‘Not Over’: 4 Legal Probes Hillary Clinton Still Faces

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton would have been a bigger target for investigators if the presidential election had gone differently, but that doesn’t mean the Democratic nominee and former secretary of state can put such legal questions behind her.

The FBI is conducting an ongoing investigation into potential “pay to play” at the Clinton Foundation, although it appears to have closed its investigation of Clinton’s official email.

During the presidential campaign, Republican nominee Donald Trump vowed to name a special prosecutor to continue the investigation into Clinton for her use of a private email server while conducting government business as secretary of state.

Immediately after his stunning victory over Clinton, the president-elect had only praise for Clinton’s campaign and public service.

In response to questions about prosecuting Clinton in the next administration, two Trump campaign surrogates rumored to be under consideration to be the next attorney general seemed to suggest turning the page on the matter in TV interviews Thursday.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, also a former U.S. attorney, told CNN:

It’s been a tradition in our politics to put things behind us. On the other hand, you have to look at how bad was it? Because suppose somebody comes along a year from now and is alleged to have stolen $50,000 from a charity—and [Clinton] was never investigated for hundreds of millions.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another former U.S. attorney, said of Trump and Clinton on NBC:

I will tell you they had an enormously gracious conversation with each other Tuesday night. Again, politics are over now, people have spoken, time to move on.

While FBI Director James Comey opted against recommending charges against Clinton in July, he said she acted recklessly in sending and receiving classified information on the nonsecure system.

Congress also will continue inquiries it began into the Clinton Foundation, the email matter, and questions about potential political interference in the FBI’s investigation of the private server.

“The House Judiciary Committee will continue to press for answers to questions about whether the investigation was thorough and whether there was special treatment given to the political elite,” a House Republican Judiciary Committee aide told The Daily Signal on Thursday.

One poll taken just before the election found that just more than one-third of Americans saw Clinton as honest, while another poll found an overwhelming majority believed she did something illegal or unethical with her private email server.

Such findings could make it difficult to rationalize dropping the investigations.

Judicial Watch, a leading conservative watchdog group, plans to continue its own investigations into Clinton through the use of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. That’s because it isn’t relying on the Trump administration’s Justice Department or Congress to hold anyone accountable.

“The Trump administration and new Congress must focus on restoring the rule of law and accountability after the eight years of a lawless Obama administration,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement, adding:

Corruption in government is an overwhelming problem. We expect, but won’t rely on, D.C. politicians to do the right thing. Judicial Watch will continue its independent investigations and lawsuits in order to hold politicians of both political parties accountable to the rule of law.

After Judicial Watch asked a D.C. court to compel the State Department to answer more questions about Clinton emails, Fitton tweeted Wednesday: “No, it’s not over.”

Here’s an overview of investigations likely to continue even as Clinton moves out of the political arena.

Email Investigation

Comey told congressional leaders just 11 days before Election Day that the FBI would reopen its probe into the private email server Clinton maintained while secretary of state. Then, two days before the election, he said the FBI concluded nothing would change the original decision not to recommend charges.

This won’t deter Congress.

“Because Secretary Clinton was not forthcoming about her use of a private email server to send and receive classified information, a number of questions still remain and have not been answered by the Obama administration,” the same House Judiciary Committee aide told The Daily Signal ahead of the election. “The House Judiciary Committee will continue to seek answers about Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server.”

Based on the FBI’s initial findings, House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said in August that Clinton may have lied under oath to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015. They asked the Justice Department to investigate.

The Clinton Foundation

Reports surfaced days before the election that the FBI had made the Clinton Foundation a “very high priority” investigation, one that it has conducted for more than a year.

Throughout the course of Clinton’s campaign, she dealt with “pay to play” charges based on what some alleged was direct State Department action after larger foreign donations to her family foundation.

In May, 52 House members asked IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to investigate the Clinton Foundation to determine if it was abiding by the rules of a legitimate tax-exempt charity. In July, 64 House members asked the IRS, FBI, and Federal Trade Commission to look into the foundation. The FTC has some regulatory authority over nonprofits.

WikiLeaks exposed numerous emails related to the Clinton Foundation, including one from 2015 in which Clinton staffers were debating whether it would look proper for her to go to Morocco to collect a $12 million donation for the foundation.

Among the most noteworthy cases, Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer gave $2.35 million to the foundation. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, collected $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow at an event promoting Uranium One stock. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was among U.S. officials who approved the Uranium One sale to Russian investors.

Members of Congress also noted that Bill Clinton accepted $16.5 million to serve as the honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, a company founded by businessman Douglas Becker that gave between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, an appendage of the State Department, reportedly gave $55 million to Becker’s International Youth Foundation. Laureate denied any quid pro quo, noting the International Youth Foundation is a separate entity that has received State Department funding since 1999.

Investigating a Cover-Up?

Beyond the underlying matters, the committees could seek to find out more about how the Justice Department, the FBI, and the State Department reacted in the course of the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business.

“We’ve seen the politicization of federal agencies and possible felonies by government officials in the course of the FBI investigation, with possible obstruction, destruction of evidence, and perjury,” Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

“The DOJ itself should be investigated,” Flaherty said of the Justice Department.

Multiple congressional committee chairmen wrote Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ask about the unusual restrictions placed on the FBI during the initial probe of Clinton’s use of email, such as orders to destroy laptops after the investigation concludes.

Fox News, citing House Judiciary Committee sources, reported that Clinton aides with immunity deals had a side arrangement with the FBI to destroy their laptops after a review.

Chaffetz, Goodlatte, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., signed the letter to Lynch.

Goodlatte also asked the Justice Department to investigate emails from Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who in one message appeared to offer to place FBI agents in additional overseas locations if the bureau would agree to declassify some documents related to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, that left four Americans dead.

While members of Congress made these inquiries before the election, Justice Department officials generally are obligated to respond to their questions.

Further, news accounts raised questions about FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and his connection to longtime Clinton fundraiser and campaign adviser Terry McAuliffe, now the Democratic governor of Virginia.

Before he became deputy director of the FBI, McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, ran for the Virginia state Senate in 2015. During her campaign, McAuliffe’s political action committee, Common Good VA, gave $467,000 to her campaign.

Chaffetz sent an article to committee members about McAuliffe’s campaign donation to the wife of someone who would go on to become a top FBI official, The Washington Post reported.

“It seems like an obscene amount of money for a losing race,” Chaffetz told the newspaper. “The ties between the governor and the Clintons are well known. He raises money for a lot of people, but why so much for this one person?”

Campaign Dirty Tricks

Aside from the Justice Department and Congress, the Federal Election Commission could investigate Clinton’s campaign. The agency delves into credible allegations of campaign finance violations regardless of whether the campaign was victorious.

Investigative filmmaker James O’Keefe made the FEC complaint against the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action Fund released videos that appeared to show evidence of coordination among the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and three super PACs. In one video, an Americans United for Change director is seen saying the organization paid mentally ill people to disrupt Trump rallies. Direct coordination between a campaign and independent groups is not permitted by law.

Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an October tweet that he was “stunned” by O’Keefe’s recent undercover videos.

(For more from the author of “‘Not Over’: 4 Legal Probes Hillary Clinton Still Faces” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Portland Police Declare Riot in Third Day of Anti-Trump Protests

/0 Comments/in , /by

Chaos rocks Oregon on the third night of protests against Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States.

Police in Portland declared the situation a riot after windows were smashed and cars demolished.

As The Oregonian reports:

Police declared the demonstration a “riot” more than three hours after its 5 p.m. start, citing “extensive criminal and dangerous behavior.” The bureau said it warned the crowd about the designation, then tweeted that rioting is a class C felony.

The crowd – at least on par with the 2,000 that gathered the night before — started at Pioneer Courthouse Square in the early evening before taking off on a route that included a stop at the Portland waterfront and trip over the Hawthorne Bridge into Southeast Portland.

(For more from the author of “Portland Police Declare Riot in Third Day of Anti-Trump Protests” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Victory Presents a Golden Opportunity for Conservatism

/0 Comments/in , /by

The polls were wrong, the pundits were wrong, the establishment was wrong. But the people got it right, electing the populist billionaire Donald Trump—and rejecting the ultra-progressive Hillary Clinton—as our 45th president.

They also gave Trump a Republican Congress, as well as 33 Republican governors to work with. It was a tsunami victory for the GOP and the conservative movement that supplied its politicians with ideas.

For more years than anyone can remember, the American people have been saying that the country is headed in the wrong direction and that they wanted change. Serious change.

