Posts

MSNBC Host Makes Explosive Trump Impeachment Comment

Let’s be honest, we all knew this was coming. Democrats have been firing flares on this matter for months: they want to get President Trump. They want to impeach him. It’s what drove many new Democrats into power last election cycle. This party still cannot stand that he won the 2016 election. This impeachment business is what fuels the angry far left of the party; Democrats have to obey. Once they retook the House, we knew that investigations into the Trump White House would begin under the guise of accountability and oversight. In truth, any so-called oversight action by House Democrats should be treated as impeachment hearings. They’re already moving the goalposts on the upcoming report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the DOJ’s Russian collusion probe. There’s a good chance that nothing earth-shattering is going to be in it. No solid evidence of Russian collusion; a nothing burger like no other. With this realization, Democrats have to keep the impeachment fires going, so enter Michael Cohen, who has been indicted for lying to Congress mind you. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said Cohen’s testimony before Congress this week was unofficially the first Trump impeachment hearing (NTK Network):

NBC’s Chuck Todd said that the Michael Cohen hearing before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday was “the first unofficial hearing of the impeachment process” of President Trump.

Cohen trashed the president, but House Republicans rightfully slammed him as a pathological liar also ripped him apart. He’s someone without a scintilla of credibility. Still, some House Democrats think this hearing will be enough to keep the impeachment circus going:

(Read more from “MSNBC Host Makes Explosive Trump Impeachment Comment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Otto Warmbier: Separating Facts From Rumors

President Trump is taking a lot of heat from across the political spectrum after telling the media Thursday in Vietnam that he believed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when the dictator claimed he was not aware of mistreatment of Otto Warmbier. Otto Warmbier was an American college student who was imprisoned in North Korea after Pyongyang authorities convicted him of stealing a propaganda poster from the hotel where he was staying. He was later sentenced, absurdly, to 15 years in jail and hard labor for his “crime.” He died shortly after being released to the United States.

“He felt badly about it. He felt very badly,” President Trump said of Kim Jong Un at a news conference in Hanoi Thursday. “He tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word,” he added.

“I did speak about it, but I don’t believe he would have allowed that to happen,” the president said of Warmbier’s death. “It just wasn’t to his advantage to allow that to happen.”

Immediately following the president’s comments, media networks, television personalities, members of Congress, and others castigated the president for taking Kim Jong Un at his word.

The Otto Warmbier case is more complicated than many have been led to believe. In fact, evidence is still thin that North Korea “brutally tortured” the American college student, a claim that is being parroted in the media nonstop.

The University of Virginia student made a youthful mistake, and that one silly mistake had tragic and disastrous repercussions. Almost immediately after he was sentenced, media reports began to emerge that Warmbier’s medical condition was rapidly deteriorating. News networks began to report that North Korea was torturing Warmbier. “A senior American official has said the United States obtained intelligence reports that he had been repeatedly beaten,” The New York Times reported. After almost a year and a half in a North Korean prison, he was later released to the United States, where he died shortly thereafter.

Warmbier was undoubtedly wrongfully imprisoned by the Pyongyang regime. Certainly, it is a strong argument that North Korea, through its gross negligence and wrongful imprisonment, is responsible for his death. However, there remains no firm evidence that Warmbier was tortured or that North Korean officials such as Kim Jong Un were responsible for his declining health while imprisoned.

In the GQ report The Untold Story of Otto Warmbier, American Hostage, by journalist Doug Bock Clark, it becomes clear that the jury is still very much out on what caused Warmbier’s rapid decline in health and tragic death.

“Otto would never recover to tell his side of the story. And despite exhaustive examinations by doctors, no definitive medical evidence explaining how his injury came to be would ever emerge,” Clark writes.

The comprehensive piece on the tragic saga shows that medical examiners and coroners did not find firm evidence of torture and could not come to a conclusion about Warmbier’s injuries.

“Non-invasive scans found no hairline bone fractures or other evidence of prior trauma,” the piece notes, adding that “three other individuals who had close contact with Otto on his return also did not notice any physical signs consistent with torture.”

Moreover, North Korea experts and senior government officials interviewed for the piece expressed doubt about the claims sourced to U.S. intelligence agencies that the regime tortured him.

“In general, the intel reports were wrong, as the medical examinations have shown. They were apparently not even correct about where Otto was or when he was beaten,” a senior U.S. official told GQ. “Likely, the reports were just hearsay. Someone heard third- or fourth-hand that Otto was sick, and that person decided he was beaten. The North Koreans have never tortured a white guy physically. Never.”

