Everyone is talking about the latest bombshell report from The Washington Post. Five anonymous sources with knowledge of Robert Mueller’s independent Russian probe claim that President Trump is now being investigated for obstruction of justice.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that this is the top story of the day – Memeorandum has collected more than 50 news and commentary outlets that have addressed the story. And it is a development that can radically alter the political environment in the country, to the point where the impeachment question steps out of the daydreams of partisan Democrats … and enters the realm of possibility.

“The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation,” the Post writes.

The FBI was previously conducting a counter-intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and collusion between Trump’s team and the Russian government. Impeachment was absolutely out of the question. But because obstruction of justice is a criminal charge, Mueller is now leading a criminal investigation into President Trump’s actions that began shortly after former FBI Director James Comey was fired.

From the Post:

The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.

The interviews suggest that Mueller sees the question of attempted obstruction of justice as more than just a “he said, he said” dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.

Top administration officials to be questioned include Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, NSA chief Mike Rogers, and former NSA Deputy Administrator Richard Ledgett.

Law professor Alan Dershowitz says it is unlikely any investigation leads to a Trump’s indictment.

“The fact that Mueller is opening an investigation on obstruction doesn’t answer the two basic questions,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “One — can a president be indicted while sitting? And two — can a president be indicted for obstruction — which is simply doing his job being the head of the executive branch?”

“I think the answer to both of these questions is still going to be no and no.”

A criminal indictment is a matter of law enforcement. As the chief executive, the president of the United States has the ultimate authority on matters of law enforcement. Therefore, he is within his constitutional right to refuse to indict himself. (That’s Dershowitz’s point.)

Separate from the law enforcement issue, however, is a political question – that of impeachment. If the investigation reveals that President Trump obstructed justice, the House of Representatives can initiate impeachment proceedings and, if the House votes to impeach the president, the U.S. Senate will hold a trial.

That the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would vote to begin impeachment proceedings against a president from their own party is almost unthinkable. Almost. With elections every two years, the House is the legislative body closest to the people. That means the House is most responsive to the political environment of the country. Popular sentiment seems to be drifting in support of impeachment for President Trump, with almost half of Americans supporting impeachment, if a recent survey from Public Policy Polling is to be believed.

If by this time next year the criminal investigation into President Trump has turned up evidence of obstruction, bet on House Republicans to keep one eye on President Trump’s approval ratings and the other on November elections. Is it beyond feckless Republicans, who have already betrayed the president’s campaign agenda, to turn on the president if there is evidence of wrongdoing … but public sentiment against the administration puts GOP congressional majorities in danger?

Should the Democratic Party retake the House of Representatives in 2018, it is all but guaranteed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi satiates the rabid Democratic base by holding a vote to impeach Trump. An impeachment trial in the Senate would also be politically advantageous for the Democrats, as they will vigorously campaign against any Republican senator who refuses to vote to convict the president. If impeachment doesn’t remove Trump from office after that, the 2020 election surely will.

Long story short: The news of this investigation is a disaster for the Trump administration and the Republican Party. Even under the best-case scenario for the administration, in which the investigation leads to absolutely nothing, the inevitable leaks of the probe’s developments will continue to distract from any accomplishments President Trump may have. Distract how? Look at the messaging from the president Thursday.

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

By responding to the Washington Post report, President Trump invites discussion of the investigation rather than discussion of his policies. Notice how Thursday’s executive order on apprenticeships has been buried by coverage of the Mueller investigation?

There is only one way out for the president and the Republican Party — the political environment needs to change. And the surest way to achieve that is to rally the Republican majorities in Congress back to the fundamental issues of Trump’s winning presidential campaign.

Restore the filibuster in the Senate to break the Democrats’ obstruction. Pass a full repeal of Obamacare and free-market health care reforms. Get the economy growing again with big anti-regulatory bills like the REINS Act. Have Congress use its Article III powers to rein in the courts and bring national security back to the forefront.

Public opinion will respond favorably to good governance, and good governance will persuade voters to keep Republicans in power … and end the question of impeaching President Trump once and for all. (For more from the author of “Mueller’s Trump Investigation Could Prove Fatal for Trump and GOP” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Today, we have unveiled a real scandal in the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with James Comey.

While much of the conservative media is consumed with Comey and Russia, they are missing the irony of defending an administration without even securing some key policy outcomes. The latest betrayal to the Right is the confirmation that Trump’s DHS has issued almost 125,000 “DACA” cards (per Obama’s unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order) to illegal aliens through the second quarter of this fiscal year (January through March).

According to newly published data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Trump administration has issued 17,275 initial amnesty cards and over 107,500 renewals of existing status.

This surpasses the 122,000 level of amnesty cards issued during the final quarter of Obama’s presidency (Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2016), which means the Trump administration is not even slowing down the pace! And although the first 20 days of this quarter were still under Obama’s tenure, the Trump amnesty is likely close to 200,000 by now, when extrapolating in the number of presumed cards issued during April and May.

