The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s use of the FISA court to investigate Trump isn’t out till Monday, but already there are enough leaks to require hip boots. Are they accurate? Don’t know. In context? Who cares? Complete? No way. But, hey, who needs to see the whole thing? Democrats pass massive legislation they haven’t read, all the time. And they hope YOU will just read their little stories and never get around to the actual report.
In an early leak, we heard Horowitz has concluded that political bias wasn’t a factor in how the FBI investigated Trump/Russia “collusion.” Knowing what we know about everything these people did over a timeline of many months, along with the stunningly hateful Strzok/Page texts, this conclusion (if it’s really in there) would have to be a whitewash. You’ve seen the nauseating puff piece by Molly Jong-Fast for THE DAILY BEAST in which Page plays the victim and asserts it’s “unfathomable” that she has committed any crime. Likely she’s already aware that Horowitz hasn't recommended charges against her.
About Nadler's Impeachment 2.0 reboot hearings
If you’re wondering whether Jerrold Nadler’s Impeachment 2.0 reboot hearings in the House tomorrow might be worth taking time away from more important things, like online Christmas shopping or baking gingerbread cookies, here’s a reminder of why they definitely are not:
Unlike the first round, the so-called “witnesses” the Democrats will allow to be called aren’t even witnesses to third-hand office scuttlebutt. They’re just four academics, three of whom have a record of backing liberal causes and writing anti-Trump op-eds, being trucked in to “explain” to us all why the Democrats’ impeachment circus is really and truly legitimate because Orange Man Bad or something.
You see, the Democrats are convinced that the reason public support for impeachment is cratering isn’t because we wasted part of our lives we’ll never get back watching their stupid hearings and realized they were a kangaroo court that produced no actual evidence of wrongdoing. No, it's because (as is so often the case in their view) we smelly Walmart-shopping Deplorables are just too dense to comprehend what our superiors are trying to tell us, so we need to be “educated” until we agree with them.
If this sounds familiar – having a snotty leftist who’s been told what to think by a radical college professor lecturing us on how we’re ignorant if we disagree with them – it’s probably because this is the same tactic they used last week in encouraging brainwashed college students to ruin Thanksgiving dinner by hectoring their Trump-voting relatives with DNC talking points. I’d call it arrogant and condescending, but they probably think we’re all too dumb to know words with that many syllables.
To counter all the nonsense they plan to spew on our dime while avoiding doing their real jobs, like passing the USMCA Trade Deal, I will offer the following comments on impeachment from a genuine expert. He's a graduate of Fordham University law school with years of experience in government, including one of the highest positions in Congress related to legal and judicial issues:
“The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity…
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
Those comments were made in 1998 by then-Congressman/now House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, in talking about the Bill Clinton impeachment, which at least had an actual, proven crime behind it. How about if he just reads that into the record, calls for adjournment, and lets the House actually go to work to do something positive for the American people for the first time since the Democrats took over?
I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
For those who follow political inside baseball: Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson is retiring at the end of the year for health reasons. That means Gov. Brian Kemp (who defeated Stacey Abrams, a fact she still refuses to accept) has to appoint someone to fill the seat until next November’s election. Kemp is expected to choose business executive Kelly Loeffler, a six-figure Mitt Romney donor who’s been slammed as a “RINO” by Trump supporters. They want him to name a solid conservative who supports Trump (Sean Hannity is pushing for Rep. Doug Collins.) It’s all sparked a lot of public sniping that would have best been kept within party circles instead of turning into a circular firing squad.
I can’t pretend to know Gov. Kemp’s thought processes, but choosing someone to fill an open Senate seat is one of a Governor’s most important responsibilities. You’re putting an unelected appointee into a seat that’s supposed to reflect the views of your constituents, so you should take into account more than just who you like or who’s donated how much to whom. And if you pick someone who’s at odds with the majority of your party, then you’re setting up a bloody and unnecessary primary battle that will only undermine your party’s chances in the general election and drain your party’s coffers, all for no good reason.
Let’s hope that the emotions can be packed away and some cool reason prevail. Acting out emotionally in public is what the Democrats do.
Former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy made two good points about former FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s whining over being criticized by President Trump for her famously unprofessional and biased conduct involving the Hillary Clinton email and “Russian collusion” investigations.
First, she claims her comments were taken out of context. Gowdy asks what “context” could possibly alter the meaning of calling the President-elect “loathsome”? Second, he notes that Democrats are claiming that Trump should be impeached even if there was no quid pro quo or Ukrainian investigation because what matters is the “process” (he didn’t do everything exactly the way they would have.) Yet with Page, Strzok and the rest of the Deep State cabal that tried to destroy Trump, they didn’t succeed, so all’s well that ends well! Let's just forget the whole thing and move on...
There’s more at the link, including video:
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God."
- 2 Corinthians 1:3-4
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.