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

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

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

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

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

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!

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!

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!

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!

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

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

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