They found it in the person of Donald Trump, who took his campaign where no Republican had gone in decades—to Michigan, Wisconsin, and other parts of rustbelt America—and brought back into the GOP a group previously known as “Reagan Democrats.”

Trump also performed better than expected in the African-American community because, it appears, he took time to visit and talk with them.

This election may go down as a realigning election because it meets two key criteria: (1) A major political party has been seriously weakened, and (2) a new political leader with new ideas has acquired the reins of power. Certainly the Republican Party—that is, the conservative party in our country—now dominates the political landscape.

In the new year, the new president and the new Congress must begin delivering on campaign promises such as repealing Obamacare, nominating respecters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, improving border security, and repairing our badly run-down bridges and roads.

For their part, conservatives can offer solutions based on the first principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual freedom. The Heritage Foundation has already been working with the Trump transition team, at its invitation, on policy alternatives and personnel possibilities.

Heritage is using as a model the 1980 “Mandate for Leadership” manual that President Ronald Reagan adopted for his administration. Reagan liked the conservative proposals of “Mandate” so much that he had copies placed before each member of his Cabinet at their very first meeting.

Almost two-thirds of the “Mandate” recommendations were eventually adopted, either in whole or in part, during the Reagan years. Heritage would like to match that record in the next four years.

As it moves forward, the Trump administration will face many powerful pressures to compromise, to settle for less, and to cut deals with special interests. As it has for 40 years, Heritage will argue that conservative policies are the best policies because they are based on one basic, time-tested idea: freedom works.

The historic results of the 2016 election offer a golden opportunity that must not be wasted. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Victory Presents a Golden Opportunity for Conservatism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WHEN A PICTURE IS WORTH A MILLION WORDS: Faces of White House Staffers Priceless as President Trump Arrives

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

So sad:

On Wednesday, however, the White House staff, along with the rest of America, listened as Obama discussed the election results in a televised address… And their faces said it all.

161110-white-house

After President Trump’s inauguration, I would like to ask that any former member of Valerie Jarrett’s Secret Service detail (why she warranted such a force is worthy of its own investigation) contact me. I have a case of beer I would like to send each and every one of you. (For more from the author of “WHEN A PICTURE IS WORTH A MILLION WORDS: Faces of White House Staffers Priceless as President Trump Arrives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ted Cruz Foresaw GOP Ability to Win

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the early adrenaline of the GOP primary, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) was often asked how he planned to be a formidable candidate given the lack broad-based support for his strong brand of conservatism. Unlike almost every other candidate who saw that question as a chance to flee to the middle and pledge cross-partisan appeal, Cruz insisted that the broad base did exist. That it has been out there all along, waiting for a reason to stand up and fight back.

The Establishment — and of course, the spectrum of data, polling and census experts — said it couldn’t be done. This voting bloc simply was not alive and well in America. Don’t remember?

Here’s the argument from Five Thirty Eight. And here from National Review, Cook Political Report, The New York Times, and Time Magazine. The list goes on.

The consensus was that we’d best follow the 2012 autopsy report, shining a light on softer policies, accepting amnesty as the national norm, and figuring out ways to moderate one’s principles.

Last night, Donald Trump proved that the disenfranchised base has been there all along. Ted Cruz was right. We can, of course, debate the reasons why these Americans turned out — whether in support of Trump’s agenda or to oppose Hillary’s and its aura of corruption. But what has been demonstrated, by raw math and the red-blotted map on all of our TV screens last night, is that a majority of this country has been open to a Republican leader.

A broad Republican base not only exists, it has been waiting to explode. The “silent majority” was never a myth; it was merely shouted down by a class of aristocrats who thought the country was theirs to shape. The voiceless have proven that they can still speak, if our representatives are willing to listen.

If this doesn’t change the way Republicans think about elections, I don’t know what will.

So where are we now?

The Grand Old Party has everything it needs. They asked for the House in 2010, so that then they could make a difference. We delivered it. They asked for the Senate in 2014, because then the fighting could begin. We delivered it. In 2016, they asked for the White House. Here they are.

For the first time since 2005, our party has the House, the Senate and the presidency all at once. It’s time to find out what they are made of.

Barack Obama had eight years, six of them with an opposition Congress, and he remade America. What will Republicans do with their chance? (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz Foresaw GOP Ability to Win” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hello, DC Republicans: There’s a New Sheriff in Town

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republicans are in shock that Donald J. Trump did the unthinkable — he won. The establishment wing of the Republican Party, the #NeverTrump wing, and stalwart conservatives must all figure out what to do with Trump.

Here are three action items that conservatives in Congress should implement moving forward, both before and after Trump takes office.

Roll out a bold agenda

The old adage goes. “you can’t beat something with nothing.” Well, Republicans need to roll out a bold agenda for the future, and it needs to paint with the bold colors of Donald Trump.

First, they need to cancel the lame-duck session of Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate would be smart to pass a Continuing Resolution that lasts until the end of the fiscal year to clear the decks for Trump’s first 100 days.

Part of that 100 days needs to be a wholescale assault on Obamacare. In addition, Republicans should push Trump’s bold plan to reform the tax code and cut corporate taxes to make America great for business again.

One of the greatest threats to our republic is crushing debt. It’s time to push a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that limits the size of government and that prohibits Congress and the courts from imposing tax hikes. A balanced budget amendment would force Congress to take a hard look at entitlement programs that are on a path to insolvency, while also requiring them to honor the promises to people relying on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security today.

Trump is the true outsider. Trump is disliked by Wall Street, K Street, the corporate cronyists, and the main stream politicians. He may be the perfect candidate to promote a policy that truly tackles crony capitalism.

Republicans should end all legislation that provides special tax credits, regulations, and appropriations that help a specific lobbying interest or corporation. The special loopholes directed at certain industries or companies must end; the political favors for certain individuals or entities need to cease too.

Finally, one of the most important efforts in the first 100 days will be to pull from his list of potential Supreme Court nominees and nominate Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah (A, 100%) to the high court.

These agenda items are merely the tip of the iceberg. A radical agenda would capture what the American people told us yesterday — that they hate Washington and want radical change.

Fight

Republicans need to channel Trump.

They need to stop cutting deals in the name of “incrementalism.” Our squishy leaders will try to lower expectations for the new Congress. They will blame the Senate’s filibuster as a way to deflect from their own lack of leadership.

Learn from Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%), Mike Lee, Tom Cotton, R-Ark. (C, 76%), and Ted Cruz R-Texas (A, 97%) and start this new Congress with guns blazing.

Learn from Trump

The lessons of Donald Trump’s victory should be studied. He was a reaction to the terrible leadership in Congress over the past few years. When these “leaders” were confronted with numerous gun control bills, they played defense and refused to push popular ideas like national conceal carry. When they had the opportunity to defund the Obama agenda, they refused to use the power of the purse to even engage in a fight.

The only time they fought was to block Merrick Garland’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, but had Trump lost, they would have immediately confirmed Garland, anyway.

Donald Trump is wildly popular with the base because he was the most anti-establishment candidate in the race. He called Washington politicians “dumb” and “stupid” — and he was right in a political sense. Washington politicians were not listening to Republican voters who wanted their representatives to stand up for what they believe in.

Are they listening now? We will find out soon. (For more from the author of “Hello, DC Republicans: There’s a New Sheriff in Town” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Shocking Intolerance of Anti-Trump Liberals

/0 Comments/in , /by

I have an unusual reading habit for a young, conservative woman: I regularly peruse the very liberal feminist site Jezebel.

Why? Well, I’ve always felt it was important to try to understand where liberals are coming from, think about if there are chances for common ground, and try to be thoughtful and considerate about their own concerns when I write. And on the Jezebel site, which is part of the larger Gawker (of course, the original site is now gone) family, there is generally a robust comment section.

I figured there would be a lot of emotions over Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election. But I wildly underestimated the extent of the anger—and the actions people would be taking.

Commenters are talking about ending relationships with Trump voters—and not just on Facebook.

Just take this comment from someone using the handle “bess marvin, girl detective,” responding to a piece about liberal comedian Samantha Bee noting that a lot of white women had voted for Trump, and addressing “so-called progressive white Jezzies”:

So many comments over over the past few months shows that a lot of y’all don’t want to be liberated, you want to be liked. ‘My (insert relative, loved one here) is voting for Trump but he/she is the nicest, kindest person ever…’ REALLY? How about this? Your loved one or relative is an awful human being. How kind and nice are they that they would push aside everything Trump has said and done to pull the lever?

To which “LesPane” responded:

Some of us white folks did, and it didn’t matter. Some of us asked relatives to leave our houses, and it didn’t matter. Some of us told grandparents that they wouldn’t be see they grandkids again if they talked politics around them, and it didn’t matter.

Though we come from very different places, I’m not actually to blame for this. I understand and share your anger.

What?

Look, I’m no stranger to disagreeing with relatives about politics. And that’s partly why I was so shocked to read this. Sure, some are truly upset now in light of this election’s result (welcome to how some of us felt in 2008 and 2012!), and maybe people will take different actions in the end.

But right now, at least some liberals are considering literally ending ties with relatives—including not letting grandparents see their grandkids!—over a vote for Trump. And that’s not just these two commenters. On a different Jezebel post, commenters discussed unfriending people on Facebook who supported Trump. “ImmortalAgnes” wrote:

I also deleted everyone who supported Trump from FB. Thankfully, it wasn’t that many people. Unfortunately, it included my step-dad. I don’t think these people don’t get it – I think they don’t care. I think that to take rights from women, from people of color, from the LGBT+ community, from non-Christians is what they want.

I love my step-dad. But I cannot stand by and pretend like he didn’t just proudly support racism and misogyny. I will not be speaking to him. I will not be seeing him. It’s a hard thing for me, but in this case my values and principals are more important and I will not invite someone at war with those to be part of my life.

Again: What? What are the rights that supposedly Trump is going to take away? We’ve been living in a country where, as The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway tweeted, “Obama did sue nuns over birth control for crying out loud,” where religious bakers and florists have been told they have to participate in same-sex weddings, where an African-American fire chief lost his job over a book he wrote about his religious beliefs that included passages on same-sex marriage, and yet, the real threat to rights is from Trump?

Now there are hundreds of comments on Jezebel, and certainly not every one went in the direction of ending all contact with Trump fans. “InCaseYouDidn’tKnowTheyCallMeTheJackal” wrote, “Bent, but not broken. I am still a proud American. I am still a proud feminist. I will still welcome debate with those who oppose my views.”

And, of course, this kind of anger is not just happening online. There have been protests in cities across the country.

In Los Angeles, “Protesters … set on fire a piñata depicting the head of the president-elect,” reported CNN.

“Police in riot gear struggled to hold back scores of protesters in some of the cities as protesters chanted ‘Not My President’ and ‘No Racist USA,’” reported USA Today.

Liberals, I’ve spent the past eight years seeing the implementation of policy after policy I’ve despised, whether through law or executive action. I certainly get that it’s not easy. But I hope you’ll do what I’ve done, via reading Jezebel and other sites and talking to those on the left: Try to listen to what Americans at a different spot on the political spectrum are saying. Think about what they’re feeling. Try to understand, no matter how morally heinous you think a particular policy is, why someone, even if you think misguidedly, believes otherwise.

Yes, sometimes you’ll get angry. Sometimes you’ll be sad. Sometimes you’ll be truly baffled as to how someone can be both kind and compassionate and hold a certain position.

As I said: It’s not easy.

But it’s worth doing. Hillary Clinton was right about one thing: We are “stronger together.” This is an emotional week. But I hope in the long run, we can have a vigorous, but civil, debate between liberals and conservatives in the Trump era—not a refusal by liberals to even talk to Trump voters. (For more from the author of “The Shocking Intolerance of Anti-Trump Liberals” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the Trump Presidency Means for the Constitution

/0 Comments/in , /by

Following one of the biggest upsets in modern political history, The Heritage Foundation convened a panel of experts Thursday to examine what a Donald Trump presidency will mean for the Constitution and conservatism as a whole.

“I frankly think that what just happened in this election may have preserved our constitutional republic,” Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint said in his opening remarks.

DeMint continued:

We know the intent of [Mrs.] Clinton, and she talked a lot about it and what her belief was of the Constitution. And we know Donald Trump has talked about the importance of the Constitution and the list of Supreme Court justices that he released gave us at least some positive indication … to carry out the original intent of the Constitution.

While the Supreme Court is one of the most important issues for voters, according to an exit poll conducted by ABC News, one panelist pointed out that the court is not the only defender of the Constitution.

“It infuriates me how we have come to the point of where we think the Supreme Court is the only guardian of the Constitution,” said Jonah Goldberg, a senior editor at National Review and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Goldberg explained that politicians as well as citizens must also defend the Constitution.

“[The Supreme Court] is a guardian of the Constitution, and in certain formalistic situations, it is the last guardian of the Constitution. But anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution is a guardian of the Constitution, and, the citizens from whom the Constitution derives its authority are guardians of the Constitution,” Goldberg said.

Instead of relying on the Supreme Court, Goldberg believes that Americans should see themselves as the first line of defense when it comes to preserving constitutional principles.

“[W]e’ve gotten to this place where we just basically say, ‘Anything goes unless the Supreme Court, like a hockey goalie, stops it,’” Goldberg said. “And, that is something that the conservative movement … could do a much better job at in terms of creating that incentive structure for politicians.”

Trump’s opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices who uphold the Constitution will be a top priority of the new administration.

Byron York, chief political correspondent at the Washington Examiner, is hopeful that conservatives will not have to worry about Trump’s choice of justices. He noted that Trump is sensitive to the reactions of his supporters.

“I think the roots of his approach to [the Supreme Court] go back to the early days of the Republican primary when he is trying to consolidate the support of conservatives,” York said. “And he’s got Ted Cruz, whose argued a bunch of cases before the Supreme Court, he’s got governors, he’s got a lot of people who have experience in government and law running against him, and Trump is extremely sensitive to the reactions of audiences.”

York believes that Trump’s perceptiveness of public opinion will be helpful in keeping him true to his word when it comes to filling Supreme Court seats.

“He loves the rallies. He really notices, ‘Do they go for this?,’ ‘Do they not go for this?,’ ‘Did they sit on their hands when I talked about this?,’ and ‘They went crazy when I talked about this!’”

York said that Trump picked up on the interest Republicans had in the primary about the future of the Supreme Court. The way he consolidated support, according to York, was to publicly release a list of judges that he said he would appoint.

In May, Trump announced that list, then in September, he released a more extensive list. During the final presidential debate in October, Trump said he would “be appointing pro-life judges.”

Confirming those judicial nominees might pose challenges, however. Even with a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate, Democrats could still mount a fight against Trump’s nominees using procedural tactics such as the filibuster.

Michael Mukasey, a former U.S. attorney general under President George W. Bush, is confident that this will not be the case.

“Although it is certainly not unprecedented for a nominee not to be voted on when there is a change in an administration, it is unusual to the point of being unprecedented for them to try to block any confirmation,” Mukasey said. “That is a political loser from their standpoint.”

While the Supreme Court is one of the most important issues facing the Trump administration, John Yoo, professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said it’s not the only issue.

“It’s not just Supreme Court justices that are important,” Yoo said. “It is also who the attorney general is [and] how the Trump administration is going to interpret and enforce federal law.”

Yoo said that would “have much more of an immediate importance about the Constitution than who he appoints to the Supreme Court.”

Even though Republicans won big on Election Day, Goldberg urged conservatives to remain vigilant and hold leaders accountable.

“Once the honeymoon is over, conservatives need to be set up in a situation where [Trump] has to deal with us and get our approval on the important things,” Goldberg said. (For more from the author of “What the Trump Presidency Means for the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump, President of the United States by the Sovereign Intervention of God

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As the political pundits weigh in on the many sociological and ideological factors that contributed to Donald Trump’s stunning victory, allow me to weigh in on the spiritual side of things.

I believe Trump has been elected president by divine intervention.

I’m aware, of course, that some people believe that everything happens by the will of God, which means that whoever wins the presidency wins by God’s express will.

Yet there are times when there are so many odds against something happening, when it so greatly defies logic, that it is easier to recognize God’s involvement.

That, I believe, is the case with Donald Trump winning — and remember, this comes from someone who endorsed Ted Cruz and was one of Trump’s stronger conservative critics during the primaries.

Just think of the obstacles Trump overcame, including: 1) The massive baggage of his past, including the release of a vulgar video with his tremendously offensive sexual comments along with numerous women accusing him of sexual assault (as reported by no less than the New York Times); 2) his myriad campaign errors, with enough misstatements and inappropriate remarks to sink several candidates; 3) a very strong Republican field, including governors like Bush, Christie, Kasich, Huckabee and Walker, senators like Cruz, Rubio and Santorum, and outsiders like Carson and Fiorina; 4) the massive power of the Clinton political machine; and 5) the overwhelming collusion of the mainstream media.

To be sure, some will say, “Yes, God has raised up Donald Trump, but it is to judge America, not bless America. He has given us what we deserve, and it is not good.”

That is certainly a possibility, and either way, Trump’s many negative qualities are still glaring and our nation remains terribly divided.

But if, indeed, God has raised Trump up for certain divine purposes, it behooves us to ask what those purposes are.

First, consider this post from Pastor Jeremiah Johnson, now just 28 years old, dating to July of last year.

Jeremiah knew very little about Trump when he wrote these words:

I was in a time of prayer several weeks ago when God began to speak to me concerning the destiny of Donald Trump in America. The Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, “Trump shall become My trumpet to the American people, for he possesses qualities that are even hard to find in My people these days. Trump does not fear man nor will he allow deception and lies to go unnoticed. I am going to use him to expose darkness and perversion in America like never before, but you must understand that he is like a bull in a china closet. Many will want to throw him away because he will disturb their sense of peace and tranquility, but you must listen through the bantering to discover the truth that I will speak through him. I will use the wealth that I have given him to expose and launch investigations searching for the truth. Just as I raised up Cyrus to fulfill My purposes and plans, so have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election. You must listen to the trumpet very closely for he will sound the alarm and many will be blessed because of his compassion and mercy. Though many see the outward pride and arrogance, I have given him the tender heart of a father that wants to lend a helping hand to the poor and the needy, to the foreigner and the stranger.’

Obviously, Trump’s policies regarding immigration would seem to contradict the final sentence here, but if the rest of this proclamation is true, then perhaps this part will prove true too as well.

Second, consider the perspective of Dr. Lance Wallnau, a Christian speaker and leadership coach who often thinks outside the box. He too felt that God was raising up Trump to be a Cyrus-type leader — someone used by God to help the nation, even though he himself was not a believer — feeling directed to read a passage from Isaiah 45 to Trump (this passage speaks of Cyrus), and say that Trump was called to be the 45th president of the United States.

Wallnau believes that God is using Trump as a “wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness,” claiming, “His emergence is such a destabilizing threat to the vast deal making machinery embedded in both parties that he has the unique distinction of being rejected by both liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans at the same time.”

In Wallnau’s words, Trump is God’s “chaos candidate.” (For my 90-minute interview with Dr. Wallnau on this subject, where he took calls from critics, see here.)

But here is the major caveat, even if all (or most of these things) are true: If Trump, indeed, is a divine wrecking ball, then he could do as much as harm as good, and to the extent that he is appealing to the fears and frustrations and anger of a nation, he is channeling some potentially dangerous emotions.

That means that we should pray that: 1) he will continue to surround himself with solid men like Mike Pence, his Vice President, or Rudy Giuliani, possibly his Attorney General ; 2) he will listen to the godly leaders who have been speaking into his life, like James Robison and Tony Perkins; 3) he will humble himself, recognizing that the pride that has brought him this far is the pride that could destroy him; 4) he will keep his word about the Supreme Court justices he will nominate; 5) he will not compromise the Republican Platform in some misguided effort to prove his moderation; 6) he will do his best not to alienate those who are horrified by his presidency, instead pledging to be the president of all Americans (that would mean, for example, declaring war on radical Islam without declaring war on all Muslims); 7) he will demonstrate that he will ultimately help our nation as a whole (for example, with good economic policies or by proposing something better than Obamacare); 8) he will learn to act presidential (rather than vengeful and impetuous) on both a national and international level.

In short, if Trump indeed is president by divine intervention, we should pray for divine restraint on his life as well, lest this divine wrecking ball wreak havoc on the nation while tearing down what is wrong. May he be a divinely guided wrecking ball! (For more from the author of “Donald Trump, President of the United States by the Sovereign Intervention of God” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ben Carson Says He’ll Help Trump Find a Replacement to Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ben Carson said he would help President-elect Donald Trump construct a replacement to Obamacare.

“I think the replacement must obviously come first and it must be something that is very appealing and easy to understand,” he told Politico Wednesday. “And then, only then, would you dismantle what’s in place.”

Carson declined to say whether he was being considered for a Cabinet position, but Politico reports that his name is being floated as a possible candidate for positions such as secretary of health and human services or secretary of education.

Trump campaigned on replacing Obamacare with a simpler, cheaper alternative that has less government regulation.

A GOP-led Congress means that a Trump administration would have the best chance of coming up with an alternative to Obamacare since 2010 passage of the law. (Read more from “Ben Carson Says He’ll Help Trump Find a Replacement to Obamacare” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.