President Trump has blasted Democrat lawmakers, following their statements thus far in the Senate impeachment trial. He took to Twitter Thursday to state that their arguments, specifically those of lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s, were full of “lies and misrepresentations.”
The president was particularly irate about the fact that his democratic accusers have ignored the facts of the many times that President Obama also held back foreign aid that was approved by Congress.
During Wednesday’s hearings, Schiff called President Trump’s decision to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine funds highly unusual.
“It was President Trump himself who originally authorized additional financial military assistance to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018, without reservation,” said Schiff. “Making his abrupt decision to withhold assistance in 2019, without explanation, all the more surprising to those responsible for Ukraine policy.”
However, President Trump said that Schiff, along with his colleagues, are refusing to state that the Obama administration also withheld aid from many countries in an effort to side-step the fact that doing so has historically been a common practice for presidents. He further noted that Obama withheld aid to several countries undergoing political strife, including Ukraine as well as Pakistan, the Philippines, Egypt, Honduras and Mexico.
This comes as President Trump maintains there was no pressure in his communications with Ukraine and gave this explanation on releasing aid to the country, “That’s the whole case right there. There was no pressure whatsoever. I do say two things — we have to check corruption and we also have to find out why is it that the United States is always giving foreign countries money.”
The president concluded his series Thursday tweets against the Democrats, noting that the Democrat impeachment efforts are a “witch hunt!”
The author of a new book, is saying that friends of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, believe that “something happened to him” affecting his physical and mental health during the two-year long Russia probe.
The Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig, who is the co-author of the new book A Very Stable Genius about President Trump, described in interviews promoting the book, how difficult it was for some of Mueller’s close family and friends to watch his shaky testimony before Congress last summer.
“Phil [Rucker] and I, my co-author, we are not medical professionals, but over and over again, John, we heard from people who are very close to Bob Mueller who found him a different person, a changed person, after two years of this investigation,” Leonnig told CNN host John Berman.
“They don’t know what that’s about,” Leonnig continued. “Some of them do and haven’t shared that with us. But they know that something happened. He’s a different person. He was stumbling over his words. You saw him in July in his testimony before Congress, there were people that I spoke to who are very, very good family friends of his who said, ‘I couldn’t watch the television anymore, I had to turn it off. It wasn’t the Bob I knew.'”
After a 22-month investigation, Mueller’s team did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy took place between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He also declined to make a determination about whether Trump may have obstructed justice but did lay out 10 instances of possible obstruction that Democrats viewed as a road map to continue investigating and possibly seek impeachment. Trump is now facing two articles of impeachment stemming from his dealings with Ukraine. However, nothing from the Mueller Probe was reflected in either of those articles.
Speculation about Mueller’s health began to swirl when the former FBI director, known for being sharp and competent, appeared to have difficulty hearing lawmakers’ questions and failed to recall key facts from his report when he testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees in July.
In their book, Leonnig and Rucker wrote that when Attorney General William Barr met Mueller before his report was released, Mueller read from his notes, and his “hands shook as he held the paper. His voice was shaky, too.” Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, “couldn’t help but worry about Mueller’s health.”
Despite persistent rumors about his health, it was announced that in October 2019 that Mueller had returned to work at the private law firm WilmerHale.
After more than three years of promising to find a reason to impeach President Trump, Democrats finally achieved their objective on December 18, 2019. The next constitutionally required step was simple and easy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was to send the Article over to the Senate to begin the trial phase. That could have happened the next day – but it did not.
The House rushed the impeachment process for two reasons – so they said.. They claimed that it would take too long for the Supreme court to decide the issue of Executive Privilege – and compel testimony of what Democrats referred to as “key witnesses.” AND THEN, in a reverse of logic, Democrats said they could proceed because they had “all the evidence” they needed to have Trump both impeached and removed from office. They claimed they had to expedite the process to prevent Trump from rigging the 2020 presidential election, which – they alleged—he was doing every day. There was no time to wait. But that was then, and this is now.
All those House Democrats who claimed that urgency was a primary consideration must have been – or at least should have been — embarrassed when Pelosi pulled the rug out from under that political narrative. Instead of rushing the Articles to the Senate, Pelosi said she would not transfer the Articles until the Senate formally established the rules for the trial that were satisfactory to … HER. Suddenly, there was no need to hurry things along. Congress went on vacation for the holidays and the Articles sat on Pelosi’s desk.
In the sort of logic that can only come out of the politicians in Washington, Pelosi – without batting an eye – determined that there was no real rush after all. Instead, she decided that SHE would set the rules for the Senate even though she has zero right or authority to do so. Instead of doing her job, she has been trying to do the Senate’s job.
Even more bizarre, Pelosi was insisting that THE SENATE should be required to call all those witnesses that she had said were not critical to the case. They had all they needed to advance the Articles of Impeachment.
Of course, there was no guarantee that any of the witness she designated would have responded to the Senate any more than they did to the House – with the possible exception of former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has since indicated a willingness to respond to a subpoena. In other words, Pelosi was asking the Senate to take up precious time to go to the Supreme Court to compel their testimony – something the House was unwilling to do.
Getting the Senate to bend to her will was a battle that Pelosi was destined to lose. At best, she could pre-emptively badmouth the Senate for being too political in addressing the upcoming trial – blunting the fact that the House impeachment was a badly handled partisan political process.
Her willingness to further delay the process – and her demand for more witnesses – betrays the fact that even Pelosi knows that the House undertook the weakest and most political impeachment effort in American history. Not only was there no “high crime or misdemeanor,” there was no crime whatsoever – just dubious accusations of alleged bad behavior.
Soon, Pelosi will do what she had to do all along – unconditional surrender to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He will set the rules for the Senate trial as he would have back in December. Pelosi’s meaningless political tantrum will have had no effect on the process. In fact, it may have made it easier for the Senate to dismiss the impeachment process as nothing more than political chicanery and irrational partisan obsession that grew out of the 2016 election.
Hypocritically, Democrats are saying that Senate Republicans are violating their special impeachment oath and they are not open-minded when virtually no Democrat is open-minded. There may be a couple of votes on both sides of the aisle that are not yet locked in, but that is about it. Virtually every member of the United States Senate knows how he or she will vote.
Pelosi correctly said that any impeachment needs to have bipartisan support. These Articles do not. The only example of bipartisanship was the four Democrats who did NOT vote in favor of impeachment.
It was said that any impeachment must have overwhelming public support. These Articles do not. Traditionally, impeachment is based on a judicial crime. These Articles are not. Impeachment should only be advanced when there is a reasonable – maybe even a remote – possibility that the Senate could convict and remove a President based on convincing evidence. These Articles have no such expectation because they have no such evidence.
For all the game playing by Pelosi & Co., the Articles of Impeachment will be DOA when they finally reach the Senate. In fact, they were stillborn – and everyone knew it.
So, there ‘tis.
It is possible – perhaps even probable – that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders could win in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In terms of delegates to the Democratic National Convention, Iowa has 49 delegates and New Hampshire has 33 – out of the 3979 regular delegates and the 771 so-called superdelegates that are designated by the Party. The superdelegates will not be allowed to vote unless no one gets the required majority on the first ballot.
If Sanders should win in the first two states, he will gain a psychological or perception advantage. To date, Sanders has been splitting the hardcore left vote with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. This division has given the lead to former Vice President Joe Biden – but he does not have more support than Sanders and Warren combined.
For months, Sanders and Warren have essentially been vying for second place – one topping the other in one poll or another. In more recent weeks, Sanders seems to have secured the lead among the progressive left – but Warren still holds enough support to remain in the race and for most of her supporters to remain loyal. Unless her numbers collapse or she drops out of the race, Biden could hold the lead.
BUT … if Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, it could be the death blow to the Warren campaign. This is especially true if Warren winds up coming in third or fourth in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
Going into the South Carolina primary, the race for the Democrat presidential nomination could polarize around Biden and Sanders as the respective leaders of moderate and progressive factions of the starkly divided Democratic Party going into Super Tuesday.
As the leading progressive candidate, Sanders may have a few advantages heading into Super Tuesday. That is where uber billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has staked his claim. With hundreds of millions of dollars to buy ads and hire staff, he could rise out of the ranks of single-digit candidates. He could further divide the moderate vote currently being shared by Biden, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and South Bend Major Pete Buttigieg.
If Warren is out of the race – or has descended into single digits – Sanders has no real competition for the left-wing vote.
Sanders may benefit from the fact that many of the states casting ballots on Super Tuesday have a tradition of leaning far left in primary elections. They include California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota.
Three of the states have candidates in the race at this point – but maybe not then. They are Warren in Massachusetts, Klobuchar in Minnesota and Senator Michael Bennet in Colorado. None of these, however, are likely to significantly cut into the Sanders vote.
A third advantage Sanders gains by winning Iowa and New Hampshire is increased donations. He is already doing very well with his small-donor strategy – and that pace would likely pick up as he becomes an increasingly viable candidate.
More and more, it looks like Sanders is going to be the leader of the progressive faction. It is the moderate faction leadership that is in doubt. Biden is ahead now, but he constantly looks like he is about to fall off the top of the political mountain. If Buttigieg or Klobuchar pick up steam, it is not likely to get them a nomination. But it could pave the way for Bloomberg – as the moderate candidate without the baggage, the gaffes, and the age issue.
Anything can happen in politics – and life – but it is starting to look like the Sanders/Warren contest is shifting to advantage Sanders. For the moderates – too soon to tell.
So, there ‘tis.
Just days after the Justice Department reversed course to recommend up to six months of prison time in his case, more than a year later after pleading guilty and offering to cooperate, Donald Trump’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, has requested to withdraw his guilty plea. Flynn and his attorneys are arguing that he’s been the victim of an “overzealous” Justice Department that has operated in “bad faith.”
This move by Flynn’s new legal team comes just as Judge Emmet Sullivan bumped Flynn sentencing date — which was originally set to be Jan. 28 in a D.C. federal court – to Feb. 27. If Sullivan ultimately allows Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea, that sentencing date will likely be scrapped altogether, and the case could presumably head to trial.
Flynn’s move on Tuesday to withdraw his guilty plea came just days after the Justice Department reversed course to recommend up to six months of prison time in his case, alleging he was not fully cooperating or accepting responsibility for his actions.
Some experts say that the move amounts to a Hail Mary pass that has the potential to backfire and place Flynn in greater legal peril.
“This is a risky maneuver,” said Jeffrey Harris, a former federal prosecutor in New York, who was deputy associate attorney general during the administration of President Ronald Reagan.
“If Judge Sullivan were to allow him to do it — and I don’t think he will — and he loses [at trial], he’s toast,” Harris said.
However, Flynn’s legal team said he had to move to withdraw his plea “because of the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement.”
In the filing requesting the withdrawal of the plea, Flynn’s attorneys wrote, “The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel. This can only be because with new, unconflicted counsel, Mr. Flynn refused to lie for the prosecution.”
The filing continued: “Justice is not a game, and there should be no room for such gamesmanship in the Department of Justice.”
Flynn’s case stretches back more than two years. He pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the United States, in the weeks before Trump took office.
The allegations surfaced months earlier, prompting Flynn to resign as national security adviser after 24 days, the shortest tenure in the office’s history.
At his original sentencing hearing in December, Judge Sullivan rejected claims from Flynn’s lawyers that he was pressured to plead guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with the Russian diplomat. His lawyers also had claimed the government withheld critical evidence that may have favored their client.
The dramatic hearing ended with Flynn’s taking up the judge on his offer to provide more time to offer further assistance. Flynn’s new defense team immediately went on the attack and pushed for the case to be thrown out, accusing the government of having targeted Flynn for political purposes and having coerced him into making false statements.
“It’s been one atrocity after another,” Sidney Powell, one of Flynn’s lawyers, said on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Tuesday Jan.14, “The recent sentencing note is full of lies.”
Criminally indicted Lev Parnas, the new “star witness” of the Dems, who they claim proves that Trump had former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, under surveillance, has now said, that text messages that seemingly suggested Yovanovitch was in danger, and being secretly monitored, were in reality just the ramblings of a “drunk.”
Speaking to MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” a day after he provided a slew of new documents and text messages to House investigators, which made Democrats drool, Parnas repeatedly said prominent Trump donor Robert F. Hyde “wasn’t being serious” when he claimed in some of those communications to know Yovanovitch’s whereabouts in Kiev.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif, wrote Tuesday that Hyde’s texts indicated “that he had Ambassador Yovanovitch under physical surveillance.” Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders said it was “outrageous that the president’s personal lawyers appear to have directed the surveillance of a U.S. ambassador” and demanded that the matter be “fully investigated.” Yovanovitch herself called for a probe.
However, Parnas told Maddow, “I don’t believe it was true, I think he was either drunk or was trying to make himself bigger than he was.” Adding that he was “disturbed” by the “crazy” text messages. “I didn’t take him seriously. I didn’t even respond to him most of the time. If I did, it was something like ‘LOL’ or ‘Okay’ or ‘Great’ or something like that.”
Parnas said that after he received the bizarre texts from Hyde about the apparent surveillance, he called up a “mutual acquaintance” at the super PAC America First — and that the acquaintance told Parnas to “stay away from Hyde.”
“I think he [Hyde] got into something with Greg Pence, Mike Pence’s brother, thinking that the Secret Service was after him and somebody wants to kill him,” Parnas told Maddow. “Once he started texting me that, that was the end of our relationship.”
When Maddow pointed out that Hyde’s texts went on for several days, and doubted that someone could be intoxicated for so long, Parnas quickly sought to set he straight.
“He’s drunk the whole time,” Parnas responded. “He wakes up and he’s drunk. He starts at 6. I’ve never seen him not drunk.”
Maddow did not ask Parnas about his own pending federal criminal case for making false statements and falsifying records, his previous claims about Yovanovitch, or prosecutors’ assertions that Ukrainian officials wanted the diplomat gone.
Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., has introduced a pro-Second Amendment bill in the Senate that is aimed at easing restrictions on gun owners transporting their firearms across state lines.
The bill would reform the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), clarifying the term “transport” to include “staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental.”
Daines said Americans should not be afraid to transport their legally owned firearms.
“This is about protecting law-abiding gun owners and their constitutional right to safely transport their firearms,” he told Fox News in a recent interview. “Montanans want their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protected, and that’s what I’m fighting for.”
The bill would seek to ensure that gun owners could not be arrested for violating local laws regarding “the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms” unless police had probable cause.
Daines said he wanted the burden of proof to be on the states to prove that a traveler violated the law beyond a reasonable doubt. He also aimed to clarify that the transportation of firearms, magazines, and ammunition has always been a federally protected right.
Senate Democrats generally have pushed for a focus on gun safety. Last year they pushed a bill passed by the House that would expand background checks on gun purchases. “The time is not for a moment of silence. The time for the Senate is to act. The time is to listen to the American people,” then House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said last summer. Rep. Debby Dingell, D-Mich., added, “We can’t keep going to our corners and not figuring out what we are going to do.”
But, the GOP-led Senate effectively killed the measure later that same year.
The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Jason Ouimet, offered a statement of support for Daines’ bill.
“Law-abiding Americans traveling with unloaded, secured firearms have continually been harassed with malicious arrests and prosecutions when traveling through anti-gun jurisdictions,” he said. “Senator Daines’ legislation ensures such outrageous actions will no longer be tolerated under the law.”
Ouimet’s statement concluded, “On behalf of the NRA’s five million members, we thank Senator Daines for having the legislative courage to stand and fight against local bullies who were hoping to suppress our Second Amendment rights.”
President Trump continues his game of “I would if I could, but I can’t so I won’t,” with Democrats, vowing that former national security advisor (NSA), John Bolton will never testify in the president’s impeachment trial in the Senate.
President Trump said last week in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he would “love everybody to testify,” including Bolton, secretary of state Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
But he then went on to say, “…there are things that you can’t do from the standpoint of executive privilege. Especially a national security adviser.” Trump then added, “You can’t have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China and North Korea, everything. You just can’t do that.”
Therefore, according to Trump, John Bolton (and presumably the others he mentioned) will be blocked from testifying at his impeachment trial. This despite the former NSA insisting he would do so if he received a subpoena.
Democrats believe Bolton – who was ousted by Trump last September — has key insight into the president’s failed efforts to secure a so-called quid pro quo with the government of Ukraine. Bolton can provide the “firsthand” testimony that the GOP has been lacking thus far in the impeachment process. Despite the Democrat controlled House having drafted two articles of impeachment, without such firsthand accounts, Republicans have said there is actually no case against Trump.
Bolton surprised the White House earlier this week by announcing he would testify at Trump’s Senate trial if subpoenaed to do so. In a statement, he said he had tried to “resolve serious competing issues” in weighing “my obligations both as a citizen and as a former national security adviser” and concluded that he was prepared to testify.
Regardless of what the president has said regarding blocking Bolton’s testimony, there remains significant doubt that he will even be given that opportunity. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has joined other leading Republicans in asserting that no witnesses should be called, and claimed last week to have enough votes to start the trial on that basis.
Democrats need to persuade four Senate Republicans to join them in a vote on trial rules that would allow witnesses, something that still seems a hard-sell at this point.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is finally expected to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week.
The complaint that there are no minority candidates on the Democrats left on the debate stage, got me thinking. A couple years ago, I wrote a commentary arguing that America is not only NOT a racist country, but that we are one of the most open and tolerant nations on earth. That is borne out by our long history of being the world’s leading nation of immigration.
It is literally absurd to call a nation racist that elects a black President. It is absurd to call a nation racist when you see every so-called minority group taking up positive roles on all the news channels, in advertisements, in movies and on television shows. It is also borne out by contemporary life. In that commentary, I wrote:
“If we take a fresh look at America, we might just discover that we are not a nation of racists after all, but rather the victims of racial baiting by politicians and the mainstream media. We should keep in mind that billions of times every day … yes, billions … black and white Americans smile and nod to each other as we pass on the streets. We serve each other in restaurants and stores. We work side-by-side in factories and offices. We do favors for each other. We come to each other’s aid. We cheer alongside each other on both sides of every sports arena. We play on the same teams. We chat on social media. We die alongside each other in battle. We become lifelong friends. We adopt each other. We fall in love and marry each other. We laugh together at the same movies and we weep together at shared tragedies.”
Of course, racism exists on the edges of society, but most of today’s institutional racism is confined to the segregated and impoverished communities in all those major cities that have been long ruled over by Democrat machines. But even in those environments where we so readily see racist governance, the people – white and black – are not racists.
The Democrat presidential campaign has given us yet another refutation or two of the accusations of pandemic racism. In an interesting juxtaposition, we see two seemingly conflicting examples that racism is not at the core of the American soul.
The first and most obvious example is the number of minorities in the presidential race – representing a variety of ancestral backgrounds. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is African American, former candidate California Senator Kamala Harris is half African American and half Indian, former candidate and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro is Mexican, businessman Andrew Yang is Chinese.
If we were a racist society, none of these individuals would have had the gravitas to credibly run for President of the United States, and they would not likely have been so successful in their careers.
At this time, all the leading candidates of the Democratic Party are not drawn from the minority ranks. They are all white men – and one woman. The leading candidate is an old white male of the kind demeaned and distained by the folks on the extreme left.
Understandably, Booker is lamenting the lack of minority representation on the ever-dwindling debate stage. His implication that it is due to racism is a bit racist on his part. He seems to believe that the color of one’s skin should determine standing in the Democrat primary. In fact, the all-while leadership in the primaries – at least up to this point – further establishes that America is not racist.
Perhaps that requires a bit of explanation.
The reason old white man Biden is in the lead position is because he has the support of approximately 48 percent of the black Democrat voters. They are not voting skin color as Booker would like. They are making a non-racial voting decision.
I suspect that Booker, Harris and Castro believed that just because they were minorities, “their people” would vote for them. Suspect? Hell, they have said as much. Part of their racist sales pitch was their assumed ability to “attract black voters” – or Hispanic, in the case of Castro. They did not. Castro and Harris had to drop out, and Booker – who seems to think he should get all the black votes – is hovering in the low single digits in the most recent polls – and has failed to make it to the stage for the debates in the past two rounds. He has a meager four percent of the black vote and will soon be joining Castro and Harris on the sidelines.
It is most certainly ironic that the majority of black Democrat voters are going with white candidates, but it is something to be celebrated by anyone who believes – as Martin Luther King said – that people should be judged on the content of the character rather than the color of their skin. Modern America is apparently living up to King’s dream more than ever. And a lot more than the politicians and news media – who find political advantage in constantly and dishonestly playing the race card — will ever admit.
So, there ‘tis,
Iranian propaganda mill is working overtime to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy as part of their anti-American efforts. Attempting to justify the attacks on American assets, America’s enemies – especially the Iranian leadership — are proffering a number of anti-American narratives. Here is what they are saying.
- The drone that was shot down by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps was in Iran airspace.
- There is no evidence to prove that Iran was behind the rocket attack that killed an American contractor.
- There is no evidence that Iran orchestrated the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.
- Qasem Soleimani is a general in the Iran military and not a terrorist – therefor it was an act of war to kill him.
- Although designated as such, the Iran Republican Guard is a legitimate Irani military unit and is not a terrorist organization.
- The killing of Soleimani was a reckless act of war.
- The killing of Soleimani was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty – even though Osama Bin Laden and Bakr al Baghdadi were killed in surprise attacks in foreign nation – Pakistan and Syria respectively.
- Iran has been repeatedly and needlessly provoked by Trump’s warmongering.
- Despite widespread demonstrations against the Irani regime, the people of Iran are now united in their hatred of America under Trump.
- In Killing Soleimani, Trump violated international law.
- In killing Soleimani, Trump violated the United States Constitution.
- The conflict between the United States and Iran has been precipitated by Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.
- Iran has not attacked any American assets since the Nuclear deal – at least not until Trump provoked them.
- The death of Soleimani will make the people of the United States less safe.
- Soleimani was a beloved hero in Iran – much like Americans admired Elvis Presley and the British admire Princess Diana.
- The shooting down of the Ukrainian commercial airliner was a result of Trump’s provocative policies – specifically the killing of Soleimani.
- The Irani retaliation was specifically measured because they did not intend to kill any American soldiers – when, in fact, it was good preparation and luck that those in the target zone narrowly escaped death or injury.
- Trump is dangerously stupid in dealing with the complex issues of the Middle East.
- Sanctions are needlessly hurting Iran and preventing more productive diplomacy.
In one form or another, these have been the sentiments, narratives and opinions emanating from Tehran in recent days – and the list could go on. If there is an air of familiarity with them, you are not wrong. Everyone of these comments have been made by one or more Democrats and echoed throughout the left-wing media-sphere by their cronies.
I would not go so far as to say that a lot of Democrats love terrorists, as did Republican Congressman Collins (with an immediate apology), but it can be fairly said that in their obsession to spin all things against Trump, Democrats are giving aide to terrorists by providing credibility to the baseless propaganda pouring out of Iran – and other anti-American entities. In terms of shaping the narratives, Democrats – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – are aiding and abetting the propaganda operations of America’s enemies. It is hard to believe that they do not see the unfortunate consequences of their words and actions. Even sadder if they do see them.
So, there ‘tis.