VOTE & SUPPORT BICE – OK District 5


Help Stephanie Bice unseat Okie Dem Kendra Horn in the State’s 5th Congressional District. Bitly link to support Bice: http://bit.ly/2mSVYyP

 

VIDEO: Stephanie Bice End of Quarter Message

 

Posted by Bice for Congress

Sep 26, 2019

 

JRH 9/29/19

 

OKIES invited to participate in my telephone town hall on


To my fellow Okies,

 

Senator Lankford is holding a telephone townhall on Monday 9/16/19 7:00 pm CT. There was a Friday deadline to submit questions, sorry about not posting in time for that. But I believe if you click the link you can register (Okies ONLY) to receive the call on Monday. The Lankford email alert is below.

 

JRH 8/14/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

********************

[Okies] invited to participate in my telephone town hall on Monday, September 16, 2019, at 7:00 pm CT

Senator James Lankford

Email sent 9/12/2019 2:27 PM

Senator Lankford Homepage

 

At 7:00 pm CT on Monday, September 16, I will host a telephone town hall so I can provide an update on what I’m working on in DC and take your questions. We will call a randomly-selected group of Oklahomans across the state, but if you are particularly interested in participating, I wanted to provide a way for you to submit your phone number now.

 

To add your number to the list to be called for this telephone town hall on September 16, please CLICK HERE and submit your information before 3 pm CT, Friday, September 13.

 

On Monday night, the caller ID will display (918) 581-7651. Please add this to your contact list so you don’t miss the call. I look forward to connecting with you in the days ahead.

 

If you forward this email on or share a link on social media, please note we can only ensure that Oklahoma residents who provide a valid address have the opportunity to receive a call.

 

In God We Trust,

James Lankford
United States Senator for Oklahoma

__________________________

Stay Connected! 

 

If you would like more information on these topics or any other legislation currently before the US Senate, please do not hesitate to call my DC office at (202) 224-5754. My Oklahoma City office can be reached at (405) 231-4941 and my Tulsa office at (918) 581-7651. You can also follow me on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram for updates on my work in Congress.
     
Notice: If you wish to stop ALL electronic communications from my office, visit this link to opt out permanently from this list. If you have any questions about this Notice or your right to decline future electronic mail from this office, please contact us at United States Senate, 316 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510.

 

Washington, DC, Office
316 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5754

 

Oklahoma City Office
1015 North Broadway Avenue
Suite 310
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 231-4941

 

Tulsa Office
401 South Boston Avenue
Suite 2150
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: (918) 581-7651

 

Red Flag Laws and Tyranny


Justin Smith again tackle the potential tyranny that will evolve under Dem Party gun-grabbing Red Flag Laws. Some good background to this post is Justin’s article from 8/12/19 entitled, “The Rush Towards Tyranny”.

 

I completely agree with Justin in today’s political Left vs. Right climate. The Right stands for the traditional interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the implications behind the Declaration of Independence coupled with Christian concepts of Natural Law. The Left – regardless of any FAKE Constitution support – desires to toss the Constitution in favor of a Multiculturalist Socialist (really Marxist) society controlled by an elitist government that tells YOU what to believe and how to act.

 

The Dems are using the epidemic of mass shootings to realize their essentially totalitarian dream government tentacles in everything.

 

Conservatives had better find a Liberty protecting solution to mass shootings OR end up living in the Dem dream.

 

JRH 8/15/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***************************

Red Flag Laws and Tyranny

Americans Must Draw a Blood-Red Line in the Sand

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/14/2019 5:31 PM

 

Outrage and fear are being used by representatives and Senators to attempt to strip away God-Given Rights and rights supposedly safeguarded by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, and the 14th Amendment and due process, through Red Flag “laws”, and they are exploiting recent mass shootings and the shock of Americans to browbeat and coax them into relinquishing some of their liberty to achieve greater safety, liberty that will be lost forever. And if they succeed, firearm restriction tentacles will spread across this once free nation, choking it, and eventually enslaving America’s children on the land of their ancestors.

