Posts

Trump Calls for Middle East to ‘Take the Lead’ in Fighting Terrorism

Near the birthplace of Islam, President Donald Trump called for an alliance of Muslim-Arab nations to combat Islamic terrorism in his first major international address.

“Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God,” Trump said in speaking to the Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Riyadh.

Trump, who spoke for about 35 minutes to more than 50 leaders of Muslim-majority countries, also announced many Middle Eastern countries were signing an agreement to prevent terrorism financing by establishing the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center, co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Trump also participated in the opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh.

Trump talked about the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombing in the United States, and noted terrorist attacks across the world. He said some estimates show 95 percent of victims of terrorism are Muslims.

“In sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern nations,” Trump said. “They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.”

In a departure of sorts from both previous administrations, Trump struck a noninterventionist tone, asserting the U.S. does not want to “lecture” Middle Eastern countries, but he also called for the countries of the region to “take the lead” in fighting terrorism.

Trump didn’t use the term “radical Islam,” which he criticized the Obama administration for not using, but he clearly identified Islamic terrorism.

“There is still much work to be done. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamists and the Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they are doing to inspire, because they do nothing to inspire but kill, and we are having a very profound effect if you look at what has happened recently,” Trump said. “It means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Saudi Arabia was the first stop in Trump’s first international trip that will include a stop in Israel, at the Vatican in Rome—covering the three major religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Afterward, Trump will meet with European allies at Group of Seven and NATO gatherings.

Trump seemed to have a very cordial meeting with Saudi King Salman, and the two nations struck an arms deal. Before Trump spoke, Salman said his nation is committed to combating terrorism regardless of religion or sect. He also reiterated that Islam was a religion of peace and criticized Iran.

Trump also criticized Iran for providing “safe harbor, financial backing, social standing for recruitment.” President Barack Obama’s administration led a multilateral nuclear deal with Iranian regime, but during the speech, Trump called for peaceful nations to “isolate” Iran.

Trump talked about “principled realism,” seemingly referencing the strong interventionist policy of the previous Republican administration, which he criticized during his campaign.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all,” Trump said.

“We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes—not inflexible ideology,” he continued. “We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking and, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms—not sudden intervention. We must seek partners, not perfection and to make allies of all who share our goals.”

But, the president stressed the Arab world must take ownership of the region, as he added:

Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land. America is prepared to stand with you—in pursuit of shared interests and common security … But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

Trump stressed the clash was not between faiths.

“Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith,” Trump said.

He added it is a “battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions.”

“This is a battle between good and evil,” he added.

“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory—piety to evil will bring you no dignity,” Trump said. “If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”

Trump also spoke about how driving out terrorist can restore the Middle East to greatness of its past.

The true toll of ISIS, if you look at what is happening, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead, it also must be counted in the generations of vanished dreams. The Middle East is rich with natural beauty, lively cultures, and massive amounts of historic treasures. It should increasingly become one of the great global centers of commerce and opportunity. This region should not be a place from which refugees flee, but to which newcomers flock.

(For more from the author of “Trump Calls for Middle East to ‘Take the Lead’ in Fighting Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare

President Trump is considering a move that could devastate Obamacare and force lawmakers to take action to repeal the law and pass health care reform.

According to Politico, the president wants to end payments of “key Obamacare subsidies,” an action that would cause Obamacare to fall apart. Trump reportedly wants to force congressional Democrats to the negotiating table, but this sort of bold action is unpopular with some in the White House.

Many advisers oppose the move because they worry it will backfire politically if people lose their insurance or see huge premium spikes and blame the White House, the sources said. Trump has said that the bold move could force Congressional Democrats to the table to negotiate an Obamacare replacement.

Lawyers and other administration officials are trying to thread the needle.

These payments to insurance companies are worth an estimated $7 billion for this year alone. The government pays insurance companies to subsidize the cost of insuring low-income individuals. Without those subsidies, the insurance plans with regulations mandated by the government would become too expensive to offer, and insurers would be forced to exit Obamacare’s exchanges at a quicker pace.

Obamacare’s regulations and mandates caused the price of health insurance to skyrocket, making these subsidies a cornerstone of the law’s structure. The true cost of Obamacare has been hidden from the American people, like an open sore under a Band-Aid. Ending these subsidies would rip that Band-Aid off.

