Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan (R) said Monday that former President Trump and his legal team’s recent communications are “erratic” and “unmoored from truth.”
Duncan made the comments when discussing the former president's continuing legal challenges during an appearance on CNN’s “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer.”
They were in response to Blitzer mentioning that Trump’s legal team argued on Monday that the former president should not be the subject of a protective order to limit what he can say in his Jan 6. criminal case.
“Well, I think everything's on the table for that team, right? Everything. He's very unpredictable,” Duncan told Blitzer. “We've seen this play out, even the communications that we've seen in the last 48 to 72 hours that he has put out on social media just seem erratic and unmoored from truth.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan recently ordered Trump’s attorneys to respond to Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a strict protective order by Monday, which would prevent Trump from discussing case evidence in public.
Duncan, who served as lieutenant governor of Georgia from 2019 to 2023, also told Blitzer that Trump’s recent social media posts and remarks on his legal challenges remind him of Trump's lead up to the Capitol attack on Jan. 6.
“It's very concerning,” Duncan added. “And unfortunately, there's similar hallmarks I'm watching play out in the last few days, that really bring me back to a terrible place and that was the lead up to January 6, where it's just a continued deluge of misinformation, and a feverish pitch through 10-second sound bites and short little social media posts.”
Trump was indicted last Tuesday by a Washington, D.C., grand jury on four charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to President Biden.
Smith’s 45-page indictment accuses Trump of trying to conduct a campaign to block the transfer of power. It alleges Trump was the director of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and played a central role in an attempt to block the certification of votes on Jan. 6.
Duncan also said that he received a subpoena to testify before a grand jury investigating the efforts Trump and his allies made to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.
Former President Trump is stepping up his war with Senate Republicans by calling for primary challenges next year against GOP incumbents who do not support investigating President Biden's family finances.
Many Senate Republicans have made clear they don’t want Trump to win their party’s nomination for president, and they’re leery about rallying to his defense given the former president’s polarizing effect on moderate Republican and swing voters.
Senate GOP aides and strategists argue they can’t do much regarding the Biden family's business dealings because they don’t have the power to issue subpoenas as the Senate’s minority party.
But GOP senators aren’t giving Trump much rhetorical support either — in sharp contrast from prominent House Republicans such as Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist and former Senate leadership aide, said the Trump call will appear to a number of Senate Republicans like a way for Trump to distract people from the investigations into his own activities.
But he suggested it isn’t likely to work.
“A good number of Senate Republicans take a more measured approach usually. They don’t knee-jerk to pressure,” Bonjean said.
Trump appears to be losing patience with Republican lawmakers on the fence about impeaching Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, as the federal and state felony charges pile up against him along with his mounting legal bills.
Trump mocked GOP senators and House members who say they have “other priorities” and would prefer to leave the investigations of Hunter Biden and the Biden family's business dealings to the House committees.
“They sit back and they say, ‘We have other priorities, we have to look at other things.’ Any Republican that doesn’t act on Democrat fraud should be immediately primaried. Get out. Out,” he declared at a Saturday rally in Erie, Pa.
The comments came a few days after Trump hit Senate Republicans for not taking a more aggressive approach to Biden’s personal finances.
“With all of these horrible revelations and facts, why hasn’t Republican ‘leadership’ in the Senate spoken up and rebuked Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats, Fascists, and Marxists for their criminal acts against our Country, some of them against me,” he demanded in a post on Truth Social.
Cool to launching impeachment proceedings
Republican senators are cool to the idea of launching impeachment proceedings against Biden in the House and generally have kept their distance from House GOP threats to cut funding to the Department of Justice and FBI in response to more than 30 felony counts prosecutors have brought against Trump.
Asked last week whether he saw any merit to an impeachment inquiry into Biden, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said impeachment “ought to be rare rather than common.”
“I’m not surprised that having been treated the way they were, House Republicans last Congress, [they] begin open up the possibility of doing it again,” he said, referring to the two impeachments of then-President Trump by a Democratic-controlled House.
“And I think this is not good for the country to have repeated impeachment problems,” McConnell warned.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement of the House Republican-led investigations into the Biden family and the Department of Justice’s handling of criminal allegations against Hunter Biden.
Bonjean said “in any impeachment, there would be a trial in the Senate,” which is another reason why Republican senators want to preserve an appearance of impartiality and not rush to judgement about allegations of corruption against the sitting president.
Republicans up for reelection next year include Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), an outspoken Trump critic, as well as Republicans who have largely stayed quiet about the president, including Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.).
None of these incumbents appear vulnerable, but GOP strategists warn that Trump’s support could result in several of them facing credible primary challenges.
“They could. Some Senate Republicans could face primary pressure over the next year, but they have a lot of time to position themselves on the matter and see how things unfold,” Bonjean said.
Trump tried to drum up opposition in the last election cycle to Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
He was more successful in stirring up support for Murkowski's Republican challenger, Kelly Tshibaka, but his efforts to recruit a primary challenge to Thune in South Dakota quickly fizzled.
Senate Republicans believe they have a good chance to win back the Senate majority in 2024 because Democrats will have to defend 23 seats, while they only have to protect 11 GOP-held seats.
A tough spot
Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University who served several fellowships in the Senate, said Trump’s calls for Republicans to embrace the partisan investigations of Biden’s family puts Republicans facing competitive general-election races next year in a tough spot.
“These are people who given the political physics of their congressional districts have to play a very exquisite balancing act. The idea that they move to impeach Biden does not play well in those districts,” he said of Republican lawmakers in competitive House districts.
Baker warned that some Senate Republicans could be in “jeopardy” in primaries next year if Trump decides to launch a full-scale assault against incumbents he views as reluctant allies.
“Think of people like Roger Wicker, who is someone who is seen as a pretty solid guy who votes the right way but is not an extremist,” Baker said, identifying a senator who might have to watch his right flank. “There are constituencies that will respond to any demand that Trump puts out who will say, ‘I can’t support [a senator] unless he gets on the impeachment bandwagon.’