President Trump’s comments about the Otto Warmbier tragedy need to be understood in the context of what evidence we have. We still do not know what led to his devastating and untimely death, but we don’t have evidence that Kim Jong Un had a personal hand in his death. Of course, that does not excuse Kim Jong Un’s horrific treatment of his own people or North Korea’s wrongful imprisonment of Otto Warmbier. (For more from the author of “President Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Otto Warmbier: Separating Facts From Rumors” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

After Trump’s Walkout, What Comes Next in the U.S.-North Korea Nuclear Negotiations?

There was no grand bargain in Hanoi between President Trump and Kim Jong-un at the second summit between the two leaders. After meeting and taking some questions from reporters in which both were optimistic (Trump was more guarded about what would be accomplished at this summit), they didn’t even go through with a planned lunch. While disappointing for some hoping for concessions from Trump and Kim that would yield at the minimum “confidence building” measures, the news of a no-deal outcome came to me as a relief. Here’s why. . .

President Trump has already been over-the-top generous towards Kim and owes him exactly nothing. The first summit in Singapore was a PR victory for Kim, who is known internationally for what he is: a cruel, ruthless dictator who sits atop a strange (though don’t confuse it for irrational) brand of Communist authoritarianism and deserves global isolation. The state’s official ideology is juche, which infuses racism and dynastic rule and has Communist influence. It’s dangerous and still deserves global isolation.

But Trump, committed to decreasing the hostility of the two countries in the hopes of making progress on the issue peacefully, has taken an unprecedented approach: give Kim the flattery and photo opps not as a reward for disarmament, but instead as an inducement for more. Trump is trying to get the young Kim drunk on praise and fame with the promise that more will follow in greater degrees, if only Kim will accept the deal of all deals with President Trump and choose economic prosperity in exchange for his nuclear missile program.

So far, Kim has rebuffed this offer. According to the president, in Hanoi, Kim demanded total sanctions relief upfront in exchange for only minimal steps towards denuclearization. It is an absurd demand and if those disappointed with the results of the summit want someone to blame, the blame rests with Kim Jong-un and him alone. . .

One, every missile and nuclear weapon that was in North Korea at the time of the Singapore Summit is still there. And just because the regime has stopped testing missiles doesn’t mean it has stopped producing them or producing nuclear (and chemical and biological) weapons. In fact, we have reason to believe the regime is doing just that. Moreover, there are reports that indicate North Korea continues to proliferate weapons outside its borders including chemical weapons technology to Assad in Syria. Recall, North Korea and Iran have a history of cooperation. (Read more from “After Trump’s Walkout, What Comes Next in the U.S.-North Korea Nuclear Negotiations?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Travel Ban Ends Almost All Immigration From Terrorist-Sanctioned Countries

By Breibart. President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order is proving to be one of his most effective pro-American immigration policy initiatives, stopping nearly all legal immigration from countries designated as sponsors of terrorism.

Newly released data from the State Department reveals that Trump’s constitutional travel ban on eight foreign countries, designated as either dangerous or sponsors of terrorism, has warranted big results.

The travel ban, State Department data finds, has reduced legal immigration from the eight foreign countries by about 80 percent, compared to 2016 when the ban had not been implemented yet. Six of the eight countries included in Trump’s travel ban have either sponsored Islamic terrorism in the past or have major issues with terrorism.

In total, more than 37,000 visas were denied in 2018 thanks to the travel ban — including about 15,400 foreign nationals seeking to permanently resettle in the U.S. and 21,645 foreign nationals wanting non-immigrant visas.

Between October 2017 and September 2018 — known as Fiscal Year 2018 — only about 14,600 foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen were allowed entry into the U.S. This represents an 80 percent drop in immigration from these five countries, compared to Fiscal Year 2016 when the Obama administration admitted about 72,000 of these nationals in the country. (Read more from “Trump Travel Ban Ends Almost All Immigration From Terrorist-Sanctioned Countries” HERE)

____________________________________________________

U.S. Denied Tens of Thousands More Visas in 2018 Due to Travel Ban: Data

By Reuters. The U.S. State Department refused more than 37,000 visa applications in 2018 due to the Trump administration’s travel ban, up from less than 1,000 the previous year when the ban had not fully taken effect, according to agency data released on Tuesday.

The United States denies nearly 4 million visa applications a year for a variety of reasons, including for practicing polygamy, abducting children or simply not qualifying for the visa in question. The data released Tuesday was the first comprehensive look at the human impact of Republican President Donald Trump’s ban, imposed shortly after he took office and initially blocked by federal courts.

The ban has especially affected people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, countries where the number of visas issued slid 80 percent in 2018 from 2016, the last year without a travel ban.

