The message you have just received was delivered by Mike Huckabee and includes advertising powered by PowerInbox. These ads help bring this newsletter to you free of charge.
Today's Commentary: A real head-scratcher: What is up with Trey Gowdy? --- Join me in Branson on June 12 -- Samantha Bee attacks Ivanka Trump -- Democrat plans endorsed by Ayatollah -- Martha Stewart's potential pardon -- Evening Edition - May 28 - Daily Verse
Help elect Christian candidates from the State House to the White House. Men and women like Pastor Mark Harris of North Carolina who won his primary this week against a well-funded Republican incumbent. Support Huck PAC with a donation today. DONATE HERE
If you enjoy the newsletter also, please forward it to a friend and tell them they can subscribe for free at MikeHuckabee.com/Subscribe
Till now, out of everything we knew about the special counsel investigation into “collusion” with Russia, the biggest head-scratcher has been why Attorney General Jeff Sessions was still at his job and what he might be doing to justify a paycheck. But now, we may have an even bigger one: South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy’s odd responses to questions about the appropriateness of spying on the Trump campaign.
Gowdy, Devin Nunes and seven other House members received an hour-long briefing on May 24 after the Justice Department had refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena to provide documents relating to what reporter Mollie Hemingway describes as “an individual who was secretly gathering information on the Trump campaign on behalf of the federal government.” (Translation: SPY.) They received a classified briefing that, importantly, still did not provide the documents that would have satisfied the subpoena. In fact, Mark Meadows said afterwards that no documents –- zero –- were shown. According to Hemingway, a spokesperson for Gowdy repeatedly refused to answer questions about what, if any, documents were presented.
This is the meeting that was prefaced by a brief appearance by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Trump attorney Emmet Flood to call for transparency. It appears they wasted their breath.
But Gowdy apparently didn’t need to see any documents to be convinced of what DOJ officials were telling them at the meeting. Such credulity seems strangely out of character for someone like Gowdy, a seasoned prosecutor who knows better than to believe people who continue to hide mountains of evidence. Yet for some reason, he took the DOJ’s “briefing” at face value. After the meeting, he said the FBI had done nothing inappropriate in their investigation of Russian interference. Never mind that we know for a fact spying was done; we have it from such disparate sources as The New York Times, The Washington Post, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and three people who have gone on record as being approached by the confidential informant (spy). We even know who the spy is, and his background as a spy. And Gowdy himself has suggested that an informant was used to collect information (to spy); the weird thing is that he’s now saying it was okay.
Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) jumped on his words as a “debunking” of the alleged spying. Not to say that spying wasn’t done, because we know it was, but Gowdy seemed to be saying that such activity is routine and should be accepted without question, even under these circumstances. He said the FBI was doing what his “fellow citizens” would have wanted them to do. (Mr. Gowdy, you can count this fellow citizen out.)
Yet, as Hemingway points out, he seemed unclear on a few aspects of the investigation, such as whether the FBI had been conducting a counterintelligence or criminal probe. He said he hadn't encountered the word “spy” in his work as a prosecutor, but his work has been only on the criminal side. He wants Mueller to be able to complete his investigation while admitting he doesn’t know the scope of it. In one interview, he mentioned Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton as others who share his perspective, including them with “those who have seen the information.” But there is no evidence that they have seen the information, either.
Gowdy, Rubio, Cotton and anybody else who is ready to cave to bureaucratic power should read the latest column by go-to legal mind Andrew C. McCarthy, on just how hard it’s supposed to be to get a FISA warrant. To get a warrant to surveil Carter Page, the FBI would have had to give the court evidence that he was a clandestine agent of Russia, but the only evidence suggestive of that was in the unverified Steele “dossier.” And it remains unverified; if the FBI had ever verified that claim, Page would have been charged. He wasn’t.
McCarthy makes the case for the avoidance of political spying in America except in cases of serious wrongdoing. “We have an important norm in this country against political spying,” he says, “(as) a matter of tradition, of democratic institutions, of constitutional principles, and of modern history’s Watergate chapter. The incumbent administration must not use its awesome counterintelligence, counterespionage and law enforcement powers against its political opposition absent compelling evidence of egregious misconduct.”
When McCarthy goes on to put Trump’s perceived softness towards Russia into historical perspective, Mitt Romney, in citing Russia as our most serious threat, is about the only one who comes out unscathed. Appropriately (because no one was sent in to spy on HER campaign), Hillary’s ties with Russia are cited: the $145 million given to the Clinton Foundation, the $500,000 to Bill for a brief speech, and the fact that she was “neck-deep in the Uranium One scandal.”
His point is “that after 30 years of embracing and empowering Moscow, it is not credible --- particularly for an administration that was among the worst offenders --- to say ‘We had to use spies and FISA surveillance against the Trump campaign due to suspicion that Trump might embrace and empower Moscow.’” As we’ve said, if the administration had been acting in good faith, it could have done things it did not do: interview Page and Manafort, for example, and certainly inform Trump of its concerns. But this was not good faith –- it was very obviously a massive case of political opportunism.
But one thing remains unclear: the reason for Trey Gowdy’s odd failure to grasp that. Now, what do we say, class? If something doesn’t make sense, there’s a key piece of the puzzle still missing.
Join me in Branson June 12
By Mike Huckabee
I'm coming to Branson at Silver Dollar City on June 12th.
Join me and a host of great guests including Tony Orlando, Irish Tenor, Anthony Kearns, Country singer Moe Bandy, the Shanghai Acrobats and much more! The show starts at 11 am at the SDC Opera House and ends at 1pm. You'll even get first entry and the best VIP seats in the house! Attending the show is free, but you will need to purchase an admission ticket to the park. You can enjoy all the attractions and other great Silver Dollar City shows the rest of the day. Just click here for all the details:
Samantha Bee attacks Ivanka Trump
By Mike Huckabee
There seems to be a theme to this week’s news: controversial comediennes derailing their careers by making offensive attacks. First came Roseanne’s 2 a.m. Ambien tweet about Valerie Jarrett that got her entire career thrown down the PC memory hole. Then former “Daily Show” cast member Samantha Bee, who has a low-rated weekly "rant against Republicans" show on TBS (her ratings among Millennials are down 47% from last year), was forced to apologize to Ivanka Trump and lost two sponsors -- but not her show, naturally. It all started when Ivanka tweeted a sweet photo of her holding her two-year-old son, which for some unfathomable reason inspired Ms. Bee to call her an obscene sexist slur I won’t repeat and demand that she somehow make her dad stop enforcing federal deportation laws. (Just for the record: if you want someone with access to power to plead your case, calling them an obscene name on TV probably isn’t the best way to win them over.)
Democrat plans endorsed by Ayatollah
By Mike Huckabee
The Democrats have picked up the endorsement of another world leader in their push for gun control in the US. But I doubt they’ll use it in campaign ads. Between this and their embrace of those lovable immigrants, the MS-13 gang members, I doubt most Americans believe now is a smart time to disarm.
Martha Stewart's potential pardon
By Mike Huckabee
There’s a rumor that Trump will pardon Martha Stewart to clear her record. Somehow, that’s also being spun as him helping out a celebrity pal, even though Stewart is a Democrat who backed Hillary Clinton and publicly disparaged Trump during the campaign.
Personally, I don’t know that Martha deserves a pardon or if it really matters to her, since she seems to have done pretty well rebuilding her life after her stint in the Big House. But this is the best argument for it I can think of:
I bet that if you surveyed Americans to ask why Martha Stewart went to prison, the #1 answer would be “insider trading,” probably followed by “making people feel guilty about their own tacky Christmas decorations.” But no, Stewart was actually prosecuted by then-US Attorney James Comey (déjà vu!) not for insider trading, which is what he was supposed to be investigating, but for “conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators” (déjà vu all over again!) To put it more clearly, she was charged with lying to investigators because she claimed she was innocent of a crime she was never convicted of committing. I’m sorry, that might be even less clear.
When you add all that up, pardoning her might be hard for President Trump to resist.
Evening Edition - May 31
By Mike Huckabee
A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!
"Grant thee according to thine own heart, and fulfil all thy counsel."
- Psalm 20:4