“But I don’t think any Republican who is up for reelection wants to have to do that,” he said.
Baker said that Senate Republicans up for reelection don’t want to alienate the sizable share of the Republican electorate — which he estimates at about 25 percent of Republican voters — who don’t support Trump and don’t like the idea of GOP candidates embracing his scorched-earth tactics.
One Senate Republican aide defended the Senate GOP leadership from Trump’s broadsides by pointing out that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, played a key role in publicizing an FBI 1023 form that makes reference to unsubstantiated allegations that Biden was involved in a foreign bribery scheme.
“We’re not in the majority, and we don’t have subpoena power. You see Chuck Grassley and [Sen. Ron] Johnson [R-Wis.] pulling the levers on oversight and whistleblowers,” the aide said.
The form, which FBI investigators use to catalogue raw, unverified claims by informants, received little attention from other Republican senators.
A second Senate Republican strategist who requested anonymity argued that Grassley has made important contributions to the House investigations of Biden’s, even if Senate Republican leaders have generally kept their distance.
“I can’t imagine any House Republican would say that the stuff that Grassley has uncovered in his ongoing efforts is less important than what they’re doing. But I think it’s really a matter of, House Republicans are in the majority and have subpoena power and can do a lot more that Republicans in the Senate can,” the aide said.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been a familiar face and voice on Fox News, right-wing talk radio and elsewhere in the conservative media ecosystem since first being elected to the Senate more than a decade ago.
But these days, Cruz is getting a boost in raising his profile through a media product of his own making.
The Republican lawmaker hosts a now thrice-weekly podcast that has grown in popularity since its first episode published during former President Trump’s first impeachment trial.
Over the last three years, “Verdict” has helped Cruz amass a following of millions of listeners each month, all while promoting frequent GOP talking points, blasting his political enemies and keeping the senator's name in the headlines.
“I’m not interested in being a pundit,” the Republican senator told The Hill during an interview this week. “But part of fighting successfully is communicating and explaining what the issues are that matter. So, I view the podcast as fulfilling one of the really important responsibilities of representing Texans.”
“Verdict” became a quick success in terms of listenership during Trump’s first impeachment drama, quickly climbing podcasting leaderboards, with Politico noting at the time it beat out “The Daily” from The New York Times and Joe Rogan’s popular talk show on iTunes.
Today, it ranks among the top podcasts in the “politics” category and among the top 25 among all “news” podcasts, according to podcast tracking website PodBay. This month alone, “Verdict” has raked in 2 million downloads, including more than a million unique listeners, Cruz said.
The Republican argues that his show, which often features lengthy discussions on constitutional law and politics, has seen success because of what he described as the failings of the mainstream media in acknowledging topics important to conservatives.
“Much of the corporate media does not provide in-depth coverage of what is going on,” Cruz contends. “The reason why people faithfully listen three times a week is because when they’re done they’ve learned something … far better than what they’re able to get from the vast majority of media sources.”
Started initially as an explanatory program laying out and poking holes in the impeachment charges against Trump, Cruz now uses each episode of “Verdict” to pontificate about everything from President Biden’s family to foreign policy issues and other news of the day.
During one recent episode, Cruz explained for his audience the legalese around Hunter Biden’s plea deal, which fell apart in a Delaware courtroom last week after the president’s son was expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay income taxes as part of a deal announced last month with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
“It’s a plea deal that is designed to be a slap on the wrist, so Hunter serves no jail time whatsoever, and that it’s real purpose as we’ve discussed is to protect Joe Biden from any exposure to Hunter’s influence-selling and corruptions,” the GOP senator said during the episode.
Cruz, a second-term senator who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for president against Trump in 2016, fashions himself as a media-savvy national political operative — one who is mindful of audience demographics on each platform he appears on.
“If I’m walking through an airport and a woman in her 70s comes up and says, ‘Hey I loved you on TV,’ you know many of the demographic that are watching TV interviews are of an older generation,” the senator said.
“On the other hand, if I’ve got another guy with a ponytail and tattoos comes up and says, ‘Hey, I love what you’re doing,’ I know what the next words he’s going to say. He’s going to mention the podcast.”
Other high-profile lawmakers have also dipped their toes in the podcasting arena. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) are regulars on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast.
Other up-and-coming lawmakers have used social media to boost their brand, such as freshman Rep. Jeff Jackson (D-N.C.), who has mobilized an aggressive campaign on TikTok to reach voters, and progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has made news with opinions given while speaking on Instagram Live.
Cruz, likewise, makes it clear his goal with his podcast is to drive the news cycle as much as he can.
“It’s a way of raising issues and advancing issues that matter to Texans,” he told The Hill.
Cruz’s podcasting venture has been met with some criticism, including over the ethics of a sitting U.S. senator operating a talk show.
The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics after he reached a syndication agreement with iHeartMedia, one of the largest providers of audio content in the country, contending the deal violated Senate rules on accepting gifts from lobbyists.
iHeartMedia is a registered lobbyist, according to OpenSecrets.
Cruz has said he receives “no financial benefit” from his podcast.
“It’s no surprise Democrats and their allies in the corrupt corporate media take issue with Sen. Cruz’s chart-topping podcast — it allows him to circumvent the media gatekeepers and speak directly to the American people about what is really happening in Washington,” a Cruz spokesman told the Austin American-Statesman at the time.
“Sen. Cruz receives no financial benefit from 'Verdict.' There is no difference between Sen. Cruz appearing on a network television show, a cable news show, or a podcast airing on iHeartMedia.”
While Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2024, still sees some value in traditional cable news hits and radio appearances, he says the show he puts on himself allows for extra flexibility in pushing his agenda.
“Let’s say you’re doing a TV interview and it’s six or eight minutes. That can be valuable if you reach a lot of people,” he said. “But in six or eight minutes, you can’t engage in a whole lot of substance. You can have a few talking points, you can have kind of a clever one-liner, but it’s difficult to have really detailed analysis in a short TV or radio interview. The podcast format, I’ve really grown to like.”
Two high-profile incidents in quick succession involving Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have put the issue of aging politicians front and center.
But the questions raised around mental capacity and fitness for office have no easy answers.
Proposals that might begin to address the issue, such as term limits or cognitive tests beyond a certain age, confront an instant Catch-22. In order to be enacted, they need the support of politicians who might be negatively impacted by them.
Meanwhile, the people around those politicians have generally no incentive to nudge them to change their minds.
“I think some of what drives these people to stay on forever is a personal power thing that they can’t let go of," progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini said. “The second thing that drives this, though, is the staff. I think what really gets ignored is how the staff cover for people who clearly can’t function, because they themselves don’t want to lose their power.”
This week’s incidents involved two of five current senators who are 80 or older.
First, McConnell appeared to freeze up, for unexplained reasons, while delivering remarks to reporters Wednesday.
The following day, Feinstein seemed confused during a committee roll-call vote. Feinstein started giving general remarks, when all that was required was that she cast her vote. “Just say ‘Aye,’” her colleague, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), could be heard telling Feinstein.
Feinstein, 90, is the oldest sitting senator. McConnell is 81.
There are specific concerns about both senators, separate and apart from the broader issue of elected officials seeking to remain in office in their ninth decade.
McConnell suffered a concussion earlier this year in a fall at a Washington hotel — an incident in which he also suffered a broken rib. The accident kept McConnell away from the Senate of almost six weeks while he recuperated.
In the wake of Wednesday’s incident, it has also been reported by multiple outlets that McConnell suffered two other falls this year — one in Helsinki, and one at Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Medical professionals have speculated as to whether what happened Wednesday may have been a seizure or mini-stroke.
The majority leader himself has professed to be “fine.” His staff have said of the incident that he felt “lightheaded.”
The Feinstein incident was, in some ways, more worrisome, given that concerns have been raised about her cognitive abilities for some time.
In late 2020, she asked the same question twice in succession, apparently unaware she was repeating herself, in a hearing with then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
Last year, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that four senators, including three Democrats, had told its reporters about their worries regarding Feinstein. One congressional Democrat representing California anonymously described a meeting at which he or she had to reintroduce themselves to Feinstein repeatedly.
Feinstein, who is retiring at the next election, has defended her own capabilities. Her staff has said she was “preoccupied” during Thursday’s roll call vote.
Other allies have suggested there is an element of sexism in the apparent desire to push Feinstein out. They note examples of past male senators, including Sens. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), whose capacities were widely believed to be diminished late in life but who did not face the same public pressure to step down.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 83, was one of Feinstein’s most vigorous defenders in that regard. Pelosi announced she was stepping down as the leader of House Democrats last year, having spent 20 years atop her conference.
But the McConnell and Feinstein episodes are also important because of the way in which they illuminate a larger picture.
President Biden is 80 and prone to slips-ups, as when he recently twice referred to the war in "Iraq” when he clearly meant “Ukraine.”
Former President Trump is 77 and, while rarely hesitant in the Biden fashion, he often launches into bizarre asides during his long campaign speeches.
It’s not as if the issue of aging politicians is off-limits. GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley has proposed mandatory cognitive tests for office-holders 75 and older.
Her proposal was seen more as a shot across the bow of Biden and Trump specifically rather than an idea that had any real chance of being enacted. Haley, 51, talks often on the campaign trail about the need for “new generational leaders.”
Talk also bubbles up intermittently about term limits for senators and House members.
Term limits face the philosophical question of whether voters should be denied the chance to reelect who they wish for as long as they wish — presidency excepted. There is also the practical difficulty that politicians are not eager to vote to, in effect, abbreviate their own careers.
“The fact is, politicians — like pretty much everyone else — are living to older ages, and some people stay physically and mentally sharp and other people deteriorate somewhat,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor emeritus who specialized in political communications.
“The question is, should it be up to the voters or up to the doctors to decide when someone should be out of office.”
There is also the question of how any restriction on age or mental abilities would be codified or enforced. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is 81, and even his most staunch ideological opponents don’t seriously question his mental capacity.
For the moment, it seems most likely that the issue of aging politicians will remain a conundrum without an obvious solution.
“It’s not that you reach 75 and you should be gone,” said Tasini.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is helped by Senators and staff after McConnell unexpectedly pauses while speaking to reporters after the weekly policy luncheon on Wednesday, July 26, 2023. (Greg Nash)
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) froze in front of television cameras for about 20 seconds Wednesday as he battled a bout of lightheadedness that forced him to walk away briefly from a press conference.
The scary moment, which prompted members of his leadership team to suggest that he take a rest, raises new questions about the 81-year-old Republican leader’s future.
“Are you good, Mitch?” asked Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst (Iowa), putting her hand on the back of his arm.
Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso (Wyo.), who is a doctor, ushered McConnell away from the podium after the leader was unable to get more than a couple of sentences into his opening statement.
“Let’s go back to your office,” Barrasso suggested. “Do you want to say anything else to the press? Let’s go back.”
Barrasso later revealed that he walked “down the hall” with McConnell toward his office after they both walked away from the podium and that the leader didn’t say anything to him to indicate distress.
An aide to McConnell later said, “He felt lightheaded and stepped away for a moment.” The aide pointed out that McConnell “was sharp” in answering reporters’ questions after he returned to the event.
McConnell’s term runs through the end of 2026, and he previously said that he expects to stay on as leader.
Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) told reporters after the troubling moment in front of the cameras that McConnell should stay in his leadership role.
“And hopefully he gets a good rest over the [August] break,” she said.
McConnell has helped recruit top-flight Republican candidates in West Virginia and Montana to maximize the chances of reclaiming his old title of Senate majority leader in January 2025.
And two outside fundraising groups aligned with McConnell, the Senate Leadership Fund and One Nation, this week reported record-breaking fundraising hauls over the first six months of a nonelection year.
The groups raised a combined $38 million, with the Senate Leadership Fund collecting $10.1 million and One Nation bringing in $28.2 million.
But Senate Republican colleagues say McConnell seems to be still suffering the effects of a nasty spill he took in early March, which sent him to the hospital with a concussion and led to weeks of rehabilitation.
One Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss McConnell’s health observed that the GOP leader has been more reticent at Republican lunch meetings. The lawmaker speculated that McConnell may be having troubling hearing the conversations at the lunch, just as he sometimes has trouble hearing reporters’ questions at press conferences.
A second Republican senator said McConnell does not appear fully recovered from his fall.
“I love Mitch McConnell, he is one of the most strategic political thinkers that we have. I have such admiration and respect for him but I do fear that — you can call it low energy — he is not himself,” the lawmaker said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is the oldest member of the Senate GOP conference at age 89, said he planned to call McConnell’s office to check up on his health.
“If I want to know what went wrong, yes,” he said.
FILE - Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, testifies during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2023, in Washington. A U.S. Senate committee has accused the embattled Swiss bank Credit Suisse of limiting the scope of an internal probe into Nazi clients and Nazi-linked accounts. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
McConnell waved aside questions about his health when he returned to the podium Wednesday afternoon.
Asked at Wednesday’s press conference why he was unable to complete his statement and whether it was related to the concussion, McConnell responded: “No, I’m fine.”
“You’re fine, you’re fully able to do your job?” the reporter pressed.
“Yeah,” McConnell answered.
McConnell returned to the press conference in time to take the first question from reporters, as he usually does after the weekly Senate Republican policy lunch.
He made a point of staying at the podium longer than usual to answer questions and appeared calm and confident while providing detailed answers.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addresses reporters after the weekly policy luncheon on Wednesday, July 26, 2023. (Greg Nash)
When a reporter asked Wednesday if he had “anybody in mind” to replace him when he’s “no longer” the Republican leader, McConnell smiled and walked back to his office while members of his leadership team laughed it off.
Republican senators and aides predict that if McConnell steps down from his leadership job, there would be a three-way race among Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), Barrasso and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the former Senate GOP whip and a current adviser to the Senate GOP leadership team, to replace him.
Thune and Cornyn, who have both expressed interest in becoming the Senate GOP leader sometime in the future, say the job belongs to McConnell as long as he wants it.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee who challenged McConnell unsuccessfully in November, hasn’t ruled out making another run for Senate Republican leader.
McConnell defeated Scott 37-10 in an acrimonious race in which both candidates traded blame for the disappointing results of the 2022 midterm election.
Barrasso said after the press conference that he was “concerned” about McConnell’s health but pointed out that he led the lunch meeting earlier in the day and appeared in good shape while answering questions from the press.
“I was concerned since … he was injured a number of months ago, and I continue to be concerned,” he told a crowd of reporters who pressed him for details about McConnell’s condition.
“I was concerned when he fell and hit his head a number of months ago and was hospitalized, and I think he’s made a remarkable recovery. He’s doing a great job leading our conference and was able to answer every question that the press asked today,” he said.
Barrasso said McConnell didn’t show any signs of impairment at the conference lunch meeting.
“He spoke at lunch, carried on, led the discussion. Everything was fine,” he said.
Senate Republicans see impeaching President Biden ahead of the 2024 election as a risky political strategy that could turn off moderate voters and are hoping to wave their House GOP colleagues off from marching down that road.
GOP senators say the party is better off focused on how to improve Americans’ lives in the future instead of fighting messy battles to settle past political scores.
“Staying focused on the future and not the past is in my view the best way to change the direction of the country and that’s to win an election,” Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) told reporters Tuesday.
Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said Tuesday she would prefer to focus on national security policy, which the Senate is debating this week as it wraps up work on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
“I’m really focused on NDAA right now. I really want to see it get done and I want a bipartisan deal between the House and the Senate. I think that’s what we’re focused on,” Ernst told reporters. “We need to get our [appropriations] bills done, too. So, that’s what we’re going to focus on in the Senate.”
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday strongly signaled to reporters that the House could move forward with an impeachment inquiry.
“How do you get to the bottom of the truth? The only way Congress can do that is go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told reporters Tuesday. “What an impeachment inquiry does, it gives us the apex of the power of Congress for Republicans and Democrats to gather the information that they need.”
However, McCarthy later said no decision had been made, raising doubts about whether he’d move forward with the step.
“I wasn’t announcing it,” he said. “I simply say … that the actions that I'm seeing by this administration, with holding the agencies from being able to work with us — that would rise to the level of an impeachment inquiry. We … still have a number of investigations going forward.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) declined to comment on McCarthy's impeachment push when asked about it on his way to the Senate floor.
Senate Republicans have generally kept their distance from the House Republican-led investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings and earlier this summer dismissed what they saw as a hastily filed motion by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to impeach Biden for lacking evidence and due process.
“I know people are angry. I’m angry at the Biden administration for their policies at the border and a whole host of other things, but I think we also need to look at what’s achievable,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said last month in response to Boebert’s impeachment resolution.
“And with a Democratic majority in the Senate, I don’t think that’s achievable,” he warned.
Cornyn on Tuesday remarked that the House standards for impeaching a president have dropped in recent years.
House Democrats impeached former President Trump in December of 2019 and then again in January of 2021.
He told reporters that impeaching presidents is getting to be "a habit around here," and that's not a good thing.
“Unfortunately, what goes around, comes around,” he said.
Remembering when it backfired
Senate Republicans remember the last time a Republican-controlled House impeached a Democratic president in the fall of 1998, it backfired on their party in that year’s midterm election.
Democrats picked up five House seats that year, marking the first time in 64 years the president’s party didn’t lose any seats in Congress during a midterm election.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump on impeachment charges during two separate Senate trials, said it’s not unusual for lawmakers to launch baseless attacks against a major party’s nominee for president, as happened to him in 2012.
Romney said Biden should open up about his family’s business dealings to reassure the public.
“There are all sorts of accusations and allegations. I had something of that nature launched against me when I was running for president. I found the best way to respond was full disclosure and transparency. My guess is that’s the way to make it go away,” he said. “I’ll expect to see that from the Biden team.
Romney reminded his House colleagues that the “bar” for impeachment is “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“That hasn’t been alleged at this stage, but we’ll see what develops. I certainly hope that that’s not going to confront us again,” he said.
Cornyn warned Tuesday that further lowering the bar for impeachment will set a precedent for future Congresses.
“Once a precedent is established around here, you can pretty well guarantee people will cite that as justification or lower the bar further. I don’t think it’s a healthy thing,” he said.
Even so, Cornyn acknowledged that House investigators have uncovered some troubling evidence shedding light on Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
“I’m very disturbed by some of the revelations in the House about the Biden family business,” he said.
Not eager for battle
GOP senators are not eager to get drawn into a protracted battle with Democrats over an impeachment trial that may wind up dividing their conference if House investigators fail to come up with compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard set by the Constitution.
Investigations by the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees into Hunter Biden’s business dealings and whether he received favorable treatment from the Department of Justice have failed to gain much public traction, or even support from Senate Republicans on the other side of the Capitol.
Trump on Monday vented his frustration with Senate Republicans for not showing much interest in pursuing Biden.
“Why hasn’t Republican ‘leadership’ in the Senate spoken up and rebuked Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats, Fascists, and Marxists for their criminal acts against our Country, some of them against me. How long does America have to wait for the Senate to ACT?” Trump demanded in a post to his social media site, Truth Social.
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Steve Daines (Mont.) told reporters Tuesday that it’s the job of the House, not the Senate, to investigate Biden.
“It will be up to the House to determine what the facts lead them to vote on in the future. That’s their job,” he said.
Some Republican senators, however, argued Tuesday that House Republicans are justified in moving forward with an impeachment inquiry.
“Considering what the House Oversight Committee is unearthing — we can’t help that the FBI didn’t do their job for five years — now they’re finding all this information out. They’re still digging and appropriately so,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who asserted that House investigators have found “pretty strong evidence of serious crimes.”
“Whether we like it or not, we may have to deal with it,” he said. “I think the Speaker is doing what he needs to do and what’s appropriate to do, quite honestly.”
Asked about his Senate Republican colleagues’ reluctance to wade into another impeachment fight, Cramer said: “I’m not eager to get on an airplane every Monday morning.”
“We don’t do this for our own convenience, we do this because we pledge an oath and we have a president who clearly has over the years been running a really awful family crime syndicate,” he said. “We’ve got to look into it.”
He said when Democrats controlled the House during the Trump administration, “We impeached the president twice with no evidence in the kangaroo court.”
House Republicans are set to meet as a group one final time ahead of the August recess on Wednesday amid tensions over the annual appropriations process, a push to expunge former President Trump’s impeachments and questions over who they might impeach in the Biden administration.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has shaken up the final question by suggesting in an interview on Fox News on Monday night that the impeachment targets could include the president himself.
He told Fox’s Sean Hannity that Republican-led investigations into Biden are “rising to the level of impeachment inquiry” and didn’t back away from the suggestion in remarks to reporters Tuesday.
The statements by McCarthy offer red meat to the GOP base and hard-line conservatives in the conference who are jumping at the chance to go after Biden amid anger over what many Republicans see as favorable treatment by the Department of Justice.
They also come as McCarthy is trying to soothe conservatives angered by the direction of federal spending.
It’s the latest balancing act for the Speaker, who is managing a razor-thin majority and must navigate differences between conservatives and more moderate members of his conference, some of whom do not support as steep of spending cuts and do not want to expunge Trump’s impeachment or impeach Biden.
“We’ve got a narrow majority and we’re trying to work our way to a consensus and hopefully we will,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Rules Committee, said of the appropriations process.
McCarthy must also contend with Trump, the leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, whom he risks angering should he fail to schedule a vote to expunge his impeachments. That dynamic could grow if Trump is hit with his third indictment of 2023 this week.
Wednesday’s Republican conference meeting — its regular weekly gathering — provides McCarthy with one final opportunity to alleviate tensions and rally his GOP troops ahead of a critical week, and a long summer break.
Top of the legislative to-do list is appropriations, as Congress stares down a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown. The House is scheduled to vote on the first two of 12 appropriations bills this week, even as conservatives remain skeptical of leadership's efforts to cut spending.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus put GOP leadership on notice Tuesday, announcing they want to review all 12 appropriations bills — and assess the overall price tag — before voting on any individual measures. All appropriations bills have been released by the Appropriations Committee, but two are still being marked up.
“We are united in the belief that we have to see what the entire cost is before we can start working on individual pieces of it. Because again, you will be left with a very small piece of that pie that we might have to take a lot of the spending out of,” Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), one of the Freedom Caucus members, said Tuesday.
That posture could make it tougher for McCarthy to pass the first two appropriations bills, which Democrats are expected to oppose because they were marked up at levels below the debt limit deal. If liberals are united in opposition, the Speaker will only be able to lose a handful of his members.
McCarthy brushed aside any concerns Tuesday.
“It’s your same question every week, and I haven't changed my opinion yet,” he told reporters.
The appropriations fight is at risk of being drowned out by Trump, with the former president on indictment watch and House conservatives pushing for a vote on expunging his impeachments.
Trump last week said the Justice Department informed him that he is a target in their investigation into his efforts to remain in office following the 2020 presidential election — which includes the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot — a notification that often precedes charges being filed.
That news came within days of a Politico report that said McCarthy — in an effort to ease tensions with Trump after the Speaker questioned his strength as a candidate — promised to stage a vote on resolutions to expunge the former president's impeachments by the end of September, the constitutionality of which has been questioned by some.
McCarthy, who is in favor of expungement, denied ever vowing to hold a vote on the measures. But the report nonetheless resurfaced conservative calls to wipe away the impeachments, much to the chagrin of moderate Republicans.
“President Trump was wrongfully impeached twice — twice — and both of these impeachments must be expunged by the House of Representatives,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a lead sponsor of one of the expungement resolutions, said on the House floor Tuesday.
Those demands will likely grow louder if Trumps is indicted.
McCarthy risks angering Trump and his allies if he does not schedule a vote on the resolutions; but if he does, they would almost certainly fail amid opposition from moderates.
The risk of angering Trump and hard-line conservatives is especially acute as appropriations season heats up — a time when McCarthy is trying to unite his conference behind spending bills to avoid a shutdown.
Some conservatives, however, were pleased with McCarthy opening up the possibility of an impeachment inquiry, a move that could help simmer tensions between the Speaker and his right flank in the sprint to Sept. 30.
“I don’t think there’s any question that him speaking to that has caused a paradigm shift,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) said Tuesday.
Republican senators who don’t want to see former President Trump as their party's nominee are feeling increasingly anxious that special counsel Jack Smith is actually helping Trump's presidential campaign through his dogged pursuit of the former president.
They fear that another round of federal charges against Trump will only further boost his fundraising and poll numbers, solidifying his possession as the dominant front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary field.
And they worry that Smith’s effect on the Republican presidential primary is being magnified by prominent House Republicans and conservative media personalities who have rallied behind Trump, effectively blotting out the rest of the GOP presidential field.
“They wish he would go away,” said a Republican senator, who requested anonymity to comment on private conversation, of fellow GOP senators’ concerns that Smith is helping propel Trump to victory.
“They wish they would both go away,” the senator added, referring to Smith and Trump.
The senator said constituents are calling on colleagues to “stand by Trump,” essentially turning the GOP presidential primary into a referendum on the former president and his battles with the Biden Justice Department.
The senator said Smith is “absolutely” the best thing going for Trump’s presidential campaign.
Trump had a 15-point lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in national polls March 30, when news of the former president’s first indictment in New York on 34 felony counts related to a hush money scheme became public.
Since then, his lead over DeSantis, his closest rival, has grown to 33 points, according to an average of recent national polls.
A second Republican senator said the Department of Justice will further boost Trump if it brings new charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and stop Congress from certifying President Biden’s victory Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump already faces 37 counts in a federal indictment related to the classified documents found at his Florida residence.
“The things that one would have thought were disqualifying can be enhancing, can be improving your standing,” said the GOP senator, who also requested anonymity to comment on how Trump’s legal battles are energizing Republican voters to embrace his campaign.
“I should explain to my constituents who complain that the Democrats are out to ambush Trump: ‘No, they want him to be Republican nominee because he is the one who would lose,’” the senator added.
The senator said a new federal indictment against Trump “creates increased enthusiasm among his supporters and probably brings other voters along who see this as a rotten system.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who hasn’t yet endorsed any presidential candidate, said Trump is getting “stronger” because of the two indictments and the potential for additional charges from the Justice Department and the Fulton County (Ga.) district attorney.
“I think he’s getting stronger,” he said, adding, “The primary gets less and less [competitive].”
Paul speculated that the Biden administration and its allies may be focusing prosecutorial firepower on Trump to boost him in the primary, because Democratic strategists believe Biden has a good chance of beating him again in a general election.
“Maybe that’s their strategy. Maybe their strategy is: 'Let’s keep indicting him. We’ll build him up because he’s the one candidate who won’t have appeal to independents.’ And that might be true,” Paul said.
The Kentucky senator said even Republicans who aren’t Trump fans feel angry and exasperated by the severity of the charges brought against him.
“More and more Republicans, even ones who have disagreements with him, are like: ‘Really, you’re going to indict him for trying to overturn the election?’” he said.
Paul said he thought the strategy of Trump allies trying to push alternate slates of Electoral College electors in the weeks after the 2020 election was “a stupid strategy.”
“I voted against it. I said at the time it was a dumb strategy. So I’m against that policy, but never in my right mind would I think that it’s a crime for [Trump] to say, ‘Let’s have an alternate set of electors,’” he said.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), who has endorsed Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the 2024 presidential election and has repeatedly warned that Trump is a turnoff to swing voters, said the Department of Justice has only boosted Trump’s fundraising and standing in the polls.
“That seems to have happened so far,” he said. “He seems to have benefited every time that the Justice Department goes after him.
“I’m hoping that the dynamic changes in a way that Tim Scott starts to break out,” Thune said.
Trump’s campaign last week sent out a fundraising email to supporters within 24 hours of receiving a letter from Smith informing him that he is the target of a grand jury investigation related to the events of Jan. 6.
He asked his subscribers to “make a contribution to show that you will NEVER SURRENDER our country to tyranny as the DEEP State thugs try to JAIL me for life.”
Trump raised $35 million in the second quarter of this year, during which time he pleaded not guilty in separate criminal cases in Manhattan and the Southern District of Florida.
DeSantis reported raising $20 million in the second quarter.
Trump has repeatedly bashed Smith to rev up his core supporters.
He shot off a fundraising email immediately after learning that he had been indicted in early June for violating the Espionage Act and conspiring to obstruct justice because of his handling of classified documents after leaving office.
“We are watching our Republic DIE before our very eyes. The Biden-appointed Special Counsel has INDICTED me in yet another witch hunt regarding documents that I had the RIGHT to declassify as President of the United States,” he wrote June 8.
Trump’s strategy of villainizing Smith and the Department of Justice has proven especially effective with small-dollar donors; his campaign reported collecting $6.6 million within days of Smith announcing his first round of charges.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump of impeachment charges and wants his party to move away from the former president, said: “In the past, an indictment would be terminal for a candidate.”
“Donald Trump has proven that’s not the case. He was right: He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn’t make a difference,” he said.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who doesn’t think Trump can win a general election matchup against Biden, said the indictments have rallied Republican voters behind Trump "so far."
“But he hasn’t had a trial yet," he said. "That could change things."
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign and former President Trump this week rolled out dueling plans for the U.S. military, with both GOP candidates' proposals light on details and heavy on gripes over Biden administration efforts.
While DeSantis’s proposition took aim at Pentagon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, recruiting woes and policies impacting transgender service members, Trump’s plan focused largely on seeking reimbursements for U.S. aid to Ukraine, lambasting Europe for what he decried as only a “tiny fraction” of what Washington had contributed.
But as both candidates strive to stand apart from each other’s messaging, choosing to focus on different aspects of national security, experts say there appears to be little difference between the two proposals.
“There doesn't seem to be very much daylight between the two of them on a couple of different fronts,” said Katherine Kuzminski, an armed forces expert and society at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
“I think there's a real focus on bringing resources back to the U.S. and not extending American leadership abroad. And then, certainly, when it comes to the domestic politics, the pushes for reform within the Department of Defense when it comes to DEI policies and transgender policy,” she said.
“There isn't really a debate between the two of them on these specific issues ... When you look at their policies, they're not actually all that different,” Kuzminski said.
Here are both candidate’s messages on the U.S. military and national security:
DeSantis’s culture war complaints
DeSantis’s plan, unveiled at a brief news conference last Tuesday in South Carolina, doubled down on past campaign promises to “rip the woke” out of the U.S. military and overhaul the institution.
The “Mission First” proposal includes potential six-month performance reviews for all four-star generals and admirals, and possible dismissals should anyone be found to have “promoted policies to the detriment of readiness and warfighting.”
He also pledged to rescind Biden’s executive order that allows transgender individuals to serve under their preferred sex, rip out DEI initiatives in the services or military academies, end Pentagon efforts to combat extremism in the ranks and reinstate personnel who were dismissed for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine as well as give them backpay.
In addition, he promised to end programs meant to prepare military installations and troops for future climate change, bashing the Pentagon for shifting, in part, to electric vehicles.
In an interview with CNN the evening after the press conference, DeSantis claimed his policy targets Pentagon efforts that hinder recruitment and said the military is currently suffering from America’s loss in confidence in the institution.
“At this level, everybody has acknowledged these recruiting levels are at a crisis. ... I think it’s because people see the military losing its way, not focusing on the mission and focusing on a lot of these other things,” DeSantis said.
DeSantis isn’t straying far from his policy proposals already enacted as Florida governor.
While head of the state, he has banned higher education institutions from putting dollars toward diversity and inclusion programs, forbade the use of federal resources to teach students about sexual activity, sexual orientation or gender identity, and prohibited some teachings about race and U.S. history.
But Michael O'Hanlon, a security fellow at the Brookings Institution, called DeSantis’s stance a “missed opportunity” for the former Navy officer, who served in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps in Iraq.
“Cleary DeSantis is fighting the culture wars and he’s sort of staying true to his M.O.,” O'Hanlon told The Hill.
“I think it’s probably a missed opportunity for him. … He should be trying to show he is actually capable of developing serious views on the big strategic issues of the day, which are fundamentally not about diversity, equity and inclusion within the armed forces,” he said. “I think he ought to be engaging on China and Russia, how to solve the Ukraine, how to prevent war over Taiwan.”
And Kuzminski said there’s a misperception that the Florida governor is capitalizing on “wokeness” as a recruiting challenge in the U.S. military,
“That is the perception of some who may have served a long time ago, but the reality of military service is that it needs to reflect the population from which it's drawn,” she said. “That's a challenge that I think a President Trump 2.0 or President DeSantis is going to run ... into if they were to win the election.”
On Ukraine, Desantis has offered tentative comments on the conflict, insisting it wasn't a U.S. national security priority and downplaying the Russian invasion.
“While the U.S. has many vital national interests [such as] securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party, becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” DeSantis said in March.
He has since walked back his comments on the war being a “territorial dispute.”
Trump’s Ukraine-Russia War focus
Trump, meanwhile, has long made pledges to cut back U.S. involvement in foreign wars, starting with campaign promises ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Trump coasted through the 2016 GOP primaries under his so-called “America First” foreign policy, intended to diminish Washington’s role on the world stage and focus more dollars at home than overseas.
During his presidency, he continued that line of thinking, calling for a reduction in service members serving abroad and criticizing the U.S. foreign intervention as being too expensive and ineffective.
Trump seems to be doubling down on that track with his plan for “Rebuilding America’s Depleted Military,” also released last week.
In a prerecorded video put out by his campaign, the former president focuses largely on foreign policy, repeating criticisms over Biden’s handling Russia’s war on Ukraine.
If reelected, he claimed, he would demand Europe pay the U.S. to rebuild its weapons stockpiles — which have pulled from heavily since February 2022 to help bolster Kyiv in its fight.
“Less than three years ago, I’d fully rebuilt the United States military and steered America into such a strong global position,” Trump boasted.
“Twenty-nine months later, the arsenals are empty, the stockpiles are bare, the Treasury is drained, the ranks are being hollowed out, our country has been totally humiliated, and we have a corrupt, compromised president, crooked Joe Biden, who is dragging us into World War III,” he said.
Trump also claimed Washington’s European allies were only giving a “tiny fraction” of the assistance to Ukraine compared to the United States, and suggested Biden was “too weak and too disrespected to even ask” for reimbursement.
Trump also said in a recent interview that he could end the war in 24 hours, a claim many found dubious.
O’Hanlon, who called Trump’s assertions on lagging European assistance to Ukraine “incorrect,” said he appears to be banking on his past arguments on making America first.
Kuzminski agreed that Trump’s campaign looks to be “hitting harder on making Ukraine repay us,” and “doubling down" on those statements.
While Trump hasn’t been as vocal on culture war issues in the military this time around, he has a well-documented history when it comes to his stance on transgender service members in the military.
In July 2017, he announced on Twitter, apparently out of the blue, that transgender individuals would no longer be allowed “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”
That ban was eventually rescinded by Biden via executive order shortly after he entered the White House in January 2021.
If you are looking for a Master Class in judicial malfeasance, look no further than conservative firebrand Mark Levin. Mr. Levin has been steadily covering the concerted effort from the Biden administration to take down its biggest competitor, former President Donald Trump.
Recently Mr. Levin scolded Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon for allowing the left to continue interfering with the upcoming presidential election and destroying any chance of a fair race. Judge Cannon split the difference between what the prosecution wanted and what the Trump defense requested, placing the start date for the classified documents trial right before the Republican National Convention.
As usual, Mark is correct in his takedown of the milquetoast Judge and rightly places ownership of laying out a red carpet for the prosecution to destroy a former president and remove any possible hope for a fair presidential election squarely on her shoulders. Say goodbye to the America you knew and hello to the beginning of the end.
Judge Aileen Cannon just gave the Dems everything they wanted by placing Trump's document trial in the heart of campaign season:
January 15, 2024 – Iowa Primary
March 5, 2024 – Super Tuesday with 12 state primaries
After news broke that Judge Aileen Cannon had ordered the classified document case against President Trump will begin on May 20, 2024, Mr. Levin said on his show:
“Judge Cannon, in Florida, you let the country down. This trial should have been moved to after the election. You just gave your imprimatur and the imprimatur of the federal judiciary to the interference in this election.”
Judge Cannon’s ruling doesn’t just put the court start date before the presidential election; it also places it weeks before the 2024 Republican National Convention. It’s important to note that the former President is the current Republican frontrunner and is also believed to be pulling ahead of the incumbent and the puppet master behind the scenes of his persecution, President Joe Biden.
In this particular act of theater, the former President is charged with illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing the government’s ability to retrieve them. It seems laughable when you consider the current President stashing classified documents from when he was a Senator in his garage.
Alas, they aren’t joking.
Originally the prosecution had requested a trial start date in December of this year, to which Judge Cannon wrote:
“The Government’s proposed schedule is atypically accelerated and inconsistent with ensuring a fair trial.”
BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon has set the Trump classified doc trial date for May 20, 2024, less than 6 months before the 2024 election.
The ‘justice system’ meddled in the 2020 election and they’re doing it again in 2024.
But scheduling the trial to begin shortly before the presumptive Republican nominee for President hits the general election campaign trail won’t lead to any unfairness? Judge Cannon is either woefully incompetent or too focused on endearing herself to a media that earlier blasted her for being a Trump stooge – either option doesn’t bode well for democracy.
Some people had different opinions than Mark regarding the Judge’s decision. U.S. Attorney Harry Litman supported her decision by writing:
“The 5/20/24 trial date that Cannon just set is about as extended as it could be without seeming ridiculous.”
I occasionally dabble in ridiculousness, so let’s look at how ridiculous this entire situation has become. The truth of the matter is that not only will the former President have to wrestle with this trial while running for the highest office in all the land, he also has on his busy legal calendar:
criminal charges in Manhattan
Two criminal investigations over alleged efforts to overthrow the 2020 election
“Trump will have to defend himself against bogus criminal charges in Manhattan, bogus civil charges in Albany, bogus criminal charges in the “documents” case, bogus criminal charges in the Jan. 6 matter, and most likely the shoe will soon drop in Atlanta. All the while, he is running for re-election as President. It is extremely difficult to fight all these prosecutors, and fight for your freedom, and run for President at the same time. And these prosecutors know it.”
So let’s call all of this what it is; it’s not ridiculous; it’s terrifying.
Good Morning Twitterland. Happy Monday.
Mark Levin: “The Democrat Party owns the culture, the Justice Dept and owns the FBI and until they are taken apart, it’s going to continue.”
The call to have the “documents” trial start May 2024, according to Georgia State law professor Anthony Kreis, is:
“…the worst possible outcome for the Republican Party. Great for Trump though. This basically allows Trump to snag the nomination before the most easily damning case comes to trial.”
Mr. Kreis’ analysis assumes that the former President won’t easily “snag” the nomination regardless; however, the date isn’t just the worst possible outcome for the Republican Party, it’s the worst possible outcome for America. While for most Republicans, the endless legal attacks against Mr. Trump have turned into the “same ole same ole,” and for Democrats, it’s a nonstop ticker tape parade for Biden administration stooges – the people who will care are Independents.
Presidential campaign consultant Dave Carney backs this assertion, stating that the trial before the election will:
Earlier this month on Sean Hannity’s show Mark Levin laid out how the left-wing establishment is orchestrating a takeover:
“This is a disgusting, disgusting mark on American history for the future to come by these bandits in the White House, by the Democrat Party that don’t play fair anymore. They don’t want to just win elections. They want to take control of this country. They want one-party rule.”
With the help of the leftwing corporate media, the left believes they will be able to manipulate and lie their way into another four years thanks to the malleable minds of the Independents.
I spent 20 years in the United States military. Like many who wore the uniform or worked in federal service, I had to take copious amounts of classified document handling training.
The military, at least back in my day, seemed to take mishandling of classified information very seriously; God help you if some shmuck accidentally sent you an email without the correct classification markings. An act done by someone else could land your entire workstation covered in investigative tape and your security clearance in suspension.
So, believe me when I tell you I take the mishandling of classified documents seriously. What I find abhorrent is the faux outrage by left-wing media and the liberal establishment over what the former President did or didn’t do.
As Mark Levin described earlier about the current President:
“This is a guy that’s got documents from the time he was in the U.S. Senate, for God’s sake, in his garage.”
Will President Trump serve jail time? Hard to say if you ask me, but the fact that “the book” is being thrown at him when perennially failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the current President isn’t even having “the book” cracked in their direction shows how far our country has fallen.
I’ll leave you with this bit of wisdom from Mr. Levin:
“The Biden regime, the Democrat Party and their prosecutors, and the Democrat Party media understand that this next election may well be the make-or-break election of our time, for our country.”
The seriousness of what is being done to Donald Trump by local and federal Democrat prosecutors cannot be overstated. It is alarming. It is shocking. And this republic is teetering. Trump will have to defend himself against bogus criminal charges in Manhattan, bogus civil…
If the government can weaponize the justice system against a former President and its chief executive’s political opponent, they can do it to you, too. And this next election will show if, as Americans, we will say no to the dissolution of our republic or consent to our downfall.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”