 

Once any government gains a certain power or suppresses a right, it is an uphill battle to ever reverse that situation, since today the government’s interest, with the House in Democrat hands, and Senate Republicans complicit, lies more in growing its power more so than in protecting American’s rights. They are certainly making good use out of this current “crisis” and the notion of “Ordo ab chao” — “order out of chaos”.

 

One should recall that the Constitution was written by our Founders to preserve individual God Given Rights and Liberty and to limit the government oversight of those rights and liberty. Enumerating our God Given Rights in the Bill of Rights makes it clear that our Founding Fathers were determined to keep the government from interfering with these rights that belong to each and every American today.

 

The mass shootings in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton were horrific and as terrible a thing as one never wishes to see happen again in America, but one is more likely to die accidentally falling from one’s front porch with a cup of coffee in their hand, than they are likely to be killed in a mass shooting.

 

In their rush for power and greater control over ‘We the People’, our so-called leaders simply ignore facts. Legal gun ownership had nothing to do with these murders. Our society’s descent into moral depravity and indifference to human life led to these horrific murders. None of the numerous laws across America that regulate firearms, in one manner or another, prevented these murders, but this is a point that Congress seems unwilling to acknowledge.

 

For anyone needing to place blame, there is blame enough to go around on many fronts. The most obvious is in the homes that failed to properly nurture, educate and guide these young men properly. Look no further than leftist policies that eroded the core of families in America, through nonsense like “it takes a village to raise a child” in their attempt to make children look to government as their most important benefactor and protector. Look at the efforts to erase God from the public square and the lives of everyday ordinary Americans, through federal government overreach and tyranny across most recent decades.

 

In the wake of the mass shootings, Ivanka Trump went to Instagram and posted a note, that called on Congress to “enact Red Flag Laws/Extreme Risk Protection Orders [ERPO] in every state, increase resources dedicated to mental health support nationwide and close background check loopholes.” She couldn’t have been more wrong than when she also referred to this action as “common sense reform”. [Blog Editor: The embedded links in the quote are added by the Editor.]

 

Regardless of the horror of what we see unfolding today, Ivanka Trump and people of similar intent are dead wrong, when they seek to impede and infringe on our Second Amendment, and rather than “common sense reform”, these proposals represent sheer ignorance and idiocy and an assault on our Second Amendment Rights. Rather than impede the God Given Right of every U.S. citizen to defend themselves with a firearm, Ivanka and her ilk should be working day and night to ensure that the Second Amendment, an inalienable right, remains inviolate and free from federal government overreach and tyrannical suppression.

 

Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is exhibiting the same exact ignorance and idiocy, and in a fervor of rare bipartisanship, McConnell and all the Democrats and many traitorous Republicans-In-Name-Only are all wound up and ready to be set loose, like puppets or mechanical dolls. McConnell recently stated, “But what we can’t do is fail to pass something. By just locking up, and failing to pass, that’s unacceptable”, marking a significant departure from his past position on firearm controls and legislation in the wake of the mass shootings.

 

NO! What is “unacceptable” is any more DAMNED infringement on Americans’ RIGHTS in a thinly veiled move to tighten the noose of federal control around the necks of law abiding Americans, while criminals go largely unchecked. Rather than pass one more law aimed at good and decent Americans that suppress their Second Amendment Right, leaders should be urging all the states to rescind any state law that illegitimately and unconstitutionally suppresses this right and ensure that any citizen can walk the streets of America with a firearm at their side, if they so wish to do so.

 

Americans don’t need more “Gun Free Zones”. They need to be left alone and allowed to “keep and bear arms” just as the Founders intended — in and outside their home and in public — and they need to be able to defend themselves and shoot back, if and when such a situation may arise. And then, not only would we see the Good Guys win more often, we would see many sad, tragic murders prevented.

 

Spouting BULLS**T that sounds exactly like some sort of strategic totalitarian philosophy, these politicians on both sides of the political aisle are poised to remove the only obstacle between United States citizens and globalism and the New World Order, since they and their predecessors have already greatly diminished the United States Constitution over the past seventy years or so.