Trump’s initial January 2017 executive order banning entry to the United States by citizens of several Muslim-majority countries launched a fierce fight in federal courts over whether the policy amounts to an unlawful “Muslim ban” or is a legal exercise of presidential power. (Read more from “U.S. Denied Tens of Thousands More Visas in 2018 Due to Travel Ban: Data” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘EXECUTING BABIES’: Trump Unleashes on Democrats Voting Against Bill Preventing Newborns From Being Killed

President Donald Trump slammed Democrats on Monday evening for refusing to support legislation that would prevent innocent newborn babies from being killed if they were born alive after surviving an abortion.

“All but three Democrats voted against a procedural motion on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, denying it the necessary 60 votes to proceed,” The Mercury News reported. “The final vote count was 53 in favor and 44 opposed.”

“Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children,” Trump tweeted. “The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

“This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress,” Trump continued. “If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

The Mercury News added: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has sought to put Democrats – and 2020 candidates in particular – on the record on the issue after recent comments made by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam of Democrats. McConnell also plans to hold a vote in the coming weeks on the Green New Deal climate-change legislation as he has cast the Democrats as extreme.” (Read more from “‘EXECUTING BABIES’: Trump Unleashes on Democrats Voting Against Bill Preventing Newborns From Being Killed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Another Media Hoax: Anti-Trump Letter’s 58 ‘Bipartisan’ Signers Are Mostly Obama Officials

A so-called “bipartisan” letter from 58 national security officials condemning the president’s use of an emergency declaration for border security has almost nothing “bipartisan” about it. In fact, it’s a document signed by a who’s who of top Obama administration officials and fiercely anti-Trump figures. But that didn’t stop the media from reporting the story as if there were actual bipartisan consensus.

The letter made the rounds through the legacy media on Monday, castigating the president’s use of an emergency declaration to enhance U.S. border security measures. It claims that there is “no factual basis for the declaration of a national emergency,” adding that there is no justification for “reprogramming billions of dollars in funding to construct a wall at the southern border.”

Teeing up an anti-Trump, open-borders narrative, Politico reported: “President Donald Trump — already facing opposition on his national emergency declaration from House Democrats and a collection of state attorneys general — will on Monday have to contend with a rebuke by a bipartisan group of 58 former national security officials denouncing the White House’s directive.”

Countless media publications, including CNN, Politico, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and many more, claimed that the letter was bipartisan, offering credibility to the argument that these former national security officials are somehow neutral in their outlook.

But just looking at the group of 58 makes it quite clear that this “bipartisan” label is incredibly misleading, and the document has been reported with gross negligence concerning the signatories’ political beliefs and associations. The notion that the letter is bipartisan could not be further from the truth.

Running the numbers on the so-called national security experts shows that the group is hardly bipartisan: 47 of 58 signatories to the letter served in the Obama administration. The roster is a who’s who of several high-profile Obama personnel, including:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry

Former CIA Director John Brennan

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

Former National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano

Former UN Ambassador Samantha Power

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice

Another six of the signatories to the letter served in the Clinton administration. That leaves just five who served in the Bush 43 administration. All of the self-identified Republicans who served in the Bush administration — John Bellinger, Nicholas Burns, Eliot Cohen, Jendayi Frazer, and John McLaughlin — have publicly denounced President Trump and/or signed letters opposing him. A few of the 47 Obama officials who were carried over to the Trump administration have publicly attacked the sitting president. There is not one pro-Trump voice among the 58 signatories.

It still remains unclear what organization was behind gathering the signatures. For reasons unknown, none of the dozens of well-sourced national security reporters who wrote about the document disclosed where it came from. However, the letter does state that the signatures are on file with Yale Law School Professor Harold Koh, who was a political appointee under President Obama.

Much of the media played a large role in propping up a “bipartisan” letter that is in reality nothing of the sort. Fake news strikes again. (For more from the author of “Another Media Hoax: Anti-Trump Letter’s 58 ‘Bipartisan’ Signers Are Mostly Obama Officials” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

POTUS Announces Major Plans for Fourth of July

President Trump has some major plans to celebrate American independence this year. He’ll be holding a celebration called “A Saulte To America” at the Lincoln Memorial, 45 revealed on Twitter Sunday morning.

The last time Trump was celebrating at the Lincoln Memorial, he had just been elected president. “The Make America Great Again Welcome Concert” featured performances by the likes of Lee Greenwood, Toby Keith, and 3 Doors Down, not to mention thousands of supporters. . .

PBS always hosts a major concert on July 4 as well on Capitol Hill, and they’re usually able to score some major talent. Will the two venues be clashing/competing?

(Read more from “POTUS Announces Major Plans for Fourth of July” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Mueller’s Final Manafort Filings Are Scant on Russia Details, Never Mention ‘Trump’ or ‘Collusion’

. . .Mueller and his team made their final required filing in Manafort’s case late Friday, submitting a “government sentencing memorandum” to the United States District Court in Washington, D.C., justifying their request for a harsh, 17-year prison sentence against Manafort.

In it, the government argues that Manafort “chose repeatedly and knowingly to violate the law— whether the laws proscribed garden-variety crimes such as tax fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and bank fraud, or more esoteric laws that he nevertheless was intimately familiar with, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA),” both before and after he was under scrutiny by the Special Counsel.

Manafort’s portfolio of crimes include incidents going back more than a decade to 2005, to when Manafort was a lobbying the federal government on issues involving Russia and Ukraine. They run all the way up to last year, when Manafort was discovered to have engaged in witness tampering, even after he was indicted on tax fraud charges.

But what the government sentencing document — and Manafort’s apparent list of transgressions — doesn’t include is evidence of actual collusion with Russia during the course of the Trump for President campaign, the actual focus of Mueller’s investigation. Instead, the filing simply says that Manafort committed some of his crimes while under the “spotlight” of the campaign.

“His criminal actions were bold, some of which were committed while under a spotlight due to his work as the campaign chairman and, later, while he was on bail from this Court,” Mueller’s filing says. “Given the breadth of Manafort’s criminal activity, the government has not located a comparable case with the unique array of crimes and aggravating factor.” (Read more from “Mueller’s Final Manafort Filings Are Scant on Russia Details, Never Mention ‘Trump’ or ‘Collusion'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Will ‘100 Percent’ Overrule Congress If They Try to Block National Emergency Declaration

President Donald Trump cleared up any uncertainty Friday about whether he would veto a congressional resolution to block his national emergency declaration to fund border wall construction, according to The Hill.

“Will I veto it? 100 percent. 100 percent. And I don’t think it survives a veto. We have too many smart people that want border security, so I can’t imagine if it survives a veto, but i will veto it. Yes,” Trump said.

The resolution originated with House Democrats, and is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled chamber. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is bringing it to the Senate, where it has a chance to pass with some Republicans not favoring the national emergency. But, nothing is certain. . .

As it turns out, though, it likely doesn’t matter whether the resolution passes or not. If it passes, Trump will veto it. Then it would take congressional supermajorities in both chambers in order to override the veto. Controversial as the national emergency declaration is, there is certainly not enough support for the resolution right now in the Senate to override a veto.

It’s not even clear whether the resolution has the necessary Republican support to pass its first Senate vote. All 47 Democrats could vote for the resolution to block the national emergency declaration, and still four Republicans would have to do the same. (Read more from “Trump Will ‘100 Percent’ Overrule Congress If They Try to Block National Emergency Declaration” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How Democrats Plan to End Trump’s National Emergency Declaration

By The Blaze. Democrats reportedly plan to introduce a privileged resolution in Congress in to terminate the declaration of a national emergency at the border by President Donald Trump.

The plan was reported by NBC News Capitol Hill producer Alex Moe on Wednesday.

The resolution would end the declaration by Friday, if it is passed. Moe reported that the effort is led by Rep. Joaquin Castro (R-Texas) and has more than 90 co-sponsors. . .

If the resolution passes the House of Representatives, it would need to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate. The president has already indicated that he would veto any resolution that came to his desk. The Congress could then override his veto, but only with an unlikely two-thirds majority in both houses.

(Read more from “Here’s How Democrats Plan to End Trump’s National Emergency Declaration” HERE)

___________________________________________

Texas GOP Rep Opposes Trump’s Use of National Emergency to Get Border Wall

By The Hill. Republican Rep. Roger Williams (Texas) said this week that he opposes the national emergency declared by President Trump to build a border wall.

Williams, asked about Trump’s national emergency declaration by a constituent at a town hall event Tuesday, gave a clear “no” to supporting it, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

“The reason that I have not been supportive of the declaration is because Congress has done a really poor job, we … Congress, both sides of the aisle, put the president in this situation, OK, but I don’t support it from a selfish standpoint,” Williams said at the event, according to the Statesman.

He then reportedly went on to explain that the emergency declared by Trump could take border wall funding that currently goes towards military bases, specifically noting Fort Hood, and saying he’d “hate to see a lot of those dollars diverted from that.”

Williams’s district, which he is in his fourth term representing, includes a majority of Fort Hood and is not on or near the border. (Read more from “Texas GOP Rep Opposes Trump’s Use of National Emergency to Get Border Wall” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE