Don’t Be Fooled. The Law Didn’t Require This Texas DA to Slap the Planned Parenthood Sting Videographers With Felonies

David Daleiden and Susan Merritt’s sting videos revealed that Planned Parenthood was likely committing felonies at the Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood in Houston by selling fetal body parts for profit. But the Harris County District Attorney, Devon Anderson, brought charges not against Planned Parenthood but against Daleiden, Merritt and their Center for Medical Progress.

The move raised more than a few eyebrows, and Anderson, elected in 2014 with the endorsement of Texas Right to Life, has now released a short video insisting that she and the grand jury were driven to issue the draconian charges by the strictures of law and ethics. If you don’t have a background in the law, her explanation sounds persuasive. But I do have such a background, and while we may never know what motivated the DA, rest assured that neither the law nor ethics made such a move inevitable. Far from it.

Recall what Daleiden and Merritt’s investigation uncovered: Melissa Farrell, Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, admits in one of the videos that Planned Parenthood is altering their abortion procedures to increase the likelihood of getting intact fetuses to sell. She says, “Yeah, and so if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this — it’s all just a matter of line items.”

In another video, Farrell says to a technician regarding the clinic selling fetal body parts: “Any idea why the other affiliates in Texas think it’s illegal?” She agrees with the undercover videographer that “it’s gold out there” in terms of making money from selling the fetuses. It’s legal to recoup cost; it’s illegal to make a profit over and above costs. And yet AP reports, quoting a Planned Parenthood attorney, that the grand jury may never even have voted on possible criminal charges against Planned Parenthood.

The Misdemeanor Charge

Daleiden has been slapped with both felony and misdemeanor charges. First the misdemeanor charge, which is bizarre in its own right. Daleiden is being charged with a misdemeanor for violating the state’s “prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs” — the activity he was trying to stop. He faces up to a year for the misdemeanor. He has maintained that his investigative journalism and undercover work complied with all laws.

Daleiden, who says he is the child of a crisis pregnancy, clearly never intended to go through with the sale. He posed as a buyer to do the undercover videos. But there is every reason to believe Planned Parenthood did intend to go through with the sale. As Hans von Spakovsky writes, “A private individual whose only intent is to expose possibly illegal activity is under indictment for actions in connection with an undercover video operation, but the illegal actor itself — Planned Parenthood — is off the hook.” Or as The Federalist’s Sean Davis tweeted, “I’m a little confused here. If PP wasn’t selling anything, how could CMP possibly be buying something?”

Also, if Daleiden can be charged for attempting to purchase fetal body parts, what about those organizations who are actually purchasing them, like StemExpress, whose CEO Daleiden recorded on video discussing the purchases?

The grand jury didn’t even pay attention to the law, Spakovsky points out:

Crucially, the Texas statute also has a clear intent standard: A violation requires the grand jury to find that CMP made its offer to buy “knowingly and intentionally.” Given that the grand jury knew that all of these videos were part of an undercover sting operation intended solely to show what Planned Parenthood was doing; that CMP was not actually in the business of purchasing organs like one of Planned Parenthood’s other partners, StemExpress; and that it was a fake offer, how could the grand jury possibly conclude that this intent standard was met? It is highly likely that no reasonable jury would ever convict under these admittedly unusual factual circumstances.

The Felony Charge

More seriously for them, Daleiden and Merritt also have been charged and indicted for the second-degree felony charge of “tampering with a governmental record,” and are facing up to 20 years in prison for using false drivers’ licenses the pair created.

The grand jury “simply followed the evidence,” Anderson said in her statement. “The defense attorneys also said that the ‘Tampering with a Governmental Record’ cases should not have been charged as a felony since young people who are caught with fake IDs typically face misdemeanor charges. But under Texas Law, if a person uses a fake ID from another state, it is a felony charge. That’s the law.”

All the same, the charges were unnecessary, and overblown. Illegal immigrants are arrested frequently with fake drivers’ licenses and don’t face 20 years in prison. Some aren’t even charged but are merely deported — including for crimes much worse than possessing a fake driver’s license. Illegal immigrants arrested at a meatpacking plant in Iowa a few years ago were allowed to plead “guilty to document-fraud charges rather than risk being convicted at trial of the identity-theft charge.”

Texas Penal Code §521.451 states that possessing a fake or altered drivers’ license is a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 180 days in jail. Prosecutors could have charged the pair with that instead of the felony. The felony law — which is one of the toughest in the nation — was meant to be used against people committing serious crimes of theft or fraud, not to punish investigative journalists.

Anderson argues that she was just following Texas law, which considers the use of fake government ID from another state to be a felony. But prosecutors will often pursue a lesser charge when the biggest charge seems too great for the crime. This is common and accepted legal practice. Even left-wing Mother Jones columnist Kevin Drum, a critic of the Planned Parenthood videos, criticized the indictments:

As much as I dislike what Daleiden did … Texas law seems to make it almost inherently illegal for a reporter or anyone else to try to expose illicit activity. That’s often going to require a solicitation to commit a crime; it’s frequently going to require some kind of bogus ID; and it’s pretty much always done with an intent to harm. But if you put those together, you’ve automatically got a felony, even if the target of your investigation turns out to be a mafia front.

How Could This Happen?

How could undercover journalists get indicted for a crime they didn’t commit — or at least didn’t commit in the way or with the intent the law’s creators had in mind — and a giant non-profit not get indicted for a crime it almost certainly did commit, and in exactly the way the creators of the law had in mind? Complicating matters is that Anderson insists she is pro-life. “Anyone who pays attention knows that I’m pro-life,” she says in her video statement. “I believe abortion is wrong.”

Another challenge is that the grand jury proceedings are mostly a black box, so any explanations at this stage must rest on conjecture and following smoke. But there is smoke.

First, Planned Parenthood reportedly has a cozy relationship with the DA’s office. One of the the prosecutors there, Lauren Reeder, has been very active with Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood, including serving on its board of directors and running fundraising galas. In her video defense, Anderson said that Reeder was a new attorney who would not have been involved in this case and was also one of 300 prosecutors in the office.

There are other connections. In 2013, local abortion doctor Douglas Karpen was reported to be performing illegal late-term abortions. Employees stated that he would kill live babies by snipping their spinal cord or twisting their necks. Even with this strong evidence, the grand jury under Anderson dismissed the charges against him. It didn’t even go to trial despite eyewitness testimony. Investigative blogger Don Hooper reported that Karpen’s attorney, Chip Lewis, was a big contributor ($15,000 of the $283,000 she raised) to Anderson’s campaign for DA.

Indicting a Ham Sandwich

Prosecutors have plenty of ways to manipulate the system. Law professor Glenn Reynolds, who runs the blog Instapundit, has written an article explaining how prosecutors are able to get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” Part of the problem is “the proliferation of federal criminal statutes and regulations has reached the point where virtually every citizen, knowingly or not (usually not) is potentially at risk for prosecution.” Reynolds explains how prosecutorial discretion is abused:

Attorney General (and later Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson once commented: “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows he can choose his defendants.” This method results in “[t]he most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books . . . to pin some offense on him.”

Reynolds relates another revealing story, this one by journalist Tim Wu, who in 2007 told how “a popular game in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York” was to think of some famous person, such as John Lennon or Mother Teresa, and then decide how you could successfully prosecute the person. Wu continues in his article in Slate:

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like “false statements” (a felony, up to five years), “obstructing the mails” (five years), or “false pretenses on the high seas” (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: “prison time.”

So two investigative journalists create fake IDs to do sting video interviews of groups doing heinous and likely felonious things involving the body parts of aborted babies. But, wait, the fake IDs the investigative journalists used were from another state and — voila! — felony time.

So How Did Planned Parenthood Get Off?

It is not clear how Planned Parenthood got around the damaging evidence on the videos. What happened during those grand jury proceedings? We don’t know, because they are secret, though if prosecutorial abuse is bad they can be unsealed. Texas Governor Greg Abbott said the organization is still under state investigation by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The grand jury process may be easily manipulated, but Daleiden and Merritt should have a better chance during the regular jury trial, where everything is out in the open. Their attorneys have asked the DA to drop the charges. The public outcry is not going to stop. The bizarre indictment sounds very similar to previous overreaching indictments of conservatives in Texas by the famously liberal Travis County DA’s office, including the targeting of former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and the current prosecution of former Texas Governor Rick Perry. (For more from the author of “Don’t Be Fooled. The Law Didn’t Require This Texas DA to Slap the Planned Parenthood Sting Videographers With Felonies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton Is Going to Really Regret Saying These 4 Words About Goldman Sachs

By Chris Cillizza. Hillary Clinton spent an hour talking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper and a handful of New Hampshire voters in a town hall on Wednesday night. For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent — empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.

“That’s what they offered,” Clinton said in response to Cooper’s question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

The line is, well, bad. More on that soon. But, the line when combined with her body language when she said it makes it politically awful for her.

Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton Is Going to Really Regret Saying These 4 Words About Goldman Sachs” HERE)

________________________________

Hillary Clinton Says ‘Every Secretary of State That I Know’ Has Been a Paid Speaker

By Dylan Stableford. During CNN’s Democratic town hall event in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton shrugged when asked why she accepted $675,000 from Wall Street investment giant Goldman Sachs to give three speeches in 2013.

“That’s what they offered,” Clinton said. “You know, every secretary of state that I know has done that.”

Well, yes and no.

In terms of delivering paid speeches, she’s right: Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright — the three secretaries of state before Clinton — and James Baker, who served under George H. W. Bush, have given paid speeches according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, the Alexandria, Va., booking agency that represents them. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton Says ‘Every Secretary of State That I Know’ Has Been a Paid Speaker” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Hampshire Poll Shows Big Change at the Top

Sen. Marco Rubio appears to have gained some real momentum coming out of Iowa, where he beat expectations finishing a close third to Donald Trump and within a few points of the winner Sen. Ted Cruz.

According WHDH/UMass Lowell poll, Rubio has surged into second place with 15 percent ahead of Cruz at 14 percent, while Donald Trump maintains a commanding lead in the Granite State at 36 percent. Governors Jeb Bush and John Kasich, who have spent a lot of time in New Hampshire, polled 8 and 7 percent, respectively, with Gov. Chris Christie coming in at 5 percent.

A poll published on Monday by the same group ahead of the Iowa Caucus had Trump at 38 percent, Cruz at 12, Bush and Kasich at 9, Rubio at 8, and Christie at 7 percent.

Rubio’s 7 point rise in two days appears to be driven mostly by a loss of support for the three governors in the field, while Cruz likely gained 2 points by chipping away at Trump’s lead.

(Read more from “New Hampshire Poll Shows Big Change at the Top” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton and Sanders Just Had the Election’s Most Explosive Exchange to Date

By Hadas Gold. After a string of debates where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders discussed (and occasionally disagreed about) the fine points of progressive policy, the two finally had a full-fledged throwdown Thursday night.

Clinton accused Sanders of going negative on the campaign trail, telling the Vermont Senator at the Democratic debate that his campaign was smearing her name.

“I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent week,” Clinton said after Sanders talked about getting money out of politics.

Sanders has boasted about not receiving money from Wall street, and has pointed out in recent weeks that Clinton has received large sums in exchange for speaking. (Read more from “Clinton and Sanders Just Had the Election’s Most Explosive Exchange to Date” HERE)

______________________________

Sanders Tops Clinton by 2-To-1 Margin in New Hampshire

By Jennifer Agiesta. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to hold a wide lead over Hillary Clinton among likely New Hampshire primary voters, according to a new CNN/WMUR tracking poll conducted entirely after the Iowa caucuses.

Sanders stands at 61% support, up slightly from the 57% he held in a late January CNN/WMUR poll conducted before he and Clinton divided Iowa caucusgoers almost evenly on Monday night. Clinton holds 30%, down a tick from the 34% she held before the caucuses. Both changes are within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

The results reflect interviews conducted during the first two and a half days of a tracking poll that will ultimately wrap together three nights worth of interviews, but give the first look at how the race is shaping up following Monday night’s caucuses in Iowa. (Read more from “Sanders Tops Clinton by 2-To-1 Margin in New Hampshire” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Listen: Why Limbaugh Couldn’t Keep His Eyes off Bill During Hillary’s Speech- ‘I Saw…’

As did most of his colleagues, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh dedicated much of his program on Tuesday to analysis of the Iowa caucuses held the prior evening. During one segment, the syndicated anchor discussed Hillary Clinton’s speech to supporters after eking out a razor-thin victory over rival Bernie Sanders.

Specifically, Limbaugh revealed his concern over the aged appearance of Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton.

“I saw it all,” he said. “I saw Prep[aration] H, I saw Geritol, I saw Fixodent, I saw Depends, I saw it all. I saw dripping saliva. I saw it all, folks.”

He went on to call the scene both “astounding” and “frightening” before segueing into the candidate’s performance.

“And in front of him, Hillary’s running around screeching like a bunch of seagulls that have been starved out near Alcatraz for a while,” Limbaugh said.

Clinton’s post-caucus speech earned harsh reviews from other conservative pundits, including National Review’s Jim Geraghty, who wrote that the address marked the beginning of “Hillary Collapse 2.0.” (Read more from “Listen: Why Limbaugh Couldn’t Keep His Eyes off Bill During Hillary’s Speech- ‘I Saw…'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Time to Stop the Cuban Immigration Welfare Scam

The American people are sending a message loud and clear to the political elites: America is not a dumping ground.

Nothing embodies the rationale behind this outrage more than the recent surge in Cuban migrants both at the Florida coast and through the Texas border via Central America.

In addition to the surge in Central American migrants crossing the border, there has been a torrent of Cuban nationals entering our country at levels not seen in years. During FY 2015, roughly 43,000 Cubans entered the U.S., double the level of the previous year; and according to a new report, 7,000 Cubans are expected to come through the Texas border in the coming days. So far, 86,000 migrants have already arrived this year. But unlike Mexicans and Central Americans, Cubans cannot be deemed as illegal aliens. Pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (and a subsequent act in 1976), any Cuban who finds his way to our shores is essentially granted a green card immediately. And unlike other immigrants, they are eligible for welfare from day one.

By definition, a sovereign country means a nation that is not controlled by any external power. Yet, thousands of individuals from all countries, but from Cuba in particular, have the ability to unilaterally declare residency here, obtain a green card and path to voting rights, and secure immediate access to welfare. After travelling to Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Cuban migrants enter Mexico and come through our southern border whereby they surrender themselves to border agents. At that point, under existing law, they are eligible for the panoply of welfare programs immediately.

Last year, the Florida Sun Sentinel did an exposé on this racket and found that it costs taxpayers $680 million a year. Welfare costs in Florida alone have increased 23% between 2011 and 2014, before the explosion of recent arrivals. Among other things, the Sentinel reported the following:

Fed-up Floridians are reporting their neighbors and relatives for accepting government aid while shuttling back and forth to the island, selling goods in Cuba, and leaving their benefit cards in the U.S. for others to use while they are away.

Some don’t come back at all. The U.S. has continued to deposit welfare checks for as long as two years after the recipients moved back to Cuba for good, federal officials confirmed.

Count this among the growing list of travesties of which we should all be asking: How can Congress tolerate this for even one day?

In many ways the Cuban migration reflects what we are broadly seeing in our out-of-control immigration system. Once upon a time, the 1966 law made sense as a Cold War-era toll against communism to invite in those who were fleeing despotism and came here to assimilate and embrace American values. But much like the rest of our immigration, which has to a large degree become a magnet for economic opportunists who fleece this country and dilute our constitutional values, the Cuban law is being abused against the consent of the citizenry.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Cubans, the one immigrant group that’s long voted Republican, are not shifting to the Left. As Pew Research notes, more than half of Cuban immigrants arrived after 1990 and are more inclined to vote Democrat. This trend is quite obviously reflective of the shift in attitudes of the immigrants – from patriotic assimilation and affinity for our republican form of government to the embrace of welfare and multiculturalism.

As the Sun Sentinel observed, “[T]he sense of entitlement is so ingrained that Cubans routinely complained to their local congressman about the challenge of accessing U.S. aid — from Cuba.”

Moreover, we have come full circle in which the law is now being used as a weapon by Raul Castro against America, not the other way around. As Maria Werlau wrote in the Miami Herald, Castro is taking advantage of Obama’s alliance and is spawning this migration crisis in order to pressure him to drop all remaining sanctions. And in case you think that open borders is a prudent form of humanitarianism, this growing phenomena not only fleeces American citizens – the first priority of our government – it further represses those who remain in Cuba. As Werlau observes, the $5 billion in annual remittances from the million Cubans in this country “represents a mammoth cash cow allowing Cuba’s military dictatorship to continue repressing and avoiding true reform.”

We must stop this scam in its tracks. Congress must immediately repeal the 1966 law, which has become counterintuitive to its original objectives. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) has introduced H.R. 3818, which would repeal that outdated law. It also defunds the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program of 2007, which allows U.S. citizens and even immigrants to bring in more family members outside of existing channels. A mixture of re-imposing sanctions on Cuba and shutting down the unconditional open door and open welfare to any Cuban migrant will not only protect our sovereignty and economy, it will isolate Castro and bring brighter prospects to all Cuban people in the long-run. (For more from the author of “Time to Stop the Cuban Immigration Welfare Scam” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Des Moines Register Calls for Audit of Iowa Results: ‘Something Smells in the Democratic Party’

In a strongly worded editorial on Thursday, The Des Moines Register called on the Iowa Democratic Party to move quickly to prove that Monday’s results are correct.

The piece titled “Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party,” starts out: “Once again the world is laughing at Iowa.”

It gets sharper from there. “What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy,” the DMR reads. “The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt” . . .

“Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems,” the editorial reads. “Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.” (Read more from “Des Moines Register Calls for Audit of Iowa Results: ‘Something Smells in the Democratic Party'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Political Wars Damage Public Perception of Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts Says

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public’s perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.

Divisive battles over confirmations and mischaracterization of the merits of the court’s decisions worry him, Roberts told a ballroom crowd of about 1,000 people at a celebration of Law Day at New England Law-Boston, a private law school.

Criticism of the court “doesn’t bother me at all,” Roberts said, as long as it is not based on a misunderstanding of how the court differs from the political branches . . .

The court is under heavy criticism from all sides in the presidential campaigns, with Republican Donald Trump suggesting he would appoint justices who would overturn the court’s 5-to-4 decision saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders making a rejection of the court’s Citizen United campaign finance decision a litmus test for their potential nominees. (Read more from “The Political Wars Damage Public Perception of Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts Says” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Border Agent: ‘We Might as Well Abolish Our Immigration Laws Altogether’

In a shocking reversal of policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are being told to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings, essentially a license to stay in the United States, a key agent testified Thursday . . .

“We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether,” suggested agent Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.

Testifying on the two-year border surge of immigrant youths, Judd said the policy shift was prompted by Obama administration “embarrassment” that just over half of illegals ordered to appear in court actually do.

“The willful failure to show up for court appearances by persons that were arrested and released by the Border Patrol has become an extreme embarrassment for the Department of Homeland Security. It has been so embarrassing that DHS and the U.S. attorney’s office has come up with a new policy,” he testified before the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

The biggest change: Undocumented immigrants are no longer given a “notice to appear” order, because they simply ignore them. Judd said that border agents jokingly refer to the NTAs as “notices to disappear.” (Read more from “Border Agent: ‘We Might as Well Abolish Our Immigration Laws Altogether'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Calls for ‘New Election’, Makes Fraud Accusation Against Cruz

By Neetzan Zimmerman. Donald Trump is accusing Republican presidential rival Ted Cruz of committing fraud ahead of Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, and he is calling for a “new election.”

“Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, the real estate mogul tweeted, then quickly deleted, a claim that Cruz didn’t earn a fair victory in Iowa, saying he “illegally stole it.”

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!” the GOP front-runner tweeted.

(Read more from “Trump Makes Huge Accusation Against Cruz, Calls for ‘New Election'” HERE)

_________________________________

Donald Trump Tells Crowd in Arkansas, ‘I Think I Came in First’ in Iowa

By Katharine Q. Seelye. Donald J. Trump, back in fighting form, told a record crowd here Wednesday night that he believes he won the Iowa caucuses.

“Actually, I think I came in first,” he told a cheering crowd of more than 11,500 people who packed into Barton Coliseum to hear him.

Mr. Trump, who placed second in Iowa, was continuing a theme he had been unspooling over the previous 24 hours — that in his view, Senator Ted Cruz, who won Monday’s caucuses, had in fact stolen the election.

Mr. Cruz was declared the winner, with 27.6 percent of the vote; Mr. Trump came in second, with 24.3 percent. (Read more from “Donald Trump Tells Crowd in Arkansas, ‘I Think I Came in First’ in Iowa” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.