 

McConnell, Schumer, Blumenthal, Pelosi and every God D**ned anti-American godless Commie self-made Son-of-a-Bitch running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination are now using the same bullshit and strategic totalitarianism that has been used for decades to create a generation or two of ill-informed, ignorant masses of people within the American culture, expand the federal and state government welfare programs and keep Americans in a perpetual psychotic state of discontent through Hollywood “elites” and the so-called “mainstream media” mental midgets. Americans have been persuaded to abandon their vigilance to the principles that made America exceptional from its inception.

 

The affirmation of rights derived from natural law, honesty, morality, self-reliance and equality of opportunity; in stark contrast and opposition to modern America’s identity politics, politically correct censorship and thought control, equality of outcomes, fiscal irresponsibility and unlimited government.

 

Is it any wonder that one would certainly look at these “leaders” new proposals with great suspicion? Now they once again demand the consent of the governed, the people’s consent, to willingly restrict our God Given and Constitutional Rights, on whose behalf. Doing so certainly doesn’t benefit me in any way, and it certainly will not make “The Children” any safer.

 

Take note that Benjamin Franklin stated: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

 

Unfortunately, President Trump seems to be on board and supporting Red Flag Laws, even if he has walked back his support for federally legislated Red Flag Laws and suggested these were laws the states needed to address. Whichever the case that is closest to Trump’s true intent, Red Flag laws would allow just one neighbor to lodge an unsubstantiated complaint, that someone “might do something”, or to “see something” and “say something” that would enable law enforcement to confiscate all of one’s firearms, without any legal hearing whatsoever. Not only does this violate the Second and Fourth Amendments, it cancels any presumption of innocence and negates due process of the law.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano is an expert on the U.S. Constitution, who has written nine books on the Constitution, and he phrased it succinctly and cogently:

 

” … Red Flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

 

In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do.

 

The government can no more interfere with the Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.

 

That’s why we have a Constitution.”

 

Criminals don’t obey laws. Citizens don’t require further restrictions. Emotions don’t trump Constitutional Rights. Gun Free Zones aren’t safe. Federal and state Red Flag Laws don’t save lives. And the federal government doesn’t grant us our rights.

 

The astounding proposed and existing Red Flag Laws are merely one more warning sign, a gurgling gasp, in America’s desperate fight to ward off tyranny, representing the “final straw”. Any defeat along these lines means no Constitution, no United States, since they essentially break the social contract and the implied consent of the governed will have been torn asunder, by its own leadership and their inability to facilitate and promote the necessary elements for liberty, such as self-reliance, responsibility and morality. So long as such laws remain on the books and suppress our rights, politicians and all Americans will be less safe, and ultimately, historians and many Americans may look back on this moment and rightly view it as a time that Americans should have drawn a blood-red line in the sand.

 

At the core of these laws one finds only tyranny.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Trump-Pelosi Budget and Fiscal Sabotage


I have to be honest. Working with the reality of numbers often hurts my brain. I’m not good at. Justin Smith seems to have a great grasp of number realities when it comes to deficit spending, the National Debt, Gross Domestic Product and the need of a Balanced Budget.

 

Justin is displeased with the results of the Trump Administration/Pelosi budget agreement and urges a Presidential veto. No matter how much the numbers are painful, the inevitable result will be catastrophic if this Federal accounting disparities continue.

 

However, the realities of America’s political divide demonstrated by near even splits of opposing ideologies in Congress means neither the Socialists nor the fiscal Conservatives will get what they want. Perhaps an idiotic budget compromise keeps the government operating rather than frozen. EVEN THOUGH it’s doom and gloom, if voters DO NOT opt soon for fiscal responsibility a national catastrophe will occur.

 

Trump’s hands are tied by political realities, if voters want a different outcome untie divisive politics – OR ELSE.

JRH 7/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Trump-Pelosi Budget and Fiscal Sabotage

A Coward’s Financial Agreement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/25/2019 7:06 PM

 

A coward’s financial agreement is the phrase that best describes the budget deal recently agreed upon by President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that just passed the House with a vote of 284 to 149 at 2:14 CST on July 25th, since it avoids any real battle over government spending by suspending the debt ceiling until July 2021. It raises spending caps and lifts the debt ceiling in the name of avoiding a fiscal crisis, but in reality and ignoring any lessons from 2008, this explodes U.S. debt in a way never seen in U.S. history, and it exhibits President Trump’s willingness to meekly surrender to another massive expansion of the federal budget, that creates a short term political “win” for the DC Establishment of both parties and a long term loss for the American people.

 

This deal received 65 Republican votes, and it spends $2.7 trillion over the next two years. It commits President Trump to signing spending bills that add $320 billion above spending limits set in a 2011 agreement that established automatic spending cuts. This Pelosi Dream Deal also says there will be absolutely no limit on how much new debt the federal government can accumulate between now and July 31rst 2021.

 

The Washington Post was absolutely correct, when it recently wrote that the budget and debt deal would not contain actual spending cuts, since the $150 billion in new spending cuts demanded by White House budget director Russell Vought soon materialized as only [about] 70 billion in actual cuts, that don’t go in effect for ten years and are likely to be reversed by Congress at a later date. This marks a retreat for the White House.

 

Reported by the Wall Street Journal, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, stated on July 22nd: “This deal would amount to nothing short of fiscal sabotage.” [Blog Editor: I found quote at USA Today]

 

And yet, rather than debate the most serious issue of the day and seek real solutions, the cowards of both parties hid behind “bipartisanship”, in an erroneous, corrupt and wrong-minded fashion, and cooperated to serve their own personal political interests, as DC’s supposed “elite” elected class.

 

Our current National Debt Ratio to the Gross Domestic Product has averaged right at 100 percent, between 2010 and the present. This is even higher than the 94 percent [average] the nation saw between 1944 and 1950.

 

Incredibly, the federal government spent $3,355,970,000,000, in the first nine months of this fiscal year, while running a $747,115,000,000 deficit. President Trump’s Treasury is currently issuing U.S. dollars faster than it did in fiscal 2009 — even when adjusted for inflation — when President Bush signed the bailout legislation for failing banks and President Obama signed a Stimulus bill focused on ending our economic recession.

 

Noted by The Hill, grave concerns on the economy were expressed by the Congressional Budget Office on July 23rd [Blog Editor: I could not confirm a 7/23/19 date, the links in thos paragraph relate to a 6/25/19 date], and the CBO wrote in its budget projection that U.S debt is on track to increase from 78 percent of the GDP to an “unsustainable” level of 144 percent of the GDP over the next thirty years, even if spending caps aren’t lifted and taxes are raised. Now, with the passage of this bill, we are on track to see the debt rise to 219 percent of the GDP, unless President Trump can be persuaded to send the bill back with a demand that more actual spending cuts must be made.

 

Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) was upset with President Trump for negotiating through Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, rather than Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Roy exclaimed, “The president should be listening to (White House Chief of Staff) Mick Mulvaney and Russ Vought, and he should not be listening to Steven Mnuchin, period.” Roy added that “Senate Republicans will never find a corner where they can go and hide”, implying that Senate Republicans are untrustworthy regarding fiscal responsibility.

 

Once consumed by fiscal worries, this coward’s agreement is one more sign that makes it more than clear, both houses of Congress and both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have become Big Spenders, and Congress is no longer concerned about the extent of the budget deficits or the debt they add. The DC Establishment no longer cares, even as our national debt hits one trillion annually and rapidly approaches $23 trillion.

 

According to the Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently stated: “Nobody has lost an election by spending too much money”, in regard to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s effort to pay for the spending deal.

 

After the last massive spending deal, President Trump vowed never to sign another one. And yet, here he is again, at the ready and far too willing. He just keeps confirming to the American people that he really is a Big Government Guy and a Big Spender.

