Every time I hear a Democrat politician refer to America’s rule-of-law I get a bit nauseous. They coddle violent demonstrators, say women accusers should be believed without proof, encourage … yes, encourage … illegal entry into the United States and generally ignore laws they do not like.
The latest manifestation of left-wing lawlessness is the response of many Democrat leaders and their media allies to the rounding up and deporting thousands of people in America illegally. A number of Democrat mayors – who hypocritically preside over institutional racism in their cities – are protecting criminals from the long arm of justice.
The latest mayor to defy both law and logic is Chicago’s new chief executive officer, Mayor Lori Lightfoot. In response to the increased enforcement of our immigration laws by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Lightfoot issues this statement.
“We are all aware of the threat from President Trump regarding raids by ICE, and in response, Chicago has taken concrete steps to support our immigrant communities. I have directed – and Superintendent Johnson has confirmed – that CPD has terminated ICE’s access to CPD’s databases related to federal immigration enforcement activities. I have also personally spoken with ICE leadership in Chicago and voiced my strong objection to any such raids. Further, I reiterated that CPD will not cooperate with or facilitate any ICE enforcement actions. Chicago will always be a welcoming city and a champion for the rights of our immigrant and refugee communities, and I encourage any resident in need of legal aid to contact the National Immigrant Justice Center.”
This is nothing short of defiance of the law of the land … the rule-of-law. This is what autocrats do to maintain power – develop an extra-legal constituency. And as a born and bred Chicagoan, I can assure you that it is a one-party autocratic system
What is particularly obnoxious and offensive about Lightfoot’s action – and the actions of all those other anti-law Democrat mayors – is that ICE is NOT … repeat NOT … undertaking a general sweep of those in America illegally. They are rounding up individuals who have gone through the legal system … who have had their day in court … and have been ORDERED by the courts to be deported.
These are people who have been determined to be unqualified for asylum – and a very large percentage have criminal issues. It you follow Lightfoot’s logic, no illegal alien – no matter of the criminal history or malicious intent – should ever be deported.
In an effort to build public sympathy, critics of the ICE efforts say these are also families. No doubt. But the real question is whether these families have one or more parents who are criminals. That could even apply to the so-called children since they refer to anyone under 18 as a “child” – again to give a false impression.
The left-wing media is complicit in this fraud on the public by echoing the false narratives with their false impressions. They rarely note that the people being sought have been judged and ordered to be deported. They play up the “family” reference without reporting why these folks have been found by our legal system to be unworthy of remaining in America.
Democrats say that some of these parents have children who are American citizens by virtue of birthright citizenship because they were born in the United States. While that may be true, it does not mean we should not follow the court order to deport.
Parents in that situation can take the kid with them or leave the child with legal relatives. Yes, it is a heart-rendering decision, but child separation is rather common when we send folks to jail. Having a child does not absolve a person for obeying the law.
Lightfoot’s states that her action is to protect Chicago’s “immigrant communities.” Sorry Mayor. The folks ordered out of our country are not “immigrants.” The are here illegally … period. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants – and that means, or should mean, legal immigrants. Just because Lightfoot calls them immigrants does not make them such.
It has always struck me strange that Democrats seem to be playing up to minority Americans or legal immigrants from Hispanic countries. As a person who has spent a fair amount of time in the Hispanic communities, I have found that the good people in those neighborhoods are not very fond of gangbangers and drug dealers who bring crime and violence to their doorstep – even if the criminals are of the same ethnic background. That is like saying our Italian communities love the Mafia or our Asian communities welcome Triad.
If you follow Lightfoot’s apparent thinking to its logical end, perhaps she should insulate the Latin Kings and MS13 because they might have families from which they would be separated if you toss them in the hoosegow. Oh! The Mayor is potentially insulating MS13 gangsters from law enforcement.
With this kind of selective law enforcement – or more correctly “non-enforcement” – it is no wonder that Chicago crime rates are so high, especially in the minority communities that Lightfoot claims to be protecting.
I am all for immigration reform that would normalize the presence of millions of people currently in America illegally – but we need both a legal and vetting system to accomplish that. My generosity of spirit does NOT apply to criminals and those the courts have ordered OUT. Sensible immigration reform is something congressional Democrats seem to be resisting like an invitation to spend two weeks in a motel in the Dominican Republic.
So, there ‘tis.
President Donald J. Trump launched his re-election campaign on Tuesday June 18, and to use one the president’s favorite words it was “HUGE” on many levels!
Not only did he launch his 2020 campaign Tuesday night in Orlando Florida to roaring standing room only crowds, reminiscent of his first bid to take the White House, immediately following the kickoff, the President raised a whopping 25 million dollars in one day!
According to Fox News, that figure — raised within 24 hours of his Florida appearance – blows away what any of the Democratic candidates raised in the entire first quarter.
“@realDonaldTrump has raised a record breaking $24.8M in less than 24 hours for his re-election. The enthusiasm across the country for this President is unmatched and unlike anything we’ve ever seen! #trump2020 #KeepAmericaGreat,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted early Wednesday morning.
The president tweeted, “THANK YOU!” in response.
Trump Raised “$1 Million an Hour”
According to an RNC spokesman, the fundraising — at a clip of $1 million an hour — came through the Trump re-election campaign and joint-fundraising committees “Trump Victory” and “Trump MAGAC” (Make America Great Again Committee). A Trump campaign official told Fox News on Wednesday that the campaign raised more than $14 million, and that the joint-fundraising committees raised more than $10 million.
Minutes later, RNC Communications Director Michael Ahrens tweeted, “For those keeping score, that’s more than the 5 highest polling Democrats—combined.”
Ahrens was referring to the top five polling Democratic candidates’ fundraising during the 24 hours after they announced their presidential bids. Among them, former Vice President Joe Biden raked in $6.3 million and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., brought in $5.9 million, with the others raising significantly less than that.
But none of the candidates hit $20 million even in the first quarter.
Sanders brought in $18.2 million in the first 41 days of his campaign; Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., brought in $12 million during the first three months of this year; former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas raised $9.4 million; and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised $7.1 million.
Democratic presidential primary front-runner Biden, who announced after the first quarter, hinted this week at raising roughly $20 million so far, as he tours the fundraising circuit with a series of top-dollar events.
But the Trump campaign re-launch surpassed that in 24 hours, counting various fundraising committees, coinciding with his energetic rally in Orlando to a packed arena crowd.
However, despite the huge cheering crowds, and the amazing pace of the money raised, the Trump re-election campaign is going to need every dollar of the growing war chest. He faces a tough fight ahead.
The latest Fox News Poll shows Biden topping the president by 10 points and Sanders ahead of the president by 9 points.
But Trump’s campaign and the president himself have dismissed recent polling.
“Our country is soaring to incredible new heights,” Trump said Tuesday night, to loud applause. “Our economy is the envy of the world, perhaps the greatest economy we’ve had in the history of our country, and as long as you keep this team in place — we have a tremendous way to go — our future has never, ever looked brighter or sharper.”
President Trump, in an exclusive interview with “Fox & Friends,” said he will not fire adviser Kellyanne Conway in the wake of a government watchdog’s recommendation that she be removed over violations of the Hatch Act.
“I’m not ganna fire her. I think she’s a terrific person. She’s a tremendous spokesperson,” Trump said.
The Hatch Act limits certain political activities of federal employees. In an explosive report released on June 13, the day before the Fox interview the Office of Special Counsel (which is separate from the office with a similar name previously run by Robert Mueller) cited Conway for repeatedly violating the law with political statements about Democratic presidential candidates in media interviews and on Twitter.
Trump, though, said, “It looks to me like they’re trying to take away her right of free speech.” He even suggested he would not counsel Conway to tone it down.
“It doesn’t work that way,” Trump said, arguing that Conway was merely responding to political attacks against him. “A person wouldn’t be able to express themselves, and I just don’t see it.”
Trump noted that he will be getting a briefing on the findings.
Special Counsel’s Office Defends Its Findings on Conway
Special Counsel Henry Kerner, meanwhile, defended his office’s work in an interview with Fox News. Still, he was deferential to Trump, making clear the decision on whether to fire Conway is his, and his alone to make.
“We respect his decision and, of course, the president has any option he’d like—to reprimand or not to reprimand,” Kerner said. “It is up to the president’s discretion and we respect that.”
In the interview, Kerner said, “I am a Trump appointee—I have no animus toward Kellyanne whatsoever. My job is to make sure the federal workforce stay as depoliticized and as fair as possible.”
Julian Castro Wants Kellyanne Terminated
Meanwhile, former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary and current Democratic presidential candidate, Julian Castro, wants to hear those famous two words from Trump regarding Kellyanne – “You’re fired.”
Castro told Fox News that White House adviser Kellyanne Conway should be fired for violating the Hatch Act, which interestingly enough, is the same federal law that Castro himself was found to have violated in 2016.
In 2016, the same office that is now leveling its recommendations at Conway, “concluded that Secretary Castro violated the Hatch Act by advocating for and against Presidential candidates,” the OSC wrote in a letter to Obama. “Secretary Castro’s statements during [a televised] interview impermissibly mixed his personal political views with official agency business despite his efforts to clarify that some answers were being given in his personal capacity.”
Castro was responding to a question from Katie Couric in an interview that focused on HUD policy before pivoting to the then-upcoming 2016 presidential race.
“Now, taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually, it is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for president that we have this year,” Castro told Couric.
The Obama White House took no action, and OSC did not recommend Castro’s termination. Castro, pressed by Baier, argued that his case was different from Conway’s, primarily because his violation was an isolated episode and he tried to learn from it.
“Instead of saying, ‘Look, I’m going to take these efforts to make sure that doesn’t happen again,'” Castro said, “she said, ‘To hell with that, I’m going to keep doing it. They said she had repeatedly done that. That’s the difference.”
Trump stands by his support of Conway, insisting that she is merely exercising her right of free speech, and that in each of the incidents in the report, she did not give spontaneous political commentary, but was responding to specific questions from the press about his Democratic rivals. He said, what are you supposed to do [when asked about democratic candidates] say, “‘I can’t answer, I can’t answer’?”
President Trump was pressed by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on whether he sought the removal of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and why he didn’t answer questions from Mueller about obstruction.
At one point during the heated exchange, Trump accused Stephanopoulos of “being a little wise guy” with the line of questioning.
“Wait a minute. I did answer questions. I answered them in writing,” Trump said, after being asked by Stephanopoulos why he would not answer questions in person from Mueller’s investigators.
Stephanopoulos answered, “Not on obstruction.”
To which Trump quipped back, “George, you’re being a little wise guy, OK, which is, you know, typical for you,” Trump said.
“Just so you understand. Very simple. It’s very simple. There was no crime. There was no collusion. The big thing’s collusion. Now, there’s no collusion. That means they set, it was a setup, in my opinion, and I think it’s going to come out.”
McGahn’s Testimony Is Irrelevant
Earlier in the interview, Trump said it “doesn’t matter” that his former White House counsel Don McGahn told Mueller that Trump wanted Mueller removed over an alleged conflict of interest.
“The story on that very simply, No. 1, I was never going to fire Mueller. I never suggested firing Mueller,” Trump said, adding McGahn “may have been confused” when he testified to Mueller.
“I don’t care what he says, it doesn’t matter,” Trump said, prompting Stephanopoulos to ask why McGahn would “lie under oath.”
“Because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer,” Trump said, insisting he never said Mueller should be removed.
While both former VP Joe Biden and President Trump were in Iowa on campaign stops, the two do not mince words, hurling barbs at one another from a few miles away.
President Trump unleashed an arsenal of insults at Joe Biden on Tuesday, June 11, as the potential 2020 foes were in Iowa for a series of dueling political events, calling the former vice president “weak mentally” and claiming he hopes to run against him next year.
The President, as he departed the White House on Tuesday for the Hawkeye State, blasted Biden as a “loser” and a “dummy.” This came as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination went on a string of Iowa campaign visits where he repeatedly took swipes at Trump.
Speaking to reporters, the president dismissed Biden’s attacks.
“When a man has to mention my name 76 times in his speech, that means he’s in trouble,” Trump said. “I have to tell you, he’s a different guy. He looks different than he used to, he acts different than he used to–he’s even slower than he used to be.”
“Off the Trash Heap”
“Joe never got more than 1 percent except for when Obama took him off the trash heap,” Trump said, referring to the 2008 Democratic primary. “It looks like his friends from the left are going to overtake him pretty soon.”
Biden, though, is leading the Democratic primary field by double digits in recent national polls. Nevertheless, Trump said he hopes to run against Biden in the 2020 general election.
“I’d rather run against, I think, Biden than anybody,” Trump said. “I think he’s the weakest mentally and I like running against people who are weak mentally.”
Trump, who will be 73 on Friday, has repeatedly said he would “easily” beat Biden in 2020 and has poked fun at the former vice president’s age while giving the 76-year-old new nicknames including “Sleepy Joe” and “1 percent Joe.”
Trump’s comments came ahead of his and Biden’s visit to Iowa on Tuesday. Biden at his own event on Tuesday, criticized Trump’s record with farmers and American families.
“America’s farmers have been crushed by his tariff war with China. No one knows that better than Iowa,” Biden said. “He thinks he’s being tough. Well, it’s easy to be tough when someone else is feeling the pain.”
And Biden asked, “how many farmers across this state and across this nation have had to face the prospect of losing their business, of losing their farm because of Trump’s tariffs?”
The president directly responded to Biden’s attack on Tuesday at the White House, saying he is “the best thing that has ever happened to farmers.”
“Nobody has treated farmers better than Trump,” he said. “The farmers are my best friend.”
Trump went on to blast Biden, a former vice president and a former senator from Delaware for almost four decades, as “a dummy” over his past remarks about China not being a “competitor” for the United States.
“Joe Biden thought China was not a competitor. Biden is a dummy. Joe Biden thought China was not a competitor of ours,” Trump said, claiming that China “ate our country alive during Obama and Biden.”
It sounds like Trump is already running against Biden, and if these comments are any indication, should Biden get the nomination, it seems like it is going to be a nasty scrap between these two, one that might just end up “behind the woodshed,” as Biden once threatened!
While American sit on the edge of their seats wondering whether House Democrats will go forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump, most American’s say that they expect that Trump will win re-election in 2020, according to a poll released last week.
The CNN poll conducted by SSRS revealed that 54% of Americans – including those who disapprove of his performance as president – believed that Trump would likely win in next year’s 2020 election. Just 41% of those polled said that they expect him to lose. This most recent number represents a considerable shift from last December when 51% of people said they believed Trump would be defeated in 2020.
The shift comes mostly from individuals who disapprove of the president. Last week’s poll also revealed that 67% of those who disapprove of the president said they thought he would lose –down from 81% of individuals from the same cohort who were polled seven months ago.
Although the Democrat’s desire to defeat Trump in 2020 certainly isn’t lacking in its voracity, many younger Democrats have expressed that they’re concerned more about policy issues of the Democratic presidential candidate.
In an entirely different poll that was also released last week – this time by Public Policy Institute of California – 48% of Democrats and left-leaning voters in California stated that it’s more important to vote for candidate who’s likely to defeat Trump, whereas 42% said that choosing a candidate whose views closely match their own is most important.
Of the individuals polled who were between 18 and 44 years-old, 51% reported having a preference for candidates who holds similar views to their own, compared to 52%
Of those ages 18 to 44, 51% said they would prefer a candidate with similar views, compared to 52% of those 45 and over who said they prefer a candidate who has the best chance at defeating Trump.
While Democrats are starkly split along age lines and by policy preferences, it remains entirely unclear as to whether it will affect voter turnout in the general election. Currently, former Vice President Joe Biden remains at the front of the pack among Democratic presidential hopefuls. Biden, who’s clearly to the right of candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders, represents the Democratic party’s center-left, establishment wing.
Meanwhile – despite a growing economy – President Trump continues to garner low job performance ratings. According to the CNN/SSRS poll, those who disapprove of Trump cite his behavior as the reason why. The top reasons for disproval were lying at 13%, incompetence at 11%, and racism at 11%.
Freshman democratic congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been “schooled” by an FBI counterterrorism official after she suggested that white supremacists are getting a pass by the agency.
Earlier this week the controversial representative from New York, incorrectly suggested Muslims get charged with terrorism because they are treated as foreign, while white supremacists get “off the hook.”
AOC used a hearing on Tuesday to suggest that Muslims are being treated differently in the U.S., including getting charged with terrorism for criminal acts, while white supremacist attackers avoid being charged with “domestic terrorism” for similar crimes.
Michael McGarrity, the assistant director of the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI, set the record straight for the freshman Democrat, explaining that the authorities can’t charge people with a “domestic terrorism” charge simply because such a charge does not exist in U.S. laws.
“You’re using the word ‘charge,’ as I said before there’s no domestic terrorism charge like 18 USC § 2339 ABCD for a foreign terrorist organization,” McGarrity explained. “What we do both on the international terrorism side with the homegrown violent extremists and domestic terrorism, we’ll use any tool in the toolkit to arrest them,” McGarrity said.
There Is No Statute for “Domestic Terrorism”
“You’re not going to find an actual charge of domestic terrorism out there if you look at Title 18, McGarrity added after repeated questioning by the Democrat.
Ocasio-Cortez went on to point to the San Bernardino shooting or the Orlando pulse nightclub shooting as specific cases where the perpetrators were “charged as domestic terrorist incidents,” a claim that McGarrity clarified as incorrect.
“So, because the perpetrator was Muslim they’re — doesn’t it seem that because the perpetrator is Muslim that the designation would say it’s a foreign organization?” Ocasio-Cortez asked during the hearing.
According to ABC News, which detailed how Ocasio-Cortez conflated two different terms — in neither of the two cases she referred to were the perpetrators “charged” as “domestic terrorists” and were instead charged as “homegrown violent extremists,” a term given to criminals in the U.S. who draw inspiration from “foreign terrorist organizations” such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
By the same token, and under current law, white supremacist attackers could be charged as “homegrown violent extremists” as long as they are tied to a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the U.S. government, though no such case has ever been found.
No white supremacist attackers have been charged with “domestic terror” simply because such a term does not exist in US law. As a lawmaker, one would think a Congresswoman would know that. Where appropriate, such attackers have been charged with, and convicted of “hate crimes.”
As AOC again tried to say that the perpetrators in the Pulse and San Bernardino attacks, where branded “domestic terrorists” simply because they were Muslims, McGarrity again tried to correct her.
“No, that is not correct, that is not correct,” McGarrity responded, adding that the law doesn’t differentiate between religions while noting that the FBI would normally classify those radicalized by the global Jihad as foreign terrorists.
“Some of the definitions I think we’re using, we’re talking past each other,” McGarrity added.
Although being corrected by FBI officials several times, it seems that AOC still didn’t get it, and would not let go of her incorrect narrative, taking a victory lap on social media, saying “First the FBI witness tried to say I was wrong. I tried to be generous + give benefit of doubt, but then we checked. I wasn’t.”
“Violence by Muslims is routinely treated as ‘terrorism,’ White Supremacist violence isn’t. Neo-Nazis are getting off the hook,” she added.
However, she failed to cite the information she “checked” and how the FBI official was wrong during the hearing.
One of the main time and space fillers for the liberal media is the seemingly constant release and prejudicial analysis of polling numbers on President Trump. I suddenly realized that those updates have recently become conspicuous by their absence in the leading anti-Trump news(?) programs. It got me to thinking … and doing a little research.
Just as I suspected. Trump’s numbers have had a bit of an upswing in recent days.
According to the most recent Harvard-Harris Poll, Trump’s approval rating among registered voters has hit 48 percent – a two-year high. The recent Rasmussen Poll showed similar results. Contrary to what one might believe from news reporting, Trump gets a 50 percent approval rating among Hispanics in some of the polls. In terms of favorable versus unfavorable, Trump is on top. While there is a long way to November of 2020, these are the kinds of numbers that get incumbent presidents re-elected.
The fact that Trump’s numbers improve even as the Democrats and the anti-Trump news media are mounting increasing and unprecedented hostile attacks on a daily basis must be very disturbing to the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. It is reminiscent of the 2016 election, when the media allowed their biases and hatred to completely misreport the potential outcome of the election. Remember how they confidently stated and re-stated that Trump had “no path to the presidency?” And remember how they spent two-years reporting with certainty that Trump was guilty of criminally colluding with Russia? Well, they are doing it again.
The east coast bubble-encased news media has been proffering narratives of all sorts of criminality associated with Trump. It is the New York Southern District federal courts that are going to get him. Virtually every paid pundit on MSNBC has opined that Trump has committed all sorts of crime – and their proof is highly spun bits of information, outright disinformation and wishful thinking.
Even as the Democrats move closer and closer to impeachment and those panels of parroting pundits are clamoring for impeachment like political vigilantes, Trump’s numbers go up. There is a message in all that, but the Democrats and the press do not seem to be listening. Despite the failures in the past, they cling to the belief that their mendacious reporting will fool the American people.
It may just be that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the last Democrat with a grip on reality – and isn’t that a scary thought? She is talking tough to assuage her increasingly radical base, but she is not buying into impeachment. Maybe she read the polls and understand what they mean. It seems the more the radical left calls for impeachment, the more popular the President gets. We have seen this movie before.
In addition to the popularity polls, other recent polls show that more than half of Americans oppose impeachment or have no opinion. Only about one-third support impeaching Trump. Furthermore, 57 percent believe that all the investigations interfere with government business. That was the sentiment of half the Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans.
It is almost humorous to watch Democrat after Democrat appear on television saying that focusing on issues important to the voters is more important that obsessing on Trump – and then they proceed to obsess on Trump.
The media and the impeachment-istas are recreating 2016. They are offering the American people every certainty and every assurance that President Trump will be removed from office – either by impeachment or defeat in 2020. They claim that Trump will be indicted, convicted and imprisoned once he no longer is protected by the Justice Department rule preventing sitting presidents from being indicted.
They spin the Mueller Reports’ failure to reach a conclusion on Obstruction of Justice as hardcore evidence that Trump is guilty of obstructions. They even claim that despite Mueller’s vindication of Trump and his campaign of criminal collusion with Russia, Trump and his people are guilty of criminal collusion.
And still Trump’s favorable rating improves.
President Lincoln wisely noted, you cannot fool all the people all the time. It just may be that the radical extremist Democrats and their allies in the newsrooms have run out of “fooling time.”
So, there ‘tis.
It was recently announced that defrocked attorney John Dean has accepted an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on matters relating to … uh … Actually, it is not clear as to what relevant information Dean can provide other then his obvious disdain for President Trump – as evidenced in his frequent appearances on CNN and MSNBC.
Unless you are hooked on one of the anti-Trump cable news networks, you are likely to have no idea who this John Dean is or why his opinions matter. Even if you are familiar with his ubiquitious appearances, you may not know his history. I am aware of all of the above because I had a passing acquaintanceship with Dean when we were both working for the Nixon White House – little more than an occasional nod as we passed in the hallway.
Though Dean lacks substantive value to anything going on before Congress these days, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler sees political value in putting Dean in front of the cameras. That is what it is really about – the cameras. There is no information or insight that Dean can provide the Judiciary Committee that they do not already know – and even that is largely irrelevant to their legislative purpose. Nadler’s scheme is to essentially misuse the investigative process (no surprise there) to create a bit of an anti-Trump dog and pony show.
Dean staked his claim to fame more than 45 years ago when, as White House counsel, he testified against President Nixon in return for getting a lighter sentence for his role in the events surrounding the Watergate burglary by operatives of the President’s re-election campaign and then help orchestrate the cover-up that ultimately ended the Nixon presidency.
Dean had participated in meetings in which plans were made to break in and surveil the Democratic National Committee. When the “burglars” were arrested, Dean proceeded to gather and destroy evidence that tied the break-in to key individuals in the Nixon White House – including Attorney General John Mitchell. He paid hush money to those arrested in the break-in to obtain their silence.
Dean appeared several times before the grand jury – taking the Fifth Amendment for every question. He sought an immunity from prosecutions (a pardon) from Nixon for any crimes he may have (did) committed while serving as White House counsel. Nixon refused, and that is when Dean cut a deal with prosecutors.
Dean was originally sentenced to one to four years in prison in return for his cooperation. That was further reduced to time served in a safe house holding facility – which meant he officially served only four months.
Dean was really one of the bad guys in the entire scenario. He avoided his just desserts by taking a plea agreement and flipping on the President. In many ways, Dean was the sleazy Michael Cohen of his day. Prior to his White House job, Dean had worked for the then-powerful Washington law firm of Welch & Morgan. He was fired for conflict-of-interest when he attempted to negotiate a television broadcast license for himself when he was representing a client seeking the license.
Following his incarceration, Dean began a new career in the investment business and entered the world of political oblivion for decades. Thanks to his willingness to become an unabashed Trump critic, and his role in bringing down a President, the anti-Trump media brought Dean back into at least the edge of the public spotlight – where he could serve as one of the paid parroting panelists. That is where he appears to have attracted Nadler’s attention.
Nadler’s entire strategy with Dean appears to be designed to draw comparisons between the disgraced Richard Nixon and Trump – even though the comparisons are minuscule and largely irrelevant. This is such an obvious shabby political tactic that even some of those in the left-wing media are scratching their heads – wondering what value Dean brings to the table. The answer is little to none – only if you are looking at political value – and even then, the tactic is too obvious to have much impact.
In providing a platform for a guy who has nothing to say except what happened more than 45 years ago suggests that Nadler and the Democrats are getting desperate in their effort to swing public opinion in favor of impeachment.
So, there ‘tis.
According to former Massachusetts Governor, and current Republican presidential challenger to Donald Trump, William Weld, the president will not willingly leave the White House if he does not win the re-election in 2020.
Weld made the unusual comment during a recent broadcast of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher asked the former governor directly, “If Trump loses, do you think he’ll leave?”
“Not voluntarily,” said Weld. “He’ll have a run at saying, ‘It was a rigged game so I’m not leaving.’ I don’t think the military and indeed even the Justice Department — the rank-and-file, the investigative agencies — would stand for that in this country.”
Maher (as is this reporter!) laughed at this notion that the existing system of government couldn’t prevent the president from refusing to admit defeat, “But we’ve said that about everything so far! As he becomes more and more a dictator, we go ‘That would never happen, they would never stand for that’” and yet they do.
Weld, who in addition to being Massachusetts’ former governor, was the 2016 Libertarian VP pick, replied, “It’s very obvious that he wants to be what the people who wrote the Constitution were hell-bent to avoid, which is a king. He loves autocrats and he consorts with them and he says a free press is the enemy of the people…” He says “’We just can’t have these restrictions on me. I’m not gonna play. If anyone’s investigating me, I’m not gonna engage with Congress.’ What could be a more obvious violation of his oath of office?”
Weld’s Comments Don’t Hold Water
To give Weld his due, Trump himself has joked about remaining in office past the two-term limit mark on more than one occasion. For instance, after Chinese President Xi Jinping got rid of term limits, Trump reportedly said, “He’s now president for life. President for life….And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”
However, in November 2018, the president told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that he had no intention of trying to remove presidential term limits in the U.S.
“I think the eight-year limit is a good thing, not a bad thing,” said Trump.
This is not the first “whackydoodle” comment Weld has made about Trump since announcing himself as the sole Republican challenger it his re-election bid. At a recent event at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, Weld practically called the president of the US a Nazi, by saying that he believes that Trump would prefer it if the US was an “Aryan Nation.”
“I celebrate that America has always been a melting pot. It seems he [Trump] would prefer an Aryan nation. I know that sounds strong and tough but he’s very interested in bloodlines and it has resonance,” Weld said.
Weld later tried to walk back the comments by saying he meant that he believes that Trump would prefer it if the US was “a nation with no immigrants whatsoever.”