According to Politico, no formal decision has been made yet. Will the Washington, D.C., political class talk the president down to save their skins come election season? We’ll find out soon. (For more from the author of “Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He’s ‘Very Close’ to Naming an FBI Director

President Donald Trump says he is “very close” to naming a new FBI director.

An announcement could come Friday, the soft deadline Trump set for himself. The president departs Friday on his inaugural overseas trip, a four-country, five-stop journey tour of the Middle East and Europe that will keep him out of the country for more than a week.

“We’re very close to an FBI director,” Trump said Thursday when asked about the search during an Oval Office appearance with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. He said an announcement could come “soon” and that former Sen. Joe Lieberman was among his top candidates. (Read more from “Trump Says He’s ‘Very Close’ to Naming an FBI Director” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is the Man Now Running Point on the Russia Investigation

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday that former FBI Director Robert Mueller would oversee the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials during last year’s general election.

Mueller is a widely respected figure in Washington D.C. who has served in the administrations of Republican and Democratic presidents. He joined the Justice Department during the first Bush administration as an assistant to Attorney General Richard Thornburgh. In the following years, he became chief of the department’s criminal division, where he oversaw the prosecutions of deposed Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega and mafia don John Gotti. President Bill Clinton appointed Mueller U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California in 1998.

He remained with DOJ until President George W. Bush appointed him director of the FBI, just one week before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He would remain at the helm of the agency until 2013 — President Obama asked Mueller to stay on for a short time past the conclusion of his 10 year term.

After leaving government service, Mueller became a partner at WilmerHale. He will resign from the firm to avoid conflicts of interest, and his biographical page on the firm’s website was scrubbed within minutes of the announcement.

The former director forged a reputation as a turnaround man during his time atop the bureau. Congressional leaders savaged the FBI, among other agencies, for failing to stop the devastating attacks that left nearly 3,000 Americans dead on Sept. 11, 2011. Subsequent inquiries showed several FBI field offices each recovered intelligence relevant to the attack in advance of 9/11, but they failed to work cohesively and generate an actionable response. (Read more from “This Is the Man Now Running Point on the Russia Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Trump Under Spiritual Attack?

Do I wish that President Trump would exercise more self-restraint in what he says? Yes, indeed. Just so, as a student I wished that my garrulous mailman dad wouldn’t insist on telling “hilarious” ethnic jokes at Yale parent nights.

Republicans are burning up massive energy defending, explaining, or even mastering the facts about Trump’s free-wheeling statements. It could be better used on almost anything else. Think of all the crucial points of policy that are going unaddressed.

The Trump White House came up with a fine executive order defending religious liberty. Then it apparently caved under pressure, and gave us the leaf without the fig.

Trump promised to back the First Amendment Defense Act, which would have written those same protections into law. No sign of the White House pushing for it in Congress.

Replacing Obamacare with something that’s actually better deserves many hours of time on the part of the president and his staffers. It didn’t get it.

Defunding Planned Parenthood might happen, or it might not, depending on some backroom legislative noodling.

The wall he promised on our country’s chaotic southern border. Will it get built? It’s anybody’s guess.

The president could use his bully pulpit and majority in two houses of Congress to make real progress on all these fronts. But he’s too busy right now disputing overblown charges that he obstructed justice by hinting that General Michael Flynn shouldn’t be prosecuted for making a harmless phone call to a Russian diplomat, then firing FBI director James Comey for a weird and changing list of reasons — all of them valid, but he really should have settled on one.

Hate Housefires? Stop Drinking Flaming Shots.

Let’s say you need to rewire your house and install a new heating system. It’s hard to focus on that when you’re too busy rushing back and forth pouring water on little housefires. But you just seem to keep on setting them, because of your habit of drinking flaming tequila shots on the couch. Aw, shucks, it happened again.

Never-Trump Republican John Podhoretz wrote a fine column in the New York Post. In it, he warns President Trump that he needs to zip his mouth and gird his loins. Or else he’ll face a presidency that history will mock as a sputtering failure. It’s written in the spirit of a boxing coach. Think of Burgess Meredith in Sly Stallone’s corner in Rocky. He’d berate the bull-headed boxer not to drop his guard or lead with his chin. Rocky didn’t see that kind of advice as hostile, and neither should Trump.

Given his real business successes, I cannot really believe that Trump is the kind of onion-skinned narcissist who demands that his fans back even his self-defeating mistakes. That’s the kind of uncritical, unconditional love that liberal Christians demand from God. They will surely be disappointed. So will any politician. This isn’t North Korea, and conservatism isn’t a cult.