 

Today, America barely hears any objections over the exorbitant debt. When Trump campaigned in 2016, he bragged about his ability to prosper from his own debt. He told CNN, on May 4th 2016: “I’m the king of debt. I love debt.” … adding the next day … “if the economy crashed, you could make a deal … if the economy was good, it was good … you can’t lose.”

 

But that’s not just the reality of matters for most Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, and it is just not smart for anyone or any nation to accumulate debt; at some point another bubble will burst in our economy, since Wall Street hasn’t stopped any of the bad business practices that caused the 2008 crisis. And, an economic collapse of 2008 magnitude will pale in comparison to the coming economic catastrophe that deals such as this one are sure to create. Most of our national debt has been monetized, and any bailout for the American people will be virtually non-existent.

 

Niall Ferguson, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, has warned that empires fall when interest on their debt equals what they spend on defense. According to the Office of Management and Budget, this will happen around 2024. If interest rates increase, it could arrive much sooner.

 

Unfortunately, America is currently a nation focused on instant gratification, selfishness and greed, and seems oblivious to the dangerous path it is on. Whether or not the nation can afford all the current government benefits, plus the desired additional costs of free university educations and free healthcare for all, and even though our credit card is maxed out, Americans seem intent on voting for politicians who promise to borrow money to give them what they want.

 

Everyone would do well to recall that in Psalm 37:21 it says, “The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.”

 

Noting that Congress’s out-of-control spending “is ripping off the American family”, former Congressman Dave Brat recently delivered the following observation to Tony Perkins at Washington Watch, as he looked across the Atlantic: “There’s evidence you can be pathetic for a long time. And the evidence is called Europe. … eventually … debt will impinge on your economic growth rate as it has been. And what’s really missed in the point is it’s intergenerational theft. And I mean that quite literally. We are stealing from our kids and the next generation to the extent that our deficit is $1 trillion. We’re spending $1 trillion and getting the goods from it right now — and the kids are going to have to pay for [everything] we’re consuming. And so it is literally theft. So they’re going to have to work hard, pay their taxes, get tax increases, pay off the debt, and pay all their own personal bills for our runaway spending binge.”

 

America has embraced reckless spending and She doesn’t even pretend to repay what She owes. She incurs more debt daily at an unprecedented rate and most of Her current leaders do not acknowledge that this is even a problem. And so, if our leaders have one shred of human decency and honesty, of a personal or intellectual kind, rather than pander for votes, their bipartisan action should warrant a majority of both parties to end this deal and move forward on a deal that truly cuts all unnecessary spending, or President Trump must reconsider this deal and veto it, rather than continue on a path that watches our deficit soar and attacks our nation’s solvency and the future prosperity of America.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done


John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

 

I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically – agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors. Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016 Election.

 

The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.

 

The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:

 

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.

  • § 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

 

  • Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

 

  • The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

 

  1. any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

 

  1. any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

 

  • any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

 

  • If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

 

  • Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

Once Mueller determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016 election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.

 

It is evident Mueller chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring Crooked Hillary’s election as President.

 

Instead Mueller utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J. Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.

 

Now below are some observations from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite humorous The United West parody of the same interchange.

 

Then after the video fun, read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.

 

JRH 7/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

VIDEO: WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony

 

Posted by PBS NewsHour

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions. Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already documented in his final report.

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: TUW Exclusive: Robert Mueller Testimony with Congressman Jim Jordan

 

Posted by theunitedwest

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Humorous post please!

 

Could this be the real Judiciary Committee testimony???? Sure looks like this was pretty darn close to what actually happened!

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++++

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

By Fred Lucas

July 24, 2019

The Daily Signal

 

Mueller Testifying to House Committee 7/24/19

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.

 

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released in May to the public.

 

But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”

 

He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.

 

Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.

 

But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

 

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”

 

“True,” Mueller said.

 

Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.

 

Here are eight key takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.

 

  1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

 

With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

 

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI  director, when the Department of Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.

 

“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”

 

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

 

“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”

 

Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

 

Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.

 

“You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:

 

The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.

 

It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.

 

Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

 

“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.

 

“You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

 

“Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the hearing, quoting Trump.

 

“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”

 

Regarding obstruction, ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”

 

Mueller responded: “No.”

 

Later, to drive the point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked: “Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”

 

Mueller began by saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”

 

Later that afternoon during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked about exoneration.

 

Mueller initially said, “I’m going to pass on that.”

 

When pressed on the question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”

 

Turner noted that the headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.

 

“You have no more power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.

 

  1. Indicting a President

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.”

 

Other Democrats said much the same during the day.

 

At first, during the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee,  it appeared that Mueller was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.

 

That impression was left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset of the Intelligence hearing.

 

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.

 

Barr has stated on multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.

 

During the Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Buck: “You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he wasn’t indicted.

 

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”

 

Mueller: “That is correct.”

 

It wasn’t clear whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.

 

Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

 

  1. ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’

 

The first part of the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

“Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,” Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?”

 

Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”

 

Collins then referred to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are “largely synonymous.”

 

“Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?” Collins asked.

 

“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.

 

“So, you would change your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.

 

“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.

 

“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This is from your report.”

 

Mueller: “Correct. And I leave it with the report.”

 

During the Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about evidence of collusion with Russia.

 

Mueller, criticized on social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had some trouble answering.

 

“We don’t use the word collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used,” he said haltingly.

 

Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”

 

Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”

 

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.

 

  1. Allusions to Impeachment 

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his opening remarks.

 

“We will follow your example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

 

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.

 

“We have studiously kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”

 

Mueller, given many openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law. Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for impeachment.

 

Later, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?”

 

Nadler responded: “That is not a fair point of inquiry.

 

  1. On When He Put Conspiracy to Rest 

 

Mueller asserted early on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

 

“It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,” Mueller said.

 

“These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring to the contested origins of the investigation.

 

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.

 

Many Republicans argue that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House.

 

“As you understand, when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.”

 

“We were ongoing for two years.”

 

Biggs pressed: “That’s my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike, you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”

 

Mueller finally said: “I can’t say when.”

 

The former special counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign paid for that work.

 

Although President Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.

 

  1. What Else He Didn’t Answer

 

Mueller declined multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

 

Mueller also declined to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson.  During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer whether he even read the Steele dossier.

 

Mueller repeatedly answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”

 

Among Democrats’ questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an “infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.

 

He also declined to speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential election.

 

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.

 

Mueller responded:  “They have a different case.”

 

Swalwell seemed a bit surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.

 

Mueller again responded: “They have a different case.”

 

  1. Defending Alleged Conflicts

 

Mueller responded to questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.

 

“I’ve been in the business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”

 

Trump has said several times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who wanted the job back.

 

Mueller testified that he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?”

 

Mueller said he was only advising Trump.

 

“My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job,” Mueller said.

 

He also defended Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.

 

“Let me say that Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,” Mueller said.

 

  1. Trump’s Responsibility and ‘New Normal’

 

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his response.

 

WikiLeaks is an online operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government information

After hesitating, Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

 

The Mueller report said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to benefit from it.

 

Welch, the Vermont Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.

 

“If we establish the new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller interrupted.

 

“I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.

 

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. 

 

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.

+++++++++++++++++++++

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose attitude is never having to say you’re sorry

 

By ANN COULTER

July 24, 2019

WND

 

It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)

 

If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.

 

Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:

 

  • Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 

  • Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.

 

  • Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

 

  • Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.

 

  • Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.

 

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

 

The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”

 

Obviously, no one believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.

 

In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”

 

No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.

 

An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.

 

But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

 

As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.

 

After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.

 

Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.

 

During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”

 

The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.

 

Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”

 

Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.

 

Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.

 

Months later – too late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.

 

Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t – which is worse.

 

In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”

 

[Blog Editor: Help keep WND an independent Internet source BY DONATING.]

