It’s Year 5 Of The Biden Crime Family Coverup

By Frank Miele for RealClearWire

A truism that came out of the Watergate scandal is that often the coverup is worse than the crime. But that is not the case in the unraveling Bidengate scandal. The alleged crime here is so bad that it is probably the worst ever committed by an American president.

Yet the coverup should be studied, too. It deserves superlatives for its longevity, inventiveness, and sheer audacity. The strategy has been simple: deny, deflect, destroy. Deny the facts. Deflect with distractions, and when all else fails, work tirelessly to destroy Trump, who was among the first to raise questions about the Biden family’s shady dealings. At Year 5, it may be the most successful coverup in modern history, especially since so many of the facts have been in plain sight for the entire time.

So what exactly is Bidengate? A decade-long influence-peddling scheme that saw Joe Biden, the former vice president, using his son Hunter as a conduit for millions of dollars in payoffs from foreign entities in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere in exchange for favorable treatment. The most famous instance of this scheme was the millions of dollars paid to Hunter Biden for his role as a board member of the corrupt Burisma energy company in Ukraine. Even Hunter acknowledged that his only qualification for being on the board was his last name.

Trading on one’s name to gain employment is not a crime in itself, but using your father’s public office to influence U.S. policy is definitely against the law – especially when the clout is used to protect your corrupt foreign employer.

That’s just what happened in March of 2016 when Vice President Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine if prosecutor general Viktor Shokin were not immediately fired. Biden even bragged about this escapade a few years later when he told the story to the Council on Foreign Relations.

It’s hard to know whether Biden’s threat to withhold aid was approved by the State Department or whether it was “on the fly” diplomacy, but we do know that Shokin has publicly stated that he was fired because he was investigating Burisma’s alleged corruption, and that after he was fired there was no further substantial investigation of Burisma. Quid pro quo.

Another famous mantra from the Watergate era is “Follow the money.” It almost makes you think Biden was taunting his accusers, quipping to a reporter on June 8, “Where’s the money?” when asked about allegations of corruption.

“That’s what we want to know,” the reporter should have demanded, but of course there was no follow-up question. There never is.

Biden’s cheeky response suggests he had reason to think that he could count on the source of any ill-gotten wealth being kept private. And he may have had good reason for that belief.

On July 20, a little more than a month after Biden asked “Where’s the money?”, Sen. Chuck Grassley released an unclassified FD-1023 FBI informant form alleging that Biden and his son Hunter had split a $10 million payment from Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma. Among the many intriguing breadcrumbs in that document was the informant’s claim that the payment to the Bidens was so well disguised that it would take years to uncover:

Zlochevsky responded he did not send any funds directly to the “Big Guy” (which [the FBI source] understood was a reference to Joe Biden). [The source] asked Zlochevsky how many companies/bank accounts Zlochevsky controls; Zlochevsky responded it would take them (investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illicit payments to Joe Biden).

So that’s one possible answer to Joe Biden’s taunt: “Where’s the money?” Perhaps it’s well-hidden.

Related: Jill Biden’s Ex-Husband Comes Back To Haunt Her – ‘I Can’t Let Them Do What They Did To Me To President Trump’

There are so many flashing red warning lights in the Biden scandal that a casual observer would be forgiven for assuming he was in Amsterdam. Case in point: The FBI informant reported in his June 2020 statement that Zlochevsky had called Joe Biden the “Big Guy” in 2019.

That’s the same gangster nickname that one of Hunter Biden’s business associates used to refer to Joe in an infamous email on the “Laptop from Hell” when discussing what percentage of capital equity was being held by Hunter for Joe in a Chinese investment scheme. The laptop was in FBI hands since December 2019, but the email in question wasn’t circulated in public until the New York Post published it on Oct. 15, 2020. The informant’s use of the phrase prior to that time is strong circumstantial evidence that the FBI’s trusted human source was indeed privy to confidential and damning information about Biden.

But what’s truly maddening about the Biden coverup is just how long it has lasted while more and more evidence has mounted. Recent congressional hearings unearthed a trove of detail about bank payments to Biden family members, and IRS whistleblowers have laid bare the protection racket that the FBI and DOJ have been running for the Bidens. Most of that is just confirmation of what we already knew.

Remember, the first time most Americans heard about the Bidens’ bribery schemes was in September 2019 when the transcript of a phone call between President Trump and then-new Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was released. In it, Trump raised the issue of former Vice President Biden’s alleged corruption and asked Zelensky to cooperate with U.S. authorities by “looking into” rumors of criminal activity by the Bidens.

Imagine if Congress had opened an inquiry then into the question of Hunter Biden’s huge salary for sitting on the board of Burisma Energy, the company controlled by oligarch Zlochevsky. Hunter Biden might be in prison now, and his father would have retired to Delaware to live out his final years in shame.

Instead, Democrats in Congress put Trump on trial for daring to notice that which must not be named – the influence-peddling scheme run by Joe Biden and his kin. The impeachment was America’s crash course on Ukrainian corruption, but somehow the mainstream media missed the story and tried to convince the public that Biden was the victim. They hid the evidence then, just as they did last week when Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal fell apart.

Related: Hunter Biden Pleads Not Guilty After Plea Deal Falls Apart

The Democrat-adjacent media seem to have a hard time understanding the case against Hunter Biden – and Joe Biden – even after five years. It’s not uncommon to hear cable news anchors lamenting that the Republicans are persecuting Joe and that they haven’t proven the president did anything wrong.

Either they don’t understand the meaning of the word proven, or they don’t understand our system of justice. It is not the job of Congress or reporters to prove anything, but rather to investigate and unearth evidence. For anyone who has eyes to see, there is a mountain of evidence against both Hunter and Joe Biden. But what we are still waiting for – what the nation is waiting for – is justice. To get that, we need a prosecutor who will present the evidence to a jury and ask for a verdict. Then and only then will the president’s guilt be proven or unproven.

How many more years do we have to wait?

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post It’s Year 5 Of The Biden Crime Family Coverup appeared first on The Political Insider.

Joe Rogan: Epstein Kept That Painting Of Bill Clinton In A Dress To Let Him Know ‘I Got You B****’

The popular podcaster Joe Rogan offered up a theory as to why the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein kept a disturbing painting depicting Bill Clinton wearing a dress in his possession.

The infamous portrait featured the former president wearing red high heels and a blue dress, and Epstein had it hanging in his Manhattan townhouse.

Rogan, in a recent episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” opined that the painting was used as some sort of leverage or even blackmail against Clinton.

“That painting is like: ‘I got you, b****,” Rogan said. “You know he knows about it.”

“Imagine if I knew some horrible dark secrets about you and you came over to my house and I have a giant painting of you,” he continued. “Right when you walk into the front door of you in a dress and I’m like, ‘Hey buddy.'”

RELATED: Shotgun Found 30 Feet From Body of Epstein-Linked Clinton Aid Whose Death Was Ruled a Suicide

Clinton’s Alleged Epstein Ties

Travel logs indicate that Clinton traveled on Epstein’s jet – known as the “Lolita Express” – 26 separate times, according to a Fox News analysis.

Doug Band, a former top aide to Clinton, made shocking allegations in a 2020 interview with Vanity Fair, including claims that the former president took a trip in 2003 to Epstein’s famed private island.

Epstein was convicted of procuring for prostitution a girl below the age of 18 in 2008 and was facing sex trafficking charges until he died by alleged suicide, according to authorities, in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019.

Clinton, according to a 2020 Daily Beast report, invited Ghislaine Maxwell to a “cozy” dinner in 2014. Maxwell had, at that point, already been accused of procuring underage girls for Epstein.

Last year, a reporter confronted Clinton and asked about his relationship with Epstein, prompting an awkward response as the former President was ushered away by an aide.

RELATED: Juanita Broaddrick: ABC’s Amy Robach Needs to Release Epstein Report and Help Bill Clinton’s ‘Victims’

More on the Clinton Painting

The Epstein-owned painting of Clinton in a blue dress is called “Parsing Bill,” and is the work of New York-based Australian artist, Petrina Ryan-Kleid.

Ryan-Kleid told Artnet that the portrait was just “silly school artwork” and confirmed that the blue dress Clinton is wearing in the image is a reference to the famous Monica Lewinsky dress.

The model who posed for her in order to create the painting said he was “stunned to find out that Epstein” bought the artwork.

It’s not the first time Lewinsky’s famous blue dress somehow made it into a painting of Clinton.

In 2005, artist Nelson Shanks claimed a shadow in his official portrait of President Clinton was actually modeled after a blue dress on a mannequin and was meant to symbolize Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky.

If you’re too young to remember, Lewinsky had a politically earth-shattering affair with the then-President Clinton in the ’90s, a relationship which would lead to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

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.”

The post Joe Rogan: Epstein Kept That Painting Of Bill Clinton In A Dress To Let Him Know ‘I Got You B****’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Pelosi Has A Case Of The Sads: Claims Kevin McCarthy Plan To Expunge Trump Impeachments Is ‘Playing Politics’

Nancy Pelosi really, really doesn’t think House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s plan to expunge Donald Trump’s impeachments is a good idea.

Speaking with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” Pelosi repeatedly criticized the plan and even resorted to personal insults, referring to McCarthy as a Trump puppet and denouncing GOP hearings on government censorship as a “clown show.”

Reports claim that McCarthy told Trump that he would have the House vote on expunging the Democrat-led impeachments. There is no vote currently scheduled and the reports indicate he is simply trying to gauge support for the idea.

When asked about the idea, the Republican House Speaker said it would have to “go through committee like anything else.”

RELATED: Pelosi Threatens Trump: ‘One Way or Another’ We Will Remove Him

Pelosi Doesn’t Want McCarthy To Expunge Trump Impeachment

In the eyes of the public, those impeachments are already expunged. An honest person can’t say that impeaching Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate corruption was a worthy and bipartisan endeavor.

Nor can anybody who understands what actually happened on January 6th think that these clowns in Congress were putting forth a serious effort in impeaching Trump over his speech.

McCarthy’s efforts, while symbolic and a definite slap in the face to Democrats, seem unnecessary. Trump was acquitted twice, incidentally, proving those impeachments to be little more than a perpetual witch hunt.

That said, Pelosi is clearly upset by the idea, meaning it’s probably a good thing for the country.

“Kevin is, you know, playing politics. It is not even clear if he constitutionally can expunge those things,” she told Bash. “If he wants to put his members on the spot, his members in difficult races on the spot, that is a decision he has to make. But this is not responsible.”

“Go ahead, you’ll be sorry” is usually the last resort for somebody who is trying to use reverse psychology to stop something.

Pelosi wasn’t finished, however, and was clearly riled up.

“This is about being afraid. As I have said before, Donald Trump is the puppeteer. And what does he do all the time but shine the light on the strings?” she said. “These people look pathetic.”

RELATED: ‘The View’ Audience Cheers As Joy Behar Compares Trump To Mussolini – Says He Could Be ‘Hung Upside Down’

Pelosi: Efforts To Stop Censorship Are A ‘Clown Show’

Oof. Just watch that video again. You can even put it on mute and tell that Pelosi seems a little worried. The eyebrows almost sailed clear off her grill.

It’s almost as if McCarthy’s plan to expunge Trump’s impeachments would negate the only thing she ever accomplished as House Speaker from 2016 to 2021.

And by “accomplished,” we mean for the Democrat party, not for America. Both of Trump’s impeachments were designed to protect Joe Biden, nothing more.

Pelosi also took umbrage with House hearings on censorship. Censorship that interfered in the 2020 presidential election which, according to Democrats’ own comments, is a threat to democracy, an insurrection.

But because the censorship again protected President Biden, Pelosi isn’t a big fan of trying to expose it.

“What a ridiculous clown show, again, on the part of the Republicans, she said while misidentifying Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Back in 2020, Pelosi seemed to think her impeachment dreams would last forever.

“This president is impeached for life, regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell,” she bragged. “He will be impeached forever.”

We’ll just have to see about that, Nancy!

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.”

The post Pelosi Has A Case Of The Sads: Claims Kevin McCarthy Plan To Expunge Trump Impeachments Is ‘Playing Politics’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Was Expelled From the Conservative House Freedom Caucus

Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has aligned herself with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and launched verbal bombs at fellow conservatives on the chamber floor, has reportedly been expelled from the House Freedom Caucus.

The Freedom Caucus is the most conservative bloc within the House Republican Conference.

The news came from a statement by Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) to reporters.

“I mean, the vote was taken to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from the House Freedom Caucus for some of the things she’s done,” Harris said.

Axios points out that Greene did not receive “formal notification of her removal” but confirmed that a vote had been held prior to the July 4th break and would have required “a sizable number of her colleagues supporting her ouster.”

She becomes the first member of the Caucus in their history to be voted out.

RELATED: MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’

What Led to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Ouster From the House Freedom Caucus?

Congressman Harris noted possible contributing factors to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s ouster from the House Freedom Caucus – including her unabashed support for McCarthy, the duo’s support for the debt limit deal, and an altercation with fellow member, Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO).

“I think all of that mattered,” he said.

Greene hitched her cart to McCarthy after the GOP regained control of the House in a manner that has seen the two team up to scold MAGA reps and celebrate a debt ceiling agreement benefitting President Biden.

The Boebert incident to which Harris alludes was reported by The Political Insider late last month.

Greene and Boebert got into a heated exchange on the House floor, with reports suggesting the Georgia Congresswoman called her colleague a “little bitch.”

The two appeared to be bickering over their dueling efforts to impeach President Biden.

“I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was publicly saying things about another member in terms that no one should,” Harris explained.

RELATED: McCarthy, Senate Republicans Shrinking Away From Biden Impeachment Efforts, House Sidelines Vote

Greene Responds After Vote to Have Her Oustered

Marjorie Taylor Greene did not specifically address the vote to expel her from the House Freedom Caucus but did post to social media a video that appeared to mock the ongoing drama.

“Avoiding distractions is the key to staying focused,” she wrote.

The video showed her practicing on a putting green. No word on whether or not McCarthy was caddying for her.

Greene also released a statement that seemed to strongly reference the vote to remove her without mentioning it directly.

“In Congress, I serve Northwest Georgia first, and serve no group in Washington,” she said, seemingly unaware that she has been doing McCarthy and the centrist GOP’s bidding since January.

“My America First credentials, guided by my Christian faith, are forged in steel, seared into my character, and will never change,” added Greene.

No doubt she has a strong MAGA resume and does find a way to infuriate the left. But teaming up with McCarthy is not ‘America First.’ It’s closer to Ukraine First or Biden First than anything else.

Greene insists her sole focus is on moving the country forward “when President Trump wins the White House in 2024.”

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.”

The post MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Was Expelled From the Conservative House Freedom Caucus appeared first on The Political Insider.

Science! Study Finds Conservative Women Are More Attractive Than Liberals And All We Can Say Is – Duh

Conservative women have more attractive faces than their liberal counterparts, according to a Danish study published earlier this year.

Danish and Swedish researchers used “deep learning” artificial intelligence to assess identifiable features such as masculinity and attractiveness in a study of over 3,000 Danish politicians.

“Politicians on the right have been found to be more attractive than those on the left,” they observed.

Those traits were well-defined in female politicians. They note that conservative women’s faces appeared “happier” while faces that showed “contempt” were correlated to left-wing ideology.

“These results are credible given that previous research using human raters has also highlighted a link between attractiveness and conservatism,” the study’s authors explained.

RELATED: Power Women – The Most Attractive Republican Ladies

Conservative Women Are More Attractive

I mean, it’s always good to have scientific data to back it up, but this study is telling us something we can readily see with our eyes.

Who needs artificial intelligence when we’ve all driven past that car with the Biden/Harris bumper sticker, looked at the driver, and said, ‘Yea, she looks exactly as I expected.’

But good on them to confirm the data points using AI, heat maps, facial expression coding, and such. I tend to trust the scientists behind this study a lot more than those that push global warming and vaccine hoaxes.

RELATED: Florida Republican Threatened Trump-Backed Candidate Luna With Russian ‘Hit Squad,’ Secret Recording Shows

Politicians on the Right Are More Beautiful

The “previous research” backing up their findings includes a link to a 2017 study that concluded: “Politicians on the right look more beautiful in Europe, the U.S., and Australia.”

That study, published in the Journal of Public Economics, found “voters use beauty as a cue for conservatism.” That revelation has all sorts of implications, doesn’t it?

The Political Insider published a list of the most attractive GOP women in 2022. That list included:

  • Anna Paulina Luna
  • Lauren Boebert
  • Kristi Noem
  • Tulsi Gabbard

Gabbard, though not a Republican, recently left the Democrat Party and has showcased rather conservative views in the time since.

Meanwhile, Boebert and Luna have been more than just hot – they’ve been on fire of late, championing conservatism in ways that make them even more attractive.

Boebert recently became the first House Republican in 24 years to initiate impeachment proceedings against a sitting President. She managed to leverage a procedural tool last month to force a vote on an impeachment resolution.

Republicans managed to sideline the measure but you just know she’s going to keep fighting.

Luna vowed to go after California Democrat Adam Schiff, introducing a resolution for his role in promoting the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

POLL: Are conservatives hotter than liberals?

By voting, you agree to receive email communication from The Political Insider. Click HERE for more information.

It took a couple of tries due to weak-kneed Republicans unwilling to fine Schiff for his lies, but Luna’s censure effort eventually passed and he became just the third lawmaker in 40 years to suffer such a public rebuke.

It doesn’t take artificial intelligence to recognize that these women are pretty hot conservatives.

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.”

The post Science! Study Finds Conservative Women Are More Attractive Than Liberals And All We Can Say Is – Duh appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Plans To Bypass Congress And Starve ‘The Deep State’

By Philip Wegmann for RealClearWire

Sources close to former President Trump say he has a plan for keeping Congress from ever again forcing him into “disgraceful” and “ridiculous” spending situations. If he returns to the White House, Trump will seek to resurrect authority that Congress stripped from the presidency almost a half century ago.

What President Nixon squandered, his campaign promises, Trump will restore, namely the impoundment power. “A lot of you,” the former president told a New Hampshire crowd Thursday, “don’t know what that is.” Indeed, few now remember it.

Impoundment, if restored, would allow a president, in theory, to simply refuse to spend appropriations by Congress. More than just an avenue to cut spending, Trump sees that kind of authority as key to starving, and thus crushing, the so-called “deep state.”

But such a move would fundamentally alter the balance of power, and any effort to restore the long-forgotten authority virtually guarantees a protracted legal battle over who exactly controls the power of the purse. Trump welcomes that fight. Some budget experts believe he won’t get anywhere.

Regardless, advisors close to the former president tell RealClearPolitics they are drawing up plans to challenge the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in court, and if that fails, to lean on the legislature to repeal it. The latter would require passing a law to surrender power, something lawmakers are loath to do.

Congress already went to war with another president who had expansive views of his own authority. And Congress won.

Inflation in the 1970s, the Nixon White House complained, was the result of a profligate “Credit Card Congress.” The California Republican warned Capitol Hill not to spend in excess of $250 billion. When his warning was ignored, Nixon simply refused to spend the appropriated money. A rebuke from the Supreme Court followed when the president impounded funding for environmental projects. But weakened by Watergate, Nixon eventually signed legislation effectively surrendering a power that had been exercised from the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Russ Vought, Trump’s last director of the Office of Management and Budget, calls the concession of impoundment power “the original sin” that ensured “the executive branch no longer plays a meaningful role” in the appropriations process. Vought told RCP in an interview that the power of the purse has become “caricature,” where rather than “setting ceilings,” Congress now sets “spending floors.”

Hence, Trump’s “unhappy” signature on multiple multi trillion-dollar spending bills.

Trump promised he would “never sign another bill like this again” before putting his signature on a “crazy” $1.3 trillion spending bill in 2018. Two years later, he signed another omnibus bill, this one worth $1.4 trillion, that he called “disgraceful.” Both times, Trump justified voting for the bloated bills conservatives loathed by pointing to increased military spending.

Restoring impoundment authority, thus giving presidents an option to curb spending beyond just the veto, current Trump campaign and former Trump administration officials tell RCP that was part of the plan for a second term that never came.

Related: Trump Responds To Those Hoping He’ll Drop Out Of Race: ‘I’ll Never Leave’

The former president said he believes the 1974 law that gutted impoundment is unconstitutional, and if returned to the White House, would govern accordingly.

“Yes, there’s the effort to have it overturned in courts. Yes, there is the legislative effort, but when you think that a law is unconstitutional,” Vought told RCP, the administration ought to look “to do the bare minimum of what the courts have required,” and “to push the envelope.”

Trump did something like this, exercising what Vought called “impoundment-like authorities,” when he froze nearly $400 million in foreign aid to Ukraine, even though the funds were congressionally appropriated. The Government Accountability Office later said that in doing so, Trump violated the law. He was impeached by the House over a phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky concerning the money.

Trump’s OMB disputed the GAO ruling at the time, saying the administration was simply its apportionment authority to spend the money according to the most efficient timetable.

“The reason why there wasn’t an impoundment was because we did not have the authority just to pocket the money and not spend it,” Vought recalled, saying that if a new paradigm was in place, the administration “potentially would have had the ability to go further and pocket the money.”

Trump believes impoundment would be “a crucial tool” in his fight with the administrative state. “Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State, Drain the Swamp, and starve the Warmongers,” he said in campaign video first obtained and reported by Semafor. “We can simply choke off the money.”

His campaign pointed RCP to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within the Department of Homeland Security, an entity that House Republicans allege has been involved in censorship of Americans, as a prime example of where dollars could be impounded.

But even some conservatives have their doubts. Kevin Kosar, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that when it comes to cutting spending appropriated money after the fact, there “is a limited amount of wiggle room.”

“The idea that a president is going to achieve any sort of significant savings or reduction in the size of the administrative state by exercising impoundment authorities is patently ludicrous,” Kosar told RCP.

Related: Spineless: Only One GOP Candidate Vowed To Pardon Trump – And It Wasn’t Ron DeSantis

The policy wonk agrees that the reform Nixon signed into law, mandating a complex and cumbersome budgeting process, seldom works. But without repealing and replacing that law, he said, “a president flat out refusing to spend money that was clearly appropriated for a particular purpose, saying he just doesn’t want to do it, pretty much would be grounds for impeachment.”

Linda Bilmes, an assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce during the Clinton administration, agrees that the current budget process “has become so dysfunctional that it is very ripe for reforms.”

Now a lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, she points to the partisan gridlock and numerous government shutdowns that are a feature of the current process. “The number of shutdowns in the entirety of U.S. history before 1974,” Bilmes said in an interview with RCP, “was zero.”

Congress has been kicking around ideas for some time on how to reform the way they spend taxpayer money. Lawmakers consistently fail to pass individual appropriation bills, opting instead to approve spending all at once with a single bill, usually at the end of year and the last minute.

Even if the process is reformed, however, Bilmes said that “the basic premise of the law, which is that the Constitution provides Congress with the ultimate authority, is very unlikely to change.”

She added that although she disagrees with the idea that reducing the national debt requires gutting the Impoundment Act, there is a recent precedent for taming runaway spending. Bilmes pointed RCP to the agreements hammered out between Bill Clinton and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. That is possible again. In theory.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post Trump Plans To Bypass Congress And Starve ‘The Deep State’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

McCarthy, Senate Republicans Shrinking Away From Biden Impeachment Efforts, House Sidelines Vote

This may come as a surprise, but it’s glaringly apparent that Republican leadership does not have the stomach to pursue the impeachment of President Joe Biden.

MAGA Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) leveraged a procedural tool earlier this week to force a vote on an impeachment resolution. The resolution alleges Biden violated his oath by failing to enforce immigration laws and secure the southern border.

In a strictly party-line vote, 219-208, the House voted Thursday to send the matter to a pair of congressional committees – the House Homeland Security and Judiciary – for possible consideration.

Sounds good, right?

Except, as the Associated Press points out, those committees “are under no obligation to do anything.”

They describe the effort as having “pushed off” the impeachment resolution, while Reuters reports that the House has “sidelined” the measure.

RELATED: GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy Pre-Surrenders, Saying GOP Won’t Impeach Biden

Shrinking Violets: Republicans Retreating From Biden Impeachment

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has been trying to tamp down impeachment efforts from firebrand GOP lawmakers Boebert and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

Greene (R-GA) has announced plans for similar impeachment initiatives against Biden, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves, the attorney prosecuting January 6 participants.

McCarthy, meanwhile, urged Republicans to oppose Boebert’s resolution, saying, “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do” and citing a need for investigation and following the traditional process.

McCarthy is being true to form, so long as you listen very carefully to what he says. Just a couple of weeks before the midterm elections he wasn’t a fan of impeaching President Biden.

“I think the country doesn’t like impeachment used for political purposes at all,” said McCarthy. “If anyone ever rises to that occasion, you have to, but I think the country wants to heal and … start to see the system that actually works.”

Perhaps he doesn’t recall that Democrats didn’t give a rip about whether or not former President Donald Trump “rose to the occasion of impeachment,” going after him twice for requesting an investigation of corruption in Ukraine and for telling people to protest peacefully at the Capitol.

Considering recent news, Trump’s ask for an investigation was perfectly legitimate.

Perhaps Greene should have been directing her recent remarks about Boebert to the Speaker instead.

RELATED: MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’

Senate Republicans Too

A new Axios report indicates Senate Republicans are also a bit squeamish about pursuing President Biden’s impeachment. Several top GOP senators – members of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s leadership team – are quoted as being in opposition.

  • Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) – “I don’t know what they’re basing the president’s impeachment on … I can’t imagine going down that road.”
  • John Thune (R-SD) – “I’d rather focus on the policy agenda, the vision for the future, and go on and win elections.”
  • Steve Daines (R-MT) – Hasn’t “seen evidence that would rise to an impeachable offense.”

Senator Daines – You haven’t seen any evidence?! Perhaps a visit to the optometrist is in order.

The border crisis, Afghanistan withdrawal, the criminal pursuit of political opponents, colluding with school boards to treat parents like terrorists, corruption and bribery, an obvious lack of mental acuity? Do any of these things ring a bell?

What is the point of the Republican party right now? Can anybody explain what they’re doing?

Perhaps these Republican squishes should listen to the words of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) who pointed out that it was the Democrats who opened Pandora’s Box when it comes to impeachment.

“Whether it’s justified or not, the Democrats weaponized impeachment. They used it for partisan purposes to go after Trump because they disagreed with him,” Cruz said.

It’s time the GOP exercised its own power. Their colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn’t hesitate to take down Trump’s presidency. They won’t hesitate to do the same if a Republican wins the White House in 2024.

Grow a spine.

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.”

The post McCarthy, Senate Republicans Shrinking Away From Biden Impeachment Efforts, House Sidelines Vote appeared first on The Political Insider.

MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert appeared to get into a heated exchange on the House floor, with reports suggesting Greene called Boebert a “little bitch.”

The altercation between the two Trump supporters took place as the House debated a motion to censure Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) for pushing false claims that former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia.

Greene, an acolyte of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and Boebert have reportedly been feuding for months.

A clip surfaced of the two firebrand lawmakers engaging in a conversation that at times looked tense.

The animated exchange was posted to social media.

RELATED: Steve Bannon Wants Marjorie Taylor Greene Primaried After Voting in Favor of Biden-McCarthy Debt Ceiling Deal

Marjorie Taylor Greene Allegedly Calls Lauren Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’

The Daily Beast found multiple witnesses to the conversation between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, confirming that it wasn’t simply a friendly chat.

The sources claim Greene “cursed out” Boebert over who should take the lead on impeaching President Joe Biden. Boebert (R-CO) leveraged a procedural tool earlier this week to force a vote on her own impeachment resolution, undercutting Greene’s repeated efforts.

McCarthy dutifully defended Greene by urging Republicans to oppose Boebert’s resolution, saying, “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.”

With that as a backdrop, Boebert was clearly not pleased with Greene making statements to the press about her impeachment effort, and Greene was clearly not pleased with Boebert trying to upstage her.

Boebert, according to the report, instigated the confrontation, initially addressing “statements you made about me publicly.”

Three sources claim Greene (R-GA) called Boebert a “bitch” while one of them contended the full phrase was “little bitch.”

“I’ve donated to you, I’ve defended you. But you’ve been nothing but a little bitch to me,” Greene allegedly told Boebert, according to the Daily Beast’s source. “And you copied my articles of impeachment after I asked you to cosponsor them.”

Neither Greene nor Boebert’s impeachment resolutions have any chance of moving forward. It took the House multiple votes just to censure Schiff and his transgressions were as obvious as anybody’s.

RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene Sees Herself as Trump’s VP Pick in 2024

A Bathroom Fight to Boot

This isn’t the first time these two women have reportedly engaged in a bitter exchange.

Greene got into a shouting match with Boebert in a bathroom back in January.

Boebert at the time said Greene approached her in a congressional ladies’ bathroom and started “being kind of nasty” about the vote for Speaker.

“No one else had been nasty about it. Everyone had been very professional,” she said. “And so when she started going after me, I looked at her and said, ‘Don’t be ugly.’”

Greene clearly has designs on attaining greater power in her congressional role, hitching her cart to McCarthy in a manner that has seen the two team up to scold MAGA reps and celebrate a debt ceiling agreement benefitting President Biden together.

Steve Bannon, the former campaign manager for Donald Trump, called out Greene for voting in favor of the debt ceiling agreement and even called on Republicans to primary her.

Sources have said Greene is seeking to place herself at the forefront of Trump’s selection for Vice President in 2024.

She has consistently gone along with Trump and McCarthy in an obvious attempt to prove she’s not quite as fringe as lawmakers like Boebert, showing she is willing to go along with the more lucrative political position of the day.

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.”

The post MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Announces Plan to Slash Government Spending and ‘Starve the Warmongers’

The Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his plan to slash government waste, eliminate the influence of the deep state, and cut the spending power of “warmongers.”

Trump’s plan is to restore executive branch impoundment, something he describes as “a crucial tool” in the battle to cut waste.

Impoundment is a now-limited presidential power that would require legal measures to revert back to the President. Congress enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which transferred most spending control to the House and Senate.

Trump wants to fight it.

“For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the President had the Constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as Impoundment,” he explained.

“This meant that if Congress provided more funding than was needed to run the government, the President could refuse to waste the extra funds, and instead return the money to the general treasury and maybe even lower your taxes,” he continued.

RELATED: Trump Reveals Exactly Why the Deep State is Desperate to Stop Him

Trump Will Use Impoundment To Slash Waste, Starve The Warmongers

Trump’s entire plan is predicated on the idea that he’ll convince Congress to overturn a Budget and Impoundment Act that has been in effect for nearly 50 years. An Act that gives spending control to Congress.

In other words, he wants Congress to willingly turn over control of the nation’s purse strings. It’s not going to happen, but that hasn’t sullied Trump’s optimism.

“This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers,” he said.

“When I return to the White House, I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court, and if necessary, get Congress to overturn it,” added Trump. “We will overturn it.”

On the off chance that he’s successful in that regard, Trump’s goals for using impoundment sound excellent.

“I will use the president’s long-recognized Impoundment Power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings. This will be in the form of tax reductions for you,” the GOP candidate explained. “This will help quickly to stop inflation and slash the deficit.”

Yes, please.

The plan also seeks to cut power to the “globalists,” the “deep state,” and those pushing the country into endless wars.

“Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State, Drain the Swamp, and starve the Warmongers,” Trump said. “We are going to get the Warmongers and the Globalists out of our government.”

RELATED: Trump Reveals Plan to Drain the Swamp: Require All Government Employees Pass Civil Service Test to Prove Understanding of the Constitution

Draining The Swamp

Trump previously announced a plan to drain the swamp and take on the entrenched federal bureaucracy. That plan includes requiring all federal employees to pass a Civil Service test to prove their understanding of the United States Constitution.

“I will require every federal employee to pass a new Civil Service test demonstrating an understanding of our Constitutional limited government,” he announced in April.

“This will include command of due process rights, equal protection, Free Speech, religious liberty, federalism, the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure … and all the other constitutional limits on federal power,” he continued.

But it just might be his “starve the warmongers” comment that results in the most resistance.

Trump blamed “deep state actors” for his consistent legal issues several months ago and hinted it was due to his push for peace in Ukraine.

“It’s no coincidence that the deep state is coming after me even harder since I pledged to swiftly end the war in Ukraine,” he pondered.

Since then he has been indicted twice.

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.”

The post Trump Announces Plan to Slash Government Spending and ‘Starve the Warmongers’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

CNN Segment Fantasizes About Trump, Possibility He Has to ‘Pardon Himself’ From a Prison Cell

CNN anchor Erin Burnett and a former lawyer for Donald Trump spent time fantasizing about a scenario in which the ex-President is forced to pardon himself from a prison cell.

Ty Cobb, a hilariously-named former member of the Trump Administration legal team, has been very vociferous about his opinion that the Republican candidate is going to jail based on a Justice Department investigation into his possession of classified documents after leaving office.

Burnett pressed him on what the future might hold should that be the case, particularly if Trump wins the election.

“What happens, though, if this trial does not wrap up before the general election, Trump wins?” Burnett asked. “Does he just pardon himself and it all goes away?”

“Well, so those are all oddly–those are possibilities,” Cobb replied. “The sad thing is nobody knows. This is so unprecedented.”

Cobb proceeded to discuss the issue of Trump pardoning himself, something he believes is not permissible but admits there are other legal minds who disagree.

“The timing is, if there’s already been a verdict in the federal case… you would assume that that could be consequential during the election.”

RELATED: Congressman Matt Gaetz: Trump Should Pardon Himself

CNN Discusses Possibility of Trump Pardoning Himself From Prison

Where the conversation veered to next is why it is so difficult to take CNN seriously when they try to portray themselves as less partisan under CEO Chris Licht.

Cobb discussed what might happen if the Trump trial wraps up, he is convicted and sentenced, and this all happens before the election.

“He doesn’t have the power to pardon himself until he’s actually inaugurated,” he said. “So, if there’s a verdict, say, before the election in November, sentencing could easily occur in advance of him taking office.”

At this point in the interview, you can see Burnett get eager about the prospect, mouth hanging slightly open, eyebrows raised, head shaking in disbelief.

“And he would have to report to jail,” Cobb added. “So he would be (pardoning) himself ostensibly under those circumstances from jail.”

Burnett found the scenario “absolutely incredible” but suggested, “It’s a reality we could be looking at.”

RELATED: Hillary Clinton Claims Trump ‘Rigged’ 2020 Election, Predicts ‘End of Democracy’ If He Wins in 2024

Can Trump Pardon Himself?

Congressman Matt Gaetz, following the 2020 presidential election and before the transition to the Biden White House, advised Trump to pardon himself and key members of his administration prior to departing.

In retrospect, he probably should have listened to Gaetz’s advice.

Trump insisted that a pardon would be unnecessary as he has “done nothing wrong.”

Self-pardons have been an issue of much debate in the Trump era.

Law scholar Jonathan Turley has argued that as President, he had the right to do so. Or will have the right should he be re-elected.

“There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon,” he wrote in a USA Today column. “The president is simply given the power to pardon any federal crime.”

“As a textual matter, there is nothing to prevent Trump from adding his own name to the list of pardoned individuals.”

Interestingly, pardons even in such a scenario would only apply to federal law; they do not apply to civil, state, or local offenses.

POLL: If Trump is convicted of a federal crime, should he pardon himself after election?

By voting, you agree to receive email communication from The Political Insider. Click HERE for more information.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced an indictment of the former President earlier this year.

Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, low-level felonies in New York State but which carry a potential for a 4-year prison sentence each.

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.”

The post CNN Segment Fantasizes About Trump, Possibility He Has to ‘Pardon Himself’ From a Prison Cell appeared first on The Political Insider.