Trump Is Under Attack. And Not Just By Humans.

Given the profound evils that Trump has promised to confront, from Islamic terrorism to Planned Parenthood, from the persecution of Christians to the chaos on our country’s borders, we should not be surprised that he is being assaulted. No, I don’t mean by liberals, misguided people whose policies are poorly reasoned or based in raw emotion.

I mean by principalities and powers. By the spirits who (in the words of the prayer to St. Michael the archangel) “roam the earth, seeking the ruin of souls.” If you think (and you’d better) that your soul matters enough to Satan that he will bother to send you a tempter, just imagine the horde he dispatches to batter the president. They goad him to say foolish things, make rash decisions, and most of all to cave on his core principles — then fight like a tiger over trivialities.

Our president has too much power. As conservatives, we know that. But here we are. One man has the authority to:

Launch a nuclear holocaust;

Invade foreign countries without Congress’s say-so;

Issue executive edicts that distort the meaning of laws; and

Direct an army of unaccountable bureaucrats to skew their reading of tens of thousands of regulations, crippling businesses or citizens who disagree with him.

That’s a ludicrous pile of power for one man’s shoulders. And power is what the Enemy sniffs after like a jackal who scents some bacon.

America on the Knife Edge

This is a crucial watershed in American culture and history. We are teetering on the knife edge between a normal, functioning country where the Church is permitted to preach, and something much darker and uglier: a post- and anti-Christian Leviathan.

Look at the profane hysteria, the toxic boiling hatred that Trump and his voters provoked among progressives. That’s true even when they support policies to the left of President Bill Clinton’s on most crucial issues. That tells us just how far the “mainstream” has slid down the hill toward madness. You also know how divided our nation is. How fragile is public order?

Centrist speakers can’t even take a microphone at major universities, for fear that hooded militants will attack them and their audience with flagpoles. Police and firefighters get shot by racist extremists. Academic feminists sue to use the federal government to silence their colleagues on campus. College students alternate, schizophrenically, between ultra-fragile snowflakes who will crumble at untoward opinions — and hordes of brick-throwing, outraged insurgents.

Just Because the Media are Biased Doesn’t Mean Trump Isn’t Making Mistakes

Journalistic standards, never immune to liberal bias, have virtually collapsed. So we really shouldn’t be shocked when newspapers grossly distort and exaggerate the president’s behavior. When they cast him as a lawbreaker who needs to be impeached — for behaving in just the same ways that Barack Obama did (in between penning yet another auto-hagiography, and collecting a Nobel Prize simply for showing up). When they act as if normal back-and-forth and influence trading in the White House is evidence of “chaos at the top.”

We should also avoid the temptation of dismissing any criticism of the president, simply because so much of it is foolish, overheated, or grounded in evil motives. The fact that liberals will lie, or distort the truth, to harm President Trump, doesn’t mean he isn’t making some real mistakes.

Trump, Find Your Inner Coolidge

His greatest mistake, I think, is giving so much credence to people who clearly despise him. Not just him, but the millions of “deplorable” voters who put him in office. He keeps trying to beat the media and political elites at their own game by being clever on Twitter, or tweaking them in speeches. What he needs to do is find his inner Calvin Coolidge and ignore them.

He should drill down on the issues that drove voters to put him in office, and doggedly push them forward. That means building a wall, protecting religious liberty, promoting more pro-life policies, and a long list of other things that would outrage our nation’s elites, while actually accomplishing something. That means listening to people like Steve Bannon, who helped him get elected, rather than Jared Kushner, whose sister is selling U.S. visas in China.

Yes, the left will wail and gnash their teeth, but they’re doing that already. They couldn’t hate Trump any more than they already do. He needs to see how liberating that is.

What we need to do is step back from panicking over the president, or desperately defending him in futile Tweets and Facebook posts. Instead we should see the deeper stakes of the battle at hand. And that should drive us daily to pray for the president: that God grant him the virtues of temperance, justice, prudence and fortitude, for the toughest job on earth. That’s the only real power we have. It’s quite enough. (For more from the author of “Is Trump Under Spiritual Attack?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years

President Donald Trump likely will propose a plan next week calling for a balanced budget in 10 years, fiscal experts predict. It also will address how to fund the border wall, higher defense spending, and other Trump initiatives over the next decade.

“Many Republicans have been calling for a 10-year balanced budget,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal. “One way they may show savings for that 10-year period is through management and downsizing reform efforts.”

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, took an initial step last month in rolling out government reforms that the administration intends to expand on later this year.

A budget proposal that allows a president to demonstrate how committed he is to campaign pledges and gives a glimpse of plans to make $54 billion in cuts to foreign aid and nondefense discretionary spending is a good sign, Edwards said.

“One role of a federal budget proposal is for the president to create a bully pulpit to argue for cuts,” Edwards said. “Even if Congress doesn’t go along with phasing out things such as NPR [National Public Radio] and PBS [Public Broadcasting Service] this year, proposing this creates a needed national discussion.”

A balanced budget plan would be a significant departure from the previous administration. A major Republican criticism of President Barack Obama was that he never proposed a single balanced budget plan during his eight years in office.

Still, without entitlement reforms and with projected increases for infrastructure spending, projecting a balanced budget in 10 years would be based on very optimistic economic assumptions, said Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“If the OMB numbers are higher than what the [Congressional Budget Office] and nonpartisan assessments are reflecting, it might be questionable. Balancing in 10 years relies heavily on economic growth,” Boccia told The Daily Signal.

Trump and Mulvaney have said their goal is for the United States to surpass 3 percent annual growth again.

Mulvaney, who announced the budget would be released Tuesday, is set to address a hearing of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. The Senate Budget Committee calendar doesn’t yet include Mulvaney.

An OMB spokesperson told The Daily Signal that the office is still working on the rollout and would have details later.

The White House released a budget blueprint in March that focused only on the fiscal year 2018 budget. But next week, the fiscal plan will project out for the next decade.

The fiscal 2018 plan addressed only discretionary spending. The proposal to be released Tuesday will look at the other two-thirds of the budget, which is mandatory spending and mostly goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Both Edwards and Boccia anticipate that the proposal will address fraud in the Medicaid and Social Security disability programs.

Among details the public will learn more about:

The 10-year budget will provide a better idea of how Trump plans to pay for the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The fiscal 2018 blueprint calls for a down payment of $1.5 billion.

The fiscal 2018 proposal included a $54 billion increase in the military budget, to $603 billion, offset by cuts to foreign aid. Next week’s plan will show how much military spending would grow over 10 years.

The plan reportedly aims to invest in school choice programs and scale back funding for public schools.
The president’s budget proposal is largely a vision statement, Boccia said.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate budget committees likely will be eager to see how proposals for tax reform and reorganizing the government will affect future years, and how that in turn affects budget negotiations, she added. (For more from the author of “Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.

Americans today are facing an epidemic of chronic illness, including arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. In fact, chronic illness is now the biggest single driver of medical costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in America. As of 2012, the last time the agency collected data, approximately 117 million U.S. adults had one or more chronic health conditions.

The challenge of effectively caring for the growing numbers of Americans suffering with these conditions, particularly as they age into retirement, is enormous.

That is why Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; and Mark Warner, D-Va., have come together to address the problem.

For two years, they have closely studied the impact of the chronic illness problem, particularly as it relates to Medicare, the health program for America’s senior and disabled citizens.

Medicare is facing significant challenges from cost increases related to chronic illnesses, at a time when the program already faces many other challenges.

While a large number of factors contribute to Medicare’s rising costs—including the rapid aging of the population, the expense of newer prescription therapies, as well as the unit costs of increasingly expensive medical treatments and procedures—one cannot overlook the fact that an estimated 68 percent of Medicare recipients suffer with multiple chronic conditions.

Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from chronic illnesses, of course, disproportionately contribute to costly hospital readmissions.

Under Hatch’s leadership, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday held a mark-up session on S. 870, the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017. The committee approved the bill by a vote of 26-0.

With 17 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill aims to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to implement Medicare payment policies designed to improve management of chronic disease, streamline care coordination, and improve quality outcomes without adding to the deficit.

The Senate legislation would largely build upon the success of Medicare Advantage, the large and growing system of competing private health plans in the Medicare program.

Today, almost one-third of all enrollees in the Medicare program are enrolled in these private health plans, and that number is projected to grow significantly.

The bill would also extend new care delivery options for the so-called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) that currently deliver medical care in the traditional Medicare program as well.

Thus far, the ACOs have had a mixed success in delivering cost-effective care in the Medicare program. This legislative effort, focused on chronic illness, may help to improve their performance.

Hatch and his colleagues build on the potential of Medicare Advantage plans to cope with the chronic illness problem because the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does not respond nearly as well to the growing challenge of chronic illness.

Traditional Medicare does not provide the case management and care coordination that is increasingly routine in competing private health plans in the Medicare Advantage program.

Key Objectives

The Senate legislation has several objectives.

First, it would enhance home-based and “team-based” care, particularly for senior and disabled enrollees in the Medicare Advantage “special needs plans.” These special Medicare Advantage plans are already focused on providing care for complex and difficult patient populations.

The bill also expands opportunities for telehealth.

Second, the bill would broaden opportunities for doctors and patients in Medicare Advantage to make use of advancing medical technology and the latest innovations in benefit designs and care delivery models.

For example, the bill would enable Medicare Advantage plans to offer new benefits to chronically ill patients, not as “supplemental” benefits, but as part of their regular benefit offerings.

In short, the bill would give Medicare Advantage plans more flexibility in their benefit design and reimburse them for it.

Third, the bill would amend the law governing ACOs by enabling ACO patients to see any physician of their choice, while allowing ACOs to offer incentives to patients who take advantage of preventative care services.

An Important Step

In the short term, the Senate bill would improve care delivery for the chronically ill.

The potential for improving patient care across the board would be even greater if seniors’ health plans and providers—including traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and ACOs—were able to compete on a level playing field where information on medical prices and outcomes was fully available, and where patients exercised direct control over Medicare dollars in a defined contribution (“premium support”) program.

This bill is an important step forward in a process of improving Medicare, especially for those beneficiaries that experience chronic illness. (For more from the author of “Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact

Months before Donald Trump was even nominated for president at the Republican National Convention, the possibility of impeaching President Trump was already being floated in political circles.

“‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress,” read an April 2016 Politico piece, titled, “Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?”

“They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted a month before the Politico piece. “You might finally get to see unified opposition to the guy.”

“The only way Obama has gotten away with all this authoritarian executive order stuff is the Republican Party hasn’t stopped him. You want to see an opposition party in action, take a look at Democrats down the road,” he added.

Rush reiterated that prediction less than a week before the election. “I think one of the plans the Never Trumpers have if he wins is to impeach him,” the radio host said.

A day before the election, researchers with the University of Utah made the legal case for impeaching Trump if he won the election. The researchers claimed Trump could be charged with fraud or racketeering, both of which are felonies. (Read more from “The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump

Former FBI Director James Comey may have been building a legal case against President Donald Trump well before the president fired him on May 9, according to a former Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson.

Matthew Miller, who served as the DOJ’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs under former Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that Comey may have been building an obstruction of justice case against the president, in an interview with the Washington Post.

Miller’s suggestion carries weight not just because of his extensive background at DOJ and in government, but also because he predicted that Comey left a paper trail of his interactions with Trump. Miller sent the following tweet five days before the New York Times reported that Comey wrote a memo indicating the president had asked him to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While Miller said it is standard practice for an FBI director to record potentially inappropriate conversations and behavior, Comey could have taken a different approach when speaking with the president.

“I keep wondering, something in the back of my head keeps saying to me, maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here,” Miller told WaPo. (Read more from “Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say

While Democrats cry for impeachment, legal experts are dubious that President Donald Trump’s reported conversation with FBI Director James Comey about his former national security adviser would be an easy case of obstruction of justice.

“I don’t personally think any prosecutor would bring that case,” Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director for the bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division, told The Daily Signal, referring to the report that Trump suggested Comey, whom he later ousted, back off investigating Michael Flynn.

“Any defense attorney could argue the president was wishing out loud,” Hosko said. “There was no killing a witness, no destruction of evidence.”

The New York Times first reported Tuesday on Comey’s purported memo of a February conversation in which Trump told him: “I hope you can let this go … [Flynn] is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Trump fired Flynn after six weeks on the job after concluding the national security adviser misled Vice President Mike Pence regarding the content of his contacts with Russian officials before the president’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

The “big however,” Hosko said, is whether Trump’s May 9 firing of Comey could be connected to an effort to stop an FBI investigation.

“The president can fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “But, if evidence emerges that he fired Comey over the Flynn investigation or over the Russia investigation, now it becomes harder to defend.”

The Justice Department on Wednesday named another former FBI director, Robert Mueller, as a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election. The FBI also is investigating Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

Several House Democrats are using Comey’s purported memo on what Trump said to him to demand impeachment of the president—a highly unlikely scenario given Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered a floor speech Wednesday about impeachment, though he didn’t sound convinced the president was guilty. Green noted that it is the Senate’s job to make that determination in a trial after the House adopts articles of impeachment against a president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

“Impeachment does not mean the president will be found guilty,” Green said. “It simply means the House of Representatives will bring charges against the president.”

Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has not taken up the cause of impeachment, although an increasing number of partisan pundits are using the word.

Even if there was a House majority to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, two-thirds of the Senate would have to agree on his removal from office after a trial.

This would be a politically steep hill to climb, one presidential historian notes. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been impeached by the House, and both survived a Senate trial to serve out their terms.

The cases were quite different, but offer context for any such effort against Trump, said Larry Schweikart, a retired history professor at the University of Dayton who is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents” and co-author of “How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.”

“Andrew Johnson, for example, was impeached because he was as unpopular in Washington, as Trump is—but Johnson deliberately and blatantly went out of his way to violate a law so as to provoke impeachment as a test case,” Schweikart told The Daily Signal in an email.

He stressed that Johnson had been Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, assuming office only upon Lincoln’s assassination, and “was a Democrat in a Republican administration that hated him.”

The economy shows signs of improving, Schweikart added, which means that even if Democrats gained a congressional majority, impeachment would be politically difficult.

“The GOP actually opposed Clinton, while his own party supported him rabidly. But a similarity with Trump [is] the economy was booming,” Schweikart said. “Trump’s economy isn’t quite there yet, but it’s very, very hard to even undertake impeachment against a president who has a booming economy. Watergate did not turn [public opinion] against Nixon until the economy turned sour. Had Nixon had Clinton’s economy, he likely would have survived.”

Schweikart said perhaps 20 House Republicans are “committed to the swamp” and might be inclined to join Democrats in impeaching Trump, but he doubts they would take the political risk.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in response to a question from a reporter, said that trying to stop an investigation would be an impeachable offense, The Hill reported. But, Amash said, “everybody gets a fair trial.”

The key charge against Johnson was for the controversial firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton, at the time considered a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The statute, since invalidated by the Supreme Court, disallowed the firing of high-ranking government officials without Senate approval.

One of the two articles of impeachment against Clinton was obstruction of justice.

Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, has prosecuted obstruction of justice cases, generally in the context of a drug dealer trying to make a witness change his story. Obstruction has a specific definition in the U.S. Code, Whitaker said.

“Obstruction is a very technical crime with important elements to prove,” Whitaker, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, told The Daily Signal. “We don’t know enough, based on what we’ve seen of the memo.”

In remarks Wednesday to Coast Guard Academy graduates in New London, Connecticut, Trump didn’t directly talk about the obstruction allegation, but he took shots at his political opponents and the media.

“Look at the way I’ve been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly. You can’t let them get you down,” Trump said, getting applause. “You can’t let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams. … I guess that’s why we won.”

David McIntosh, a lawyer and former House member from Indiana, argued during remarks at a Federalist Society conference Wednesday that Trump had both the authority to talk to Comey about an ongoing investigation and to fire him. McIntosh said:

President Trump acted appropriately if he gave guidance to Director Comey on an investigation. It is important for us to step back and remember that, under the Constitution, the president has the authority and power to enforce the laws. There’s nothing in the Constitution about an FBI director.

The FBI director reports to the president, and it is the president’s decision to delegate authority on investigations. In delegating that authority, presidents have wisely chosen to insulate the FBI from political interference. But the president still has the power and authority to direct the FBI how to do their job.

Congress, in its critiques of the executive branch, should not overstep and try to direct or limit the president’s legitimate exercise of his Article 2 powers.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, requested that the FBI provide a physical copy of Comey’s memo to congressional investigators. Someone apparently read from the Comey memo to The New York Times reporter.

Democrats likely know this is not a viable obstruction case, said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Even if The Times story is entirely true, he said, “In the words of James Comey: No prosecutor would bring this case.”

Sekulow added:

“Obstruction of justice is a loaded term. It’s political to create an impeachment scenario. The bar is lower, but we have a Republican Congress. This is just political warfare. It was enough to get the Washington media talking about it. … During the Obama years, when people would talk about impeachment, we’d always discourage that talk as no way to get things done.

(For more from the author of “Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.