__________________

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done

John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

___________________

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

The Daily Signal HOMEPAGE

_______________________

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

Poll: Justin Amash Trails Primary Challenger by Double Digits After Impeachment Call


RINOs beware! Primaries are coming AND your voters know who you are.

 

JRH 6/13/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Poll: Justin Amash Trails Primary Challenger by Double Digits After Impeachment Call

 

Justin Amash

 

By Joshua Caplan

June 12, 2019

BREITBART

 

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the first Republican on Capitol Hill to call for impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, trails primary challenger State Rep. Jim Lower by a sizeable margin, according to a poll released Tuesday.

 

A Practical Political Consulting/MIRS poll shows Amash (33 percent) behind Lower (49 percent) by 16 percent. The poll was conducted between June 5th-9th and served 360 likely Republican voters. Amash’s other primary challenger, Army National Guardsman Tim Norton, was not included in the poll.

 

 

The poll comes amid a Politico report stating President Trump has discussed the possibility of backing an Amash primary challenger with Vice President Mike Pence, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), and Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. However, no firm decision has been made on the matter.

 

The Michigan Republican shocked the Beltway when he accused President Trump of committing “impeachable” offenses stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report and claimed Attorney General William Barr misrepresented the special counsel’s key findings. Team Mueller found no criminal conspiracy occurred between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, and shortly after, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that the president did not commit obstruction of justice during the sweeping investigation.

 

President Trump and top Republicans blasted Amash over his remarks, accusing him of being an attention-seeker with an unimpressive legislative track record to show for his four terms in Congress. “Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy,” the president tweeted last month. “If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, ‘composed’ by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump, he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION.”

 

“Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents [sic] hands!” he concluded.

 

On Monday evening, Amash resigned from the House Freedom Caucus, the conservative congressional group he helped start in 2015, after 30 of his now-former peers voted to condemn his remarks on impeachment.

 

“I have the highest regard for them and they’re my close friends,” he told CNN of the decision to leave. “I didn’t want to be a further distraction for the group.”

____________________

Copyright © 2019 Breitbart

 

The Sad Truth


Super PACs.

This informative article provides a good reason to contribute directly to your candidate of choice rather than a Political Action Committee (PAC). For that matter I stopped donating money to the National Republican Party because of the influence of Establishment RINOs who consistently vote with Dems. In 2020 I’ll be giving my money directly to a Conservative candidate, especially if a RINO needs defeated in a Primary. Indeed, RINOs are the reason I’m a registered Independent rather than a Republican.

 

JRH 6/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*****************

The Sad Truth: Political Hucksters Harm the Conservative Movement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  6/9/2019 4:02 AM

 

All of Conservative America would not be surprised to hear that money given to the Democratic Party, a largely immoral and criminal party, and its political action committees (PACs) is misspent and goes into the pockets of the organizers more so than it gets to any candidate, but they expect much more from the Republican Party which claims to represent the “Moral Majority”. The sad truth is that conservatives are being defrauded and scammed by PAC operators and fundraisers on or near every election cycle and during every major unfolding political crisis. And a lot of self-proclaimed watchdogs sound one false alarm after another rather than expose the efforts of former allies of President Trump to line their own pockets, diverting funds away from endeavors that would actually facilitate President Trump’s agenda, a major problem that is also experienced in many other Republican campaigns.

 

Each new election and each new political cause finds Americans inundated by repetitive pleas for money that can and often do quickly change focus to the scandal of the day, whether it is pertaining to illegal immigration, Obamacare, Hillary Clinton escaping justice or Benghazi and Islamic terrorism. Old PACs associated with dormant issues or newly neutralized politicians are shifted to newly perceived money making issues.

 

These groups run all sorts of polls and studies, and they know where the profit is to be found among conservative base voters who are searching for outsider candidates, and their scams eventually take their toll. Conservatives think they are giving to a greater cause than themselves, but when results are short due to the lion’s share of the money being siphoned off by so-called “consultants”, everybody soon gets burned out and quits donating money, even to the legitimate causes.