Thus, while Trump’s own lawful immigration order lies in ruins from tyrannical courts – with no effort to fight back through Congress – Obama’s patently unconstitutional DACA order remains in full force even after his presidency.

The jarring thing here is that Trump could fulfill a core campaign promise simply by refusing to renew existing DACA cards. We are not talking about a balanced budget or entitlement reform — just a simple display of inaction. Even Marco Rubio said the president should only decline to retroactively strip DACA, but should follow through with the promise not to renew the amnesty.

Granting work permits and Social Security cards to people who are here illegally is something even King George couldn’t do without British Parliament. A mere inaction could rectify this problem, yet Trump’s own DHS, led by Sec. John Kelly, is taking active steps to violate the Constitution. At this point, it has become Trump’s amnesty.

Keep in mind that the betrayal on Obama’s amnesty is in addition to the border wall being downright defunded and refugee resettlement being funded. Conservatives would be wise to raise Cain over this issue and stop making excuses.

At a committee hearing Wednesday, Sec. Kelly wouldn’t stop talking about “Dreamers” as if they are covered by a legitimate statute. He promised Democrats on Wednesday that he would not deport any “Dreamer” without a criminal record. This is lawless and, as I’ve noted before, very problematic for a number of reasons.

1. Welfare for illegals

Trump officials, and perhaps the president himself, don’t seem to understand what DACA is (much like some don’t understand what Obamacare actually is). That is why they are confused about repealing it.

Obama’s executive amnesty was not merely the suspension of deportations of certain classes of illegal aliens; it offered them benefits and affirmative legal status, with Social Security cards, work permits, and thousands of dollars in refundable tax credit welfare payments. In fact, well over 500,000 illegals had received Social Security cards by 2014 (more likely to be 800,000 by now).

According to a Congressional Research Service memo, illegal families could receive as much as $35,000 in retroactive EITC benefits the first year after being approved for Obama’s executive amnesty. This was all done without an act of Congress. Thus, to say we are not going to focus on deporting DACA recipients is a non-sequitur to the main problem of granting them affirmative benefits.

Even if we don’t deport large numbers of them, we should certainly not give them American benefits. Moreover, these funds could be used to build the wall.

2. Discretion vs. amnesty

There is one thing to use discretion to prioritize some enforcement actions over others; that is what every federal and state law enforcement agency does on a daily basis. It is quite another dynamic to actually publicly make a policy of de facto amnesty and legitimize and codify the supposed right of illegal immigrants to remain in the country contrary to our sovereignty laws.

Saying we are only focusing on criminal aliens is essentially Obama’s stated (albeit false) messaging.

3. “Dream” amnesty serves as a magnet

Agreeing to the false notion that children of illegal aliens have a right to demand legal status and that poor decisions of their parents and host countries are the fault of American taxpayers and workers runs contrary to everything Trump said during the campaign.

Furthermore, it encourages future waves of immigration at a time when Central Americans understand that once they come here with children, they are essentially here to stay. Trump promised to get rid of unqualified birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal immigrant parents. How could he then grant amnesty to those born in foreign countries?

And while Trump’s campaign rhetoric is still scaring off illegal aliens, thus resulting in an encouraging slowdown of border crossings, how long will that last once word gets out that he’s a paper tiger?

4. A king or a president?

Irrespective of one’s policy views on immigration, maintaining Obama’s illegal amnesty shreds our sovereignty and Constitution, and sets a terrible precedent. The executive amnesty was perhaps Obama’s most egregious act of imperialism, because it undermined the very foundation of our sovereignty.

In fact, giving rights to aliens is the quintessential example Alexander Hamilton used to contrast a president from a king. “[T]he one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 69.

There is no greater act of imperialism than for a president to unilaterally nullify our sovereignty and violate immigration statutes.

5. Trump hurting Arizona and states that want the rule of law

As we noted in February, the same courts that are engaging in civil disobedience and nullifying Trump’s common sense lawful immigration guidance are also demanding that Arizona offer driver’s licenses to recipients of Obama’s amnesty. They are treating Obama’s amnesty as a legitimate statute through which to force states to grant benefits to illegals.

During Trump’s hallmark Phoenix speech on immigration, he said the Grand Canyon State had a “very special place” in his heart. With the courts destroying state and national sovereignty, doesn’t he want to do his part to help Arizona — and certainly not burden them legally and politically with amnesty?

“Obama immigration order alive, Trump order dead” is not exactly the slogan we want Democrats chanting in 2018, but that is the end game unless the president acts immediately.

To quote candidate Trump, “we either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

The coming days will be very telling for many fervent Trump supporters whether this was about a cause or about flesh and blood. (For more from the author of “The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.