was Hillary, the DNC, and the Russians via Steele. But the Russians – when Mueller announced the indictments of the Russian troll farm – actually it was Rosenstein that went out and announced them. And nobody paid any attention to this, but he said at the end of the announcement, ‘Nothing in these indictments suggests a single vote was changed. Nothing suggests the outcome of any election was changed. No American is named in the indictment had anything to do with it.’”
 
“This was not even an investigation of Trump. What it was was an attempt to overthrow the 2016 elections… unelected people came close to actually pulling off what is a coup. And it should never, ever happen again.”
 
Once again, he is right in many things. The only thing I would add is that Mueller was not actually all that close to pulling off a coup. He was at the beginning, or at least was closer, but never actually all that close. What do I mean? Well, not to give anyone any ideas, but generally what is necessary for a coup is unity.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, there has to be unity from the people that want the coup and people outside of that group. Mueller and his special counsel and some people in the intelligence community wanted Trump gone. But not everyone in the intelligence community agreed.
 
Mueller was not above lying on his report. If he wanted to, he could’ve alleged things and charged Trump with b.s. He could’ve lied, but he didn’t. Why? Because he didn’t have the full support of the intelligence community. He wasn’t assured security for lying, which he would’ve needed, as he would’ve had to testify in front of Congress.
 
He was not sure he would be protected, so he did not lie, but still not telling the full truth either.
 
Beyond that, no coup can ever actually happen without the military. And that is where Mueller was doomed almost from the beginning.
 
I mentioned earlier that Mueller was at least closer to pulling off a coup earlier in the investigation than later on. What I meant by that is he could’ve gotten the military on his side (not all that likely, but certainly was possible). But when he destroyed General Flynn, he also destroyed his chances at getting the military on his side. And a coup has to have military force. Sure, the FBI and CIA have guns, but guns don’t beat tanks and planes and helicopters.
 
A silent coup was not going to succeed ever. Every coup that has ever happened in history has been a military one. Lenin had his Red Army to fight against the Czar’s White Army. Multiple Latin American countries have gone through coups where the military was used to usurp the sitting government. Argentina is particularly known for that sort of thing, having a history of successful and failed coups.
 
Rush is right in as far as this was definitely a silent coup, an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections, but that was not going to be successful without the support of the military. And that in itself was going to be insanely difficult even without destroying Flynn. The U.S. has never had an actual military coup. There is no precedent for it and it was unlikely the military would’ve just gotten on Mueller’s side even without destroying Flynn. But him destroying Flynn made it certain that Mueller was not going to be successful in destroying Trump.
 
Granted, can’t really blame the dirty cop here. He was not given a specific crime to investigate, but rather a person. I don’t doubt he fully expected to find SOMETHING that Trump did that can at least be somewhat considered to be illegal. And while he found things that people connected to him were illegal, Trump was pretty squeaky clean.
 
At best, Mueller got allegations of having an affair with a pornstar. Immoral, if true (which I doubt), but not exactly illegal.
 
This was indeed a silent coup against Trump, but one cannot overstate the magnificent failure that it was. At no point did Mueller actually get even close to beating Trump. Matter of fact, as time went on, his chances were diminishing. AG Barr telling him to wrap things up certainly did him no favors.
 
But anyway, it’s interviews like these that showcase how intelligent Rush Limbaugh is (apart from his show, of course). Kudos to Rush for speaking the truth and backing it up with facts.
 
And also thank the Lord that He protects Trump every single day. Let us continue praying to Him for his safety in every aspect conceivable.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication 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.

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.

While I 100% knew that the Russian collusion narrative was not going to die even after Mueller cleared Trump of that accusation in his report, I’ll admit I thought the Left would not be THIS desperate to keep the narrative alive so soon.
 
The New York Times (at least in their online article) had a headline that read: “Washington’s Most Popular Russian (and His Teammates) Honored at White House.”
 
Now, that headline on its own is a bit ambiguous. It’s not an outright lie, but it’s fairly misleading, though there are clues in it that should tell you (at least if you’re a sane person) that Trump was actually meeting with the Stanley Cup champions the Washington Capitals, led by Alex Ovechkin, the team’s star player and Russian native.
 
But there is more to this than just what the headline tells you. In the beginning paragraph, the NYT mentions the recently wrapped up Russian investigation: “A day after President Trump reveled in the apparent fizzling of a two-year effort to prosecute him for possible illicit coordination with Russia during the 2016 campaign, Washington’s most prominent Moscow native arrived at the White House on Monday to celebrate.”
 
Now, tell me, is it at all necessary to mention the Russian investigation in an article about the President meeting with a championship-winning sports team? What does it add to the story’s main point – that Trump met with the Washington Capitals in the White House, and meeting with the team’s star player who just so happens to be from Russia – to make mention of the fact that Trump was under investigation for two years for supposed collusion with Russia?
 
By the way, I also love the subtle hint that they don’t think this is over. Saying “apparent fizzling” tells me how they 100% do not plan on this being settled just because Mueller couldn’t find anything. Poor desperate demons.
 
And it’s not just that beginning paragraph. According to the Daily Wire (the NYT has a subscription wall and I have no intention of giving them any of my money), later down the NYT article, they talk about a “2017 Oval Office meeting between Trump, the Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, and then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey I. Kislyak. Naturally, the Times took the opportunity to claim the conversation between these men ‘reinforced the belief that Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey because of the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between Russian operatives and the campaign – a move that would have potentially implicated him in another crime, obstruction of justice.’”
 
Again, in an article talking about the President meeting with the Washington Capitals months after they won the Stanley Cup, the most coveted prize in the NHL, what does it add to the story to mention this random meeting from ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO!?
 
You see, I could take that headline and beginning paragraph as a little joke about how Trump is meeting with a Russian the day after the Mueller investigation wrapped up. I have a sense of humor, so I can see the fun little irony of meeting with a Russian-born man the day after the Russian collusion investigation wrapped up, clearing him of the charges. But the fact that the article also mentions the Oval Office meeting with those two Russian diplomats from 2017 tells me the writer of this article did not mean any of this as a joke.
 
It tells me this is still an effort to maintain the Russian collusion narrative and even try and bring along the obstruction of justice narrative (which is as b.s. as the collusion narrative, given Trump has the legal power to fire the head of the FBI for any given reason or no reason at all). It tells me that none of this is funny and Trump meeting with Ovechkin (and his teammates) is another piece of evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. That somehow, a hockey player who led his team to winning the Stanley Cup and happens to be Russian (though he’s also a fan of Putin, for some reason, but that hardly implicates him as being an operative) plays some small part of the overall conspiracy to steal the election away from Hillary (and by extension, the Democrats, given that they could not give a single damn about her now) and thus shows that Trump is guilty of everything he’s been accused of.
 
It’s sad, to be quite honest. The Mueller report just cleared Trump of the very charges it was supposed to prosecute him on, so the Left is grasping at straws. Like I mentioned in my previous article, the Left has turned on Mueller, with some thinking he might’ve been compromised by the Russians or something.
 
This narrative was the only explanation the Left had for Trump winning in 2016, with the obstruction of justice charge coming a bit later, but also leading nowhere.
 
This is downright derangement. And not just Trump Derangement Syndrome, but outright derangement. They refuse to believe Trump didn’t collude with Russia. These people do not rely on facts or logic at all, but entirely on feelings.
 
They want Trump in jail because he ticks them off to no end. He didn’t commit any crimes, was elected fairly and legally, but he is an affront to them just by existing and must be rid of. That’s why people like Rep. Al Green (D-TX) (seriously, Texas, what are you doing electing this doofus?) repeatedly tried to bring up articles of impeachment throughout Trump’s presidency. He had no grounds for impeachment, only claiming things like obstruction of justice and so forth, but nothing substantial. And yet, he tried multiple times to have it be brought up for a vote on the House floor and was repeatedly rejected. Matter of fact, even after the Mueller investigation wrapped up, he keeps saying that he will continue to seek impeachment of the President.
 
That’s because impeachment is not about justice, but politics. The grounds for it have to be justified, for the most part, but if there is enough support for it, justice doesn’t matter. If enough Democrats and Republicans wanted Trump out, they could do it with the most b.s. reasons imaginable.
 
The Russian collusion narrative should be dead, and some Democrats like James Clyburn are trying to get them to move on (particularly to the narrative that Republicans want to take away people’s healthcare), but I’m certain these people will not move on. They will keep going back to the well that has dried up. They don’t care if nothing comes from it, they are desperate enough and deranged enough to think it will hurt Trump.
 
It won’t. And the more desperate they get, the less appealing they will be to most voters.
 
Of course, I imagine a fair majority of the Democrat base also believed in the collusion story and will likewise not want to let it go because it does not compute that Mueller found no evidence. After all, if the average Democrat voter only receives information from the MSM, time and time again, people like Rep. Adam Schiff told them they themselves had evidence of collusion, so Mueller must also have evidence of collusion. Finding that Mueller did not, actually, have anything goes against the garbage the media was feeding them and these people might come to the conclusion that something was amiss regarding Mueller. That he must’ve somehow been compromised or something else that might explain this new reality.
 
But I don’t think the majority of people are that nutty. Being cleared by Mueller is a massive win for Trump that could very well help him out in the future.
 
But again, I doubt this will do anything to change any on the Left’s minds. Some might be more willing to cut their losses and move on, but most I imagine will go even more insane than they already were. Before, while they still accused Trump of all of these things without any evidence, they at least had the Mueller investigation going on to fall back on, hoping it will find something. Now, they will try to claim things without evidence and without even the support of the Mueller investigation. In fact, the report directly contradicts what they would have to say, so that puts them in an even worse position.
 
But this is just how desperate they are. Again, I could’ve taken that headline and opening paragraph as a little joke, but these people have no sense of humor and did not intend those things to be a joke. They think Trump meeting with any Russian at all is tantamount to him meeting with Putin and drinking vodka in celebration of getting away with something malicious.
 
The desperation is real and it’s just beginning.
 
 Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
 
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.

After two years, 200 interviews and millions of dollars wasted on a witch hunt of an investigation into a fictional theory by salty Leftists who refused to accept the result of the 2016 presidential elections, the Senate Intelligence Committee is set to finally conclude its investigation into the 2016 election, Russian collusion and Donald Trump, having “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee,” reports NBC News.
 
In an interview with CBS News last week, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said: “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”
 
“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to. What I’m telling you is that I’m going to present, as best we can, the facts to you and to the American people. And you’ll have to draw your own conclusions as to whether you think that, by whatever definition, that’s collusion,” Burr added.
 
Most likely, what they will present as being the facts is that Trump Jr. met with that Russian lawyer in the hopes of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton but wound up with nothing because there was never any intention by the Russian lawyer to give Jr. anything and the fact that Trump “urged” Russia to retrieve Hillary’s 30k+ deleted e-mails during a rally (and the Left still can’t take a joke).
 
NBC reports that Democrats on the committee believe that Trump associates were “willing to accept help from a foreign adversary” during the election, again referencing the Trump Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer.
 
So being willing to accept help from a foreign adversary is tantamount to a crime or at least seen as a bad thing to do? Good! Then, we really should be slapping some handcuffs on the people who worked on the Clinton campaign and the DNC, right?
 
Back in April of 2018, the House Intel Committee released a report that said pretty much the same thing the Senate is saying: there is no Trump-Russia collusion.
 
While Trump Jr. sought to gain dirt on Hillary with Natalia Veselnitskaya (the Russian lawyer), the Clinton campaign “paid for opposition research on Trump obtained from Russian sources, including a litany of claims by high-ranking current and former Russian government officials. Some of this opposition research was used to produce sixteen memos, which comprise what has become known as the Steele dossier.”
 
That was an excerpt from the House Intel Committee’s report.
 
So, NBC, if it’s simply bad enough that Trump sought opposition research on Hillary from a “foreign adversary” that he should face some sort of consequence, I presume Hillary Clinton and anyone involved with the DNC should also face dire consequences because not only did they try to get research, but actually had some (even if it’s fake) and actually used it as a basis for the Mueller investigation, right?
 
When is Hillary’s court date? Or Donna Brazille’s? Or Debby Wasserman-Schultz’s? Or Barack Obama’s? Or James Comey’s? Or James Clapper’s? Or John Brennan’s? I won’t ask about John McCain because he’s probably already serving his time.
 
Now, one Democrat aide, who chose to remain anonymous, told NBC News regarding this: “We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude.’” Clearly, this anonymous aide was less-than-thrilled about this outcome.
 
Well, considering the Democrats want to look into every business affair Trump’s ever had, and want to look into his tax returns, convinced they will see money somehow wired to or from the Kremlin during the 2016 election, I actually think they were expecting something like that to be somewhere around.
 
I mean, if they’re convinced there’s mountains of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, surely it should be as simple as Donny leaving Vladdy-boy a sticky-note on his desk in Moscow that they are going to collude to steal the election, right? Because Trump’s just that dumb and obvious, right?
 
The reason I say at the beginning of the title that they are telling me something I already knew (fun fact, that was also what I had to say when the House Intel Committee released their report back in April) is because I KNEW FULL WELL THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!
 
You don’t even have to be a lawyer or an investigator to figure this out. You just need to read the atmosphere within the Left and the media – that they want to get Trump if it’s the last thing they do – and understand the nature of how leaks work, particularly considering how the Steele dossier and Comey telling Trump about the dossier was leaked so easily by/to the media (because Comey gave it to them). If any investigation into Trump actually found anything relating to Trump and Russia, they would talk about it. How else do you think we got to learn about Veselnitskaya? Or just about anything else? Whatever can be found about Trump and Russia is sent out into the media as fast as it is learned (which is also why there are so many gaffes, like dates on e-mails being wrong). So if there was any conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, we would’ve heard about it immediately.
 
But after two years of looking into nothing, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation is finally wrapping up, with Mueller’s investigation also perhaps coming to a close in the near future, at least according to NBC News.
 
Personally, I don’t think Mueller will close it any time soon. The Left has/had high hopes for it and if it finds nothing of substance, Mueller could be getting the Seth Rich treatment. And I’m only half-joking about that.
 
In any case, despite the two-year-long witch hunt into Trump that will not likely fully end any time soon because Democrats are vindictive s.o.b.’s, Trump’s approval rating currently sits at a near all-time high of 52%, according to Rasmussen, with 55% being his all-time high, back just a little after Trump’s inauguration.
 
So even after two years of lies and deceit and hateful rhetoric from the media, his approval rating is only holding strong and growing.
 
If things keep going like this, Democrats will have the fight of their lives in 2020, especially if they continue down the road of the idiotic Green New Deal.
 
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.