 

Just prior to the 2018 elections, the Tea Party Majority Fund raised $1.67 million and donated $35,000 to candidates. During this same period, Conservative Majority Fund raised $1 million and donated $7500, while Conservative Strike Force raised $258,376 and donated nothing to any candidate.

 

Put Vets First raised approximately $4 million, in 2018, and only gave $9000 to candidates.

 

In 2014, out of $43 million raised by thirty-three separate political action committees, supposedly affiliated with the Tea Party, only $3 million was spent on ads and candidates facing tough campaigns often highlighted in the appeals. The rest went to operating expenses, including $6 million to companies owned or managed by the operators of the PACs, according to a study by Politico.

 

Also in 2014, the Black Republican PAC raised $700,000, and it only spent one percent of those contributions on candidates and ads supporting them, according to government filings.

 

It’s also worth noting that the 2015 National Draft Ben Carson for President PAC raised thirteen million dollars, none of which went to Mr. Carson. Armstrong Williams, business manager for Carson, said: “People giving money think it’s going to Dr. Carson and it’s not … Our hands are tied. We don’t want people exploited.”

 

In 2016, Roger Stone’s Committee to Restore America’s Greatness raised $587,000 and only spent $16,000 for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

 

Great America PAC raised nearly $29 million from small donations, in 2016, and donated $30,125 to candidates running for federal office. In 2018, donations totaled $8.3 million with almost $32,000 going to candidates.

 

Some PACs also make large payments to vendors they own or are run by people who work for them, as an unscrupulous means to hide how much the PAC consultants are making, which is exactly what the Senate Conservatives Fund and American Crossroads were caught doing one year. Such payments don’t have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission, so nobody really knows where the money goes, and all of this should set off red flags for donors, as it represents a huge conflict of interest and facilitates fine and decent Americans being separated from their hard earned dollars through the perpetration of a fraud.

 

Even worse, most of these PACs prosper off of outright, blatant lies they tell conservatives. Milwaukee’s Sheriff David Clarke didn’t want to run for the Senate in Wisconsin, and Laura Ingraham, Fox News host, wasn’t interested in running for the Senate in Virginia. The PACs play the hero for conservative values and freedom against the many real threats of today, and some they invent, when they’re actually nothing more than coastal political operatives keeping most of the money for themselves.

 

All of this has severely hurt the Conservative Movement in America, by possibly being a large factor in the GOP’s loss of control of the U.S. House of Representatives. This loss has severely damaged President Trump’s policy agenda and has him wasting too much valuable time on defense.

 

Imagine how different results might have been in 2018, if only $10 million of the roughly $177 million raised by PACs had been spent on real campaigns in the twenty House districts that Republicans lost by five percentage points or less. The extra $500,000 per campaign might just have made the difference in Mia Love’s district in Utah, where she would have won, if she had only received 625 more votes.

 

In Maine’s 2nd District, Bruce Poliquin needed about 3500 more votes. Karen Handel, running in Georgia’s 6th, needed 8000 more votes; and, in California’s 21st District, David Valadao lost by a mere 900 votes. [Ibid.]

 

Day after day, year after year, little old ladies are called and emailed with dire news and warnings that America’s future is at stake if a certain amount of money isn’t raised in a specific time frame — that the nation is doomed — and so, these little old ladies donate money that many of them really can’t afford, because they love America and believe they’re making the world better. Unfortunately all they are doing is making these telemarketers wealthier. And in the meantime, conservative candidates are losing elections, biting the dust, convinced that if they had just had another few hundred thousand dollars, they might have been victorious.

 

Any Trump supporter or conservative should be livid.

 

Going into the 2020 election season, Conservatives must do their dead level best to make contributions directly to the candidate’s campaign office, or better yet the candidate himself. Stop handing your hard earned money over to the political hucksters seeking to cash in on the angst of conservative voters and end this terrible blight on the Conservative Movement, ridding it of those self-interested confidence men acting at cross purposes to America’s best interests.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links provide by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith