Don’t Believe the Hype: McCarthy Totally Dodged Questions About Holding Russiagaters Accountable

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy threw conservative media outlets into disarray on Tuesday, with many suggesting Representative Adam Schiff should be removed from Congress.

McCarthy’s comments came in response to a reporter asking what accountability looks like following the release of the Durham Report.

Durham’s report, details of which were released earlier this week, found that the FBI did not have enough “factual evidence” to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion and revealed that they and the Department of Justice “failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law.”

“You have pledged, if the GOP takes the majority in the House, that you would investigate the findings of the Durham investigation. Now that the report has been released, what does accountability look like?” a reporter asked.

McCarthy replied that House Republicans are looking to have Durham testify “so we can look at it more” and made the following comments about Democrat Adam Schiff:

“You remember when he told the American people he had proof? Remember when he told him he didn’t know the whistleblower and what he put America through and openly lied to us? And now it’s proven in this as well,” he continued.

“It raises a lot of questions about his character, his standing inside of Congress, or whether he should even be in Congress.”

RELATED: GOP Sen. Hawley Demands Prosecution of Democrats, Hillary Clinton After Durham Report Reveals FBI Used False Intelligence to Launch Trump-Russia Probe

Will McCarthy Kick Schiff Out of Congress?

Apologies for being a Debbie Downer here, but does anyone in their right mind think Kevin McCarthy has the intestinal fortitude to expel Adam Schiff from Congress? Or that he could whip up the two-thirds necessary to do so?

Even in the above video clip alone, there is some hedging.

Why does anybody have to “look at it more” with Durham’s testimony as McCarthy states, even as the report itself has “proven” Schiff  “openly lied”?

The report has been released to the public. His lies have been on record for years. His leaks have been readily transparent during that time. We’ve all seen it. It is “proven,” as McCarthy states.

Representative Schiff (D-CA) had repeatedly stated for years through friendly media outlets that there was “direct evidence” of collusion.

“I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,” Schiff said during a CBS interview in March of 2019.

Direct evidence. He knew there was no such thing but he fed it to the media regardless.

Schiff would also claim that he had “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion. He still hasn’t shown that alleged evidence.

Back in 2020, The Political Insider reported on transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe showing Obama officials testifying time and again that they had no evidence of collusion.

Now, according to Durham, “The FBI had no information in its holding indicating that any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.”

But don’t you worry, the Speaker of the House and his fellow Republicans are going to “look at it more.”

And to show he’s super-serious about holding Schiff accountable, McCarthy has issued a strongly worded … tweet. A tweet showing a letter from the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government inviting Durham to testify next week.

“If you’re concerned about threats to our democracy, you are right to be angry over the coordinated campaign to lie to the American public for years about Russia collusion—peddled at the highest levels of government, from Adam Schiff to the DOJ—to try to influence an election,” McCarthy wrote.

“This is why Republicans created a @Weaponization Committee—to get to the bottom of this abuse of power and bring accountability.”

RELATED: Transcripts Show Obama Officials Admitting Time After Time They Had No Evidence Of Russia Collusion

If You Can Dodge a Wrench, You Can Dodge Accountability

It would appear Kevin McCarthy’s big plan to deal with one of the biggest peddlers of Russian collusion misinformation – misinformation that would dog President Trump for years and undermine the entirety of his administration – is to have Durham testify about his already published report, hold committee hearings, tweet about them, and of course, “look at it more.”

Willing to bet he’ll even send out some fundraising emails. That’ll put Schiff in his place.

In an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, McCarthy continued to dodge on what accountability looks like.

“Will there be accountability here?” she asked.

“There has to be,” McCarthy replied, but failing to note what form that would take.

“Maria, it’s not just me who knew. You knew it. And you got criticized for speaking the truth. And that’s what’s wrong. Is CNN talking about this? Is the White House talking about this?”

Why would they talk about it? They know Republicans will kick the can down the road with letters and hearings but with ultimately nobody being held accountable for their actions.

“Why is this individual still in Congress?” McCarthy asked, seemingly unaware that he, as Speaker of the House, is obviously the most powerful person in a position to do something about it.

Do you know who might want to look into that? Somebody with the ability to call into action Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution which states “each House may … punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

Prove you mean what you say, Speaker McCarthy. Call a vote. Even if it fails … do something. Force the media to talk about the vote, to talk about Schiff’s lies.

Oh, and as luck would have it, Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) on Wednesday introduced a resolution to have Schiff expelled from Congress.

“The Durham Report makes clear that the Russian Collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country,” Paulina said in a statement.

She added that Schiff “is a dishonor to the House of Representatives.”

Paulina is taking appropriate action. Will McCarthy back her up?

To his credit, the Speaker did remove Schiff from the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year for leaking classified information in order to propagate the Russia collusion hoax.

“Schiff has lied to the American public,” he succinctly stated.

Now he’s got even more proof. Perhaps we’ve moved past the ‘let’s look into it more’ phase, Mr. Speaker.

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 Don’t Believe the Hype: McCarthy Totally Dodged Questions About Holding Russiagaters Accountable appeared first on The Political Insider.

What Will Joe Biden Do If Hunter Is Indicted?

By Charles Lipson for RealClearWire

What will President Biden do if his son is indicted by the federal prosecutor in Delaware? That’s one of three questions looming over U.S. Attorney David Weiss’ fateful choice.

The second is whether the indictment will go after a larger, coordinated family scheme of influence peddling or confine itself to smaller, tightly-confined issues like lying to get a gun permit and not registering as a foreign lobbyist.

The third is whether Attorney General Merrick Garland will approve Weiss’ proposed charges. Significant political calculations follow from those decisions.

It’s easy enough to answer what Garland will do. He has little choice but to approve any charges Weiss proposes after the government’s multi-year investigation. Anything else would look shady, a far cry from the neutral, apolitical justice Garland’s department is charged with dispensing. Burying the charges, after Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel, would embroil his department in its nastiest controversy since John Mitchell befouled it under President Nixon.

Assuming the federal attorney proposes felony charges and Garland approves them, Joe Biden faces the toughest choice of his political life.

The president’s dilemma is why it’s so interesting to follow recent speculation by Miranda Devine, a reporter and columnist for the New York Post. She’s the most informed journalist on the Hunter Biden story. Her paper broke the news about the emails on Hunter’s laptop, three weeks before the 2020 election, and Devine has done the best follow-up reporting.

To bury that story before the election took the combined, Herculean efforts of the legacy media, social media giants, and former CIA officials. Their success helped elect Biden. But the “little story that could” just keeps chugging along, mostly because the corruption is so extensive, so rich for investigation. Criminal charges now seem likely, not that the mainstream media has shown much interest.

Now, Devine is speculating that Biden is setting the stage to pardon Hunter, framing it as the actions of a loving father who backs his troubled child. “My son has done nothing wrong,” Biden told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle in a rare one-on-one interview. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

Whether such sentiments presage a pardon, as Devine thinks, is still a guess. We can say something more concrete, though, as Biden weighs such a move. Four consequences stand out:

  • A presidential pardon would set off a political firestorm.
  • The White House will try its best to prevent any public revelation of the family’s business dealings. That means the president and his advisors want to prevent a trial, get Hunter to take a plea, and convince the judge to seal the evidence. Another option is to go trial, knowing it won’t be held until after the election.
  • If Biden pardons his son this year, he’s signaling he won’t run for reelection. He wouldn’t put that albatross around his own neck if he intended to face the voters.
  • If Biden does run and pardons his son after November 2024, the political impact depends on who wins the White House and Capitol Hill. The calculations are more complicated than one might expect.

Let’s consider each in turn.

First, a pardon would set off the biggest political firestorm since Watergate. It would look worse than self-dealing, bad as that is. It would look like the president is covering up his family’s corruption, not only to get Hunter off the hook but to prevent the disclosure of damning evidence in court.

That evidence is likely to touch many more Biden family members than Hunter, and perhaps the president himself. The more Biden family members who are implicated, the more the whole operation looks like a concerted operation to monetize Joe’s political position. It also might threaten to shred Joe’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about any family business interests or influence peddling. The wider the sleaze, the harder it is to sell that story.

The chairman of the House committee investigating these issues has said Hunter’s corruption was merely one part of the family business. And that business was selling influence. Rep. James Comer has publicly said that his House Oversight Committee has already collected evidence that nine Biden family members are involved in sketchy business deals, including substantial payments from foreign firms.

Some of those firms are closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Comer added that his committee is investigating the possible involvement of at least three more family members, as well as Joe Biden’s own role. His conclusion: “The entire Biden family” is entrapped in the financial enrichment scheme. So far, however, Comer hasn’t named names or provided the evidence. He says he will provide much more at a major press conference Wednesday.

Comer’s principle suggestion is that the Biden family’s influence-peddling scheme is much broader, and their criminal actions more serious, than isolated schemes perpetrated by the president’s conniving second son. He adds that his evidence points to Joe Biden’s direct involvement, including possible payments for official actions.

That is what he told Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, although he hasn’t yet provided the evidence for that incendiary allegation. Comer is also attacking the FBI for desultory investigation – which ignored much of the malfeasance – and calling out the mainstream media for its concerted silence.

Related: Hunter Biden’s Stripper Baby Mama Drama Isn’t Making Joe Biden’s Life Any Easier

The Internal Revenue Service might be implicated, too, since a lot of payments – and a lot of Hunter’s income – went through what Comer calls the family’s “web of LLCs.” A senior supervisory agent at the IRS is seeking whistleblower protection to tell Congress about “preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed” in investigating Hunter’s taxes.

If political pressure really was applied to the IRS over Hunter’s taxes, or if senior agents acted improperly to curry favor, those would obviously be very serious matters, legally and politically. Comer and the House Republicans in the committee’s majority want that testimony under oath and are seeking responses from the IRS and DOJ.

Anticipating an indictment soon, Comer has urged the Justice Department to hold off until his committee presents more evidence to the public this week. “When you have the opportunity to see the evidence that the House Oversight Committee will produce with respect to the web of [Biden family] LLCs, with respect to the number of adversarial countries that this family influence peddled in, and this is not just about the president’s son. This is about the entire Biden family, including the President of the United States.”

However wide-ranging the indictment is, Hunter will do everything he can to strike a plea deal and seal all the evidence to prevent its disclosure at trial. That would clearly be the preference inside the White House. But it’s not in the public interest.

If the DOJ tries to seal the evidence, it would be joining in a cover-up. The Department must require that Hunter attest to all incriminating evidence and that it all be made public as part of any plea deal. The judge himself should demand it. That requirement might kill Hunter’s willingness to take the deal. Rather than reveal the evidence now, the White House would prefer kick it down the road, to a trial date after the November 2024 election.

Whether a trial happens or not, a pardon for Hunter would be politically fatal for the president, and he and his advisers must know it. That leads to a clear conclusion. If Joe pardons Hunter this year, running for reelection becomes unrealistic. Such a self-inflicted wound would be a far more powerful signal of his intentions than a speech declaring his candidacy. There’s no way Joe would eviscerate his political prospects like that if he intended to face the voters again.

Of course, Biden could delay any pardon until after November 2024. That would still invite a high-profile congressional investigation and perhaps impeachment, but the political maneuvering would depend on the election outcome. If Biden loses and the current Republican House moves quickly to impeach, Senate Democrats would be in a bind. It takes overwhelming evidence to convince senators to humiliate a president from their own party. The only thing that would do it is overwhelming fear of their constituents at the ballot box.

Related: Things Get Awkward When Karine Jean-Pierre Gets Asked About Hunter Biden’s Baby With a Stripper

The situation is entirely different if Biden wins and the Republicans take both the House and Senate. The problem, in three words, is President Kamala Harris. Although the new House would have no trouble collecting votes for impeachment, they might hesitate before passing the ultimate decision to their Republican colleagues in the Senate. Do they really want to elevate Harris into the Oval Office?

None of these prospects is a happy one. Each one adds to the misery of a country beset by lawlessness on the streets, chaos at the southern border, stagnant real income, and a looming debt crisis. We need to know whether the Biden family – not just Hunter – was engaged in a series of corrupt schemes to peddle the influence of a high-ranking government official.

We need to know all the family members involved and their business partners. We need to know what they were paid for doing and who paid them. What we don’t need is a weak, narrowly-drawn indictment, an official cover-up of the evidence, and, worst of all, a self-serving presidential pardon.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post What Will Joe Biden Do If Hunter Is Indicted? appeared first on The Political Insider.

Joe Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene confidently predicted President Joe Biden “will be impeached” following a bombshell report alleging he engaged in criminal activity.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced Wednesday that a whistleblower had come forth claiming the DOJ and FBI possess a file describing an alleged “criminal scheme” between Biden and a foreign national while he was serving as Vice President.

Grassley has described the whistleblower as “credible.”

Comer subpoenaed the form in question which the accuser claims “describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.”

They claim the DOJ has the document in their possession.

Axios describes the claims as “the most direct allegation against President Biden himself.”

Comer’s subpoena is demanding the document within a week.

RELATED: GOP Senator Grassley Accuses FBI of Covering Up Biden Family ‘Potential Criminal Conduct’

Could Biden Be Impeached Over Alleged ‘Criminal Scheme’?

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted a ‘breaking news’ video along with a copy of the joint letter from Grassley and Comer suggesting she now has “evidence” to prove President Biden’s alleged “criminal scheme.”

While the House Oversight Committee has not procured the document claimed to be in possession of the DOJ as of yet, Greene insists the group will continue to investigate Biden’s potential pay-for-play scheme with foreign nationals.

Greene claims the material would allegedly contain “proof and information that Joe Biden, as Vice President of the United States, actually interacted with a foreign national and made a deal with a foreign national in exchange for money.”

In a subsequent interview on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Greene suggests impeachment might finally be on the table.

“Now on the Oversight Committee, because we have real subpoena powers, we have the power to investigate and we have the power to do what we’re doing now,” she said.

“And that form shows the proof that Joe Biden took a money payment from a foreign national in exchange for policy decisions while he was vice president of the United States,” Greene claims.

She added: “This means that Joe Biden will be impeached.”

RELATED: Joe Biden Named in Email Discussing Call With Hunter About Major Gas Deal With China

Will the FBI Produce the Document?

Grassley, in an interview with Fox News’ Sandra Smith, reiterated that the whistleblower is viewed as “credible” by the Committee.

“So the Justice Department, the FBI needs to come clean to the American people, what they did with the document, because we know the document exists from very credible whistleblower information that we got,” insists Grassley.

“We really need to know what steps did the Justice Department and FBI take to investigate and to vet the document to determine if it’s accurate or not?”

If they saw the name Biden and viewed it as evidence of a ‘criminal scheme’ those steps most likely involved burying it as deep as humanly possible.

“If the Justice Department and the FBI have any hopes of redeeming their once trusted position with the American people, Garland and Wray must answer this subpoena and tell us what they’re doing with this information that we think is very credible based upon what whistleblowers are telling us,” added Grassley.

The Iowa congressman has been at the forefront of investigating corruption in the Biden family.

Prior to this report, Grassley accused the FBI of hiding ‘potential criminal conduct’ by the Biden family.

Representative Comer recently suggested at least a dozen relatives of President Biden could be exposed in foreign money deals.

A statement from the White House does not expressly deny any of the accusations but blows off the whistleblower claims as more of the same from Republicans.

“For going on 5 years now, Republicans in Congress have been lobbing unfounded politically-motivated attacks against [Biden] without offering evidence for their claims,” tweeted spokesman Ian Sams.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has suggested the allegations of criminal activity involving the “big guy” are so prevalent that he’s transferring the nickname ‘Crooked’ from Hillary Clinton to ‘Crooked Joe Biden.’

Comer has been indicating a press conference may come early this month where he intends to discuss the committee’s findings regarding “influence peddling” by Biden family members.

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 Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG appeared first on The Political Insider.

Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an invitation from Senator Dick Durbin to testify before Congress on ethics rules for the Supreme Court.

Roberts sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman implying that such testimony would threaten the basic government concept of separation of powers.

“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” he wrote.

“Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,” Roberts explained.

Accompanying his letter declining Durbin’s invite was a copy of the court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices.

Roberts stated “all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe” to that ethics statement.

RELATED: Clarence Thomas, Consistent Target Of The Left, Explains ‘Right Is Still Right Even If You Stand By Yourself’

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Declines to Participate in Dick Durbin’s Sideshow

Dick Durbin’s invitation to Chief Justice John Roberts was little more than a thinly-veiled effort to address allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Another one of those ‘high-tech lynchings’ the left likes to engage in every now and again regarding the longest-tenured black justice serving on the court.

A report this month by the left-leaning outlet Pro Publica alleged billionaire Harlan Crow, a GOP donor,  provided trips and gifts to Thomas that were not disclosed.

Following that report, other liberal media outlets have tried to make specious links between Thomas and other gifts from friends that they suddenly find scandalous.

Thomas, following allegations of impropriety, explained slowly and carefully to those wondering, that the gifts in question were from close personal friends and, as they “did not have business before the Court” it “was not reportable.”

He said he would amend his financial disclosure forms to comply with changes made to disclosure rules that were announced last month.

RELATED: Liberal Group Publishes Home Addresses Of Supreme Court Justices, Calls For Protests

Roberts Often Sides With the Left

It’s good to see Roberts stand up to Durbin, a rare morphing from a spineless jellyfish patsy for the Democrats to somebody finally showing a modicum of intestinal fortitude.

Think about it – Roberts has spent the vast majority of his time as Chief Justice abandoning his principles and voting intentionally with the liberal wing of the Court as a means to convey an image of fairness.

His lone goal is to create a legacy of a court not swayed by politics, but rather, guided by the law. And he’s been more than eager to side with the left to create that faux ethical image.

And Durbin has the gall to question the ethics of his court?

In June of 2020, Roberts cast the deciding vote, joining the court’s liberal justices in a 5-4 decision that ruled against the Trump administration’s bid to end the DACA program, despite it having been implemented illegally.

That same year he sided with the liberal court justices, ruling in favor of coronavirus restrictions on religious services in the state of California.

He ruled alongside liberals yet again in a ruling that struck down a Louisiana abortion safety law.

There are so many other cases in which Roberts abandoned the rule of law to cast his lot with the left just to seem impartial.

How bad must Durbin’s circus request be that even he would stand up and say, ‘No, this is a bit too much.’

Roberts though, does have a bit of a history of being irked by Democrats for daring to question the legitimacy of his Supreme Court.

He became visibly agitated after having to read a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren which suggested the legitimacy of the Court, the Constitution, and his own career would be tainted following the impeachment trial of then-President Donald Trump.

Fox News reported at the time that upon finishing the question, Roberts became “visibly irritated” and “pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.”

We imagine he had the same look while writing the letter to Durbin.

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 Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics appeared first on The Political Insider.

Where Did All the Biden Illegal Immigrants Go? Sanctuary Cities Like New York Are Only Part of the Answer

By James Varney for RealClearInvestigations

In New York City, if the newcomers aren’t put up at the luxury cruise terminal that served the QE2, they could get $700-a-night midtown hotel accommodations with iconic Manhattan viewsIn Chicago, they found themselves whisked to suburban lodgings. In Denver, officials refer to them discreetly as “guests” and you needn’t bother inquiring about their inns or addresses.  

The people enjoying these free digs aren’t privacy-conscious jet-setters, but the secrecy surrounding them might be comparable: They’re some of the millions of migrants who have illegally crossed into the U.S. since the Biden administration relaxed most border controls.

RELATED: Nearly 270,000 Apprehensions, Gotaways at Southern Border in March

No one knows exactly how many people have poured across the southwestern U.S. border since President Biden took office, or where they’ve gone since. The official number of encounters by Customs and Border Patrol stands at 5.2 million people, logged over the last two full federal fiscal years and fiscal 2023 through March. But that number is imprecise because it includes repeat encounters with the same people and omits the many who slipped into the country unnoticed by border agents.  

Under President Biden, the U.S. smashed past the 200,000 monthly encounters mark for the first time in July 2021 and it has repeatedly topped that record in the months since. By comparison, in fiscal 2020, which ended a month before Biden’s defeat of President Trump, the U.S. averaged 38,174 monthly encounters at the border, according to CBP figures.  

Earlier: Why Hasn’t the GOP Impeached Mayorkas Yet? 

Because of an official lack of transparency, all those people and the circumstances by which they have arrived and remained have made it hard to take stock of the historic influx. Through midnight flights and buses from the border to far-flung locales, the administration has made it difficult to identify where the migrants are now living and receiving services. Also unclear are the costs associated with the arrivals.  

But flares have been sent up – especially over immigrant sanctuary cities like New York, Denver and Chicago, which have long promised to house migrants. While those cities are providing housing and other services for a small fraction of the recent migrants, the costs are significant for these budget-strapped metropolises.

Denver plans to spend $20 million in the first six months of this year to provide housing to migrants. Officials say this works out to between $800 and $1,000 per week per person.   

In January the state of Illinois turned down Chicago’s request for more funds, saying it had already spent close to $120 million on its “asylum seeker emergency response” – or roughly $33,000 per migrant.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has asked for more than $500 million in federal aid, while pegging the city’s spending at between $2 billion and $3 billion.     

Other data points of the opaque costs of Biden-era illegal immigration include Massachusetts’ estimate that it will need $28 million to launch a program to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented residents. The state is seeking a share of the omnibus spending bill passed by Democrats in December 2022 when they controlled both houses of Congress, which included $800 million for cities grappling with the influx.  

RELATED: Biden to Open Up Medicaid, Obamacare to About 700,000 Illegal Immigrants

These numbers are incomplete in part because it is hard to separate the added cost of recent migrants from costs for the millions of undocumented immigrants who were in the country before the recent surge.  

A March study by the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that, after accounting for taxes paid by undocumented migrants, they cost taxpayers over $150 billion per year – a 30% increase since 2017.  

Yet FAIR acknowledges the problem of fixing costs has become more difficult, given the record-breaking numbers of illegal crossers in the past two and a half years and efforts by some government agencies to mask their spending.  

“We often had to grapple with a paucity of easily accessible official data,” the report notes. “Many state and federal entities do not publish detailed data that they collect, making it difficult to reliably separate illegal aliens from citizens of lawful immigrants. We have also encountered cases where the current administration has revoked or restricted documents published by previous administrations in order to reduce the visibility of data which shines a negative light on their immigration policy agenda.”

Those totals also involve far more than simple food and board. To arrive at its staggering sum, FAIR includes estimates of the costs in education, health care and law enforcement.  

“The irony is not only are these sanctuary jurisdictions turning to Washington with their hands out, but that they still refuse to join with governors like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis in demanding that the federal government take decisive steps to stanch the influx of new migrants,” FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman told RealClearInvestigations, referring to the Republican chief executives of Texas and Florida, respectively. “The obvious hypocrisy of declaring yourself a sanctuary jurisdiction while complaining about the costs and burdens associated with it are undeniable.”

Groups that favor more relaxed border security measures, such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the American Immigration Council, did not respond to RCI’s request for comment; the liberal Brookings Institution declined to comment. 

RELATED: Illegal Immigration is Surging… Across the Northern Border, Now

Cities housing many migrants have a hard time estimating costs. New York Mayor Adams has asked for more than $500 million in federal aid, while pegging the city’s spending one time at $2 billion and another time at $3 billion. Those are the sorts of bills New York has racked up putting what they call “asylum seekers” or “migrants” in hotels.

And Adams, whose requests sometimes include the claim “we are all in this together,” wants to spend even more. This month, he floated the idea of paying college tuition for illegal immigrants if they attend New York state schools outside the city.

Using Adams’ own number of some 40,000 illegal immigrants that New York City has foot the bills for, it means taxpayers are spending roughly $150,000 per person to host new arrivals. In March, City Hall scaled back its count of the number of its immigrants to 12,700, which meant the taxpayers’ were spending nearly $5 million a day to take care of them, according to a New York Post analysis.  

The Office of the New York City Public Advocate, which helps immigrants navigate the benefits available to them, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Adams declined to address questions about spending, pointing instead to various links the city maintains for immigrants and noting the city has expanded a New York County Supreme Court decision in 1981 regarding shelter for homeless people to cover immigrants.   

Whatever the current official number of illegal immigrants New York is dealing with it is but a fraction of those that have poured into various Texas communities along the border.   

Officials at El Paso’s City Hall, one of the ground zeroes in the illegal immigration crush, did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment on its spending. But Gov. Abbott said his Operation Lone Star, launched in March 2021, has “allocated more than $4 billion to do the federal government’s job and secure the border,” Abbott’s spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said.   

It was Abbott who began busing illegal immigrants to some of the sanctuary cities that declare themselves so welcoming, such as New York, Denver and Chicago.

RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’

“Texas began busing migrants to sanctuary cities last April to provide relief to our overrun and overwhelmed border communities,” Mahaleris said. “Mayors Adams, [Muriel] Bowser and [Lori] Lightfoot were all too happy to tout their sanctuary city statuses until Texas bused over 16,900 migrants, collectively, to their self-declared sanctuary. Instead of complaining about dealing with a fraction of the border crisis Texas communities see every day, these hypocrites should call on President Biden to take immediate action to secure the border – something the president continues failing to do.”  

Lightfoot, departing as mayor of Chicago after her defeat in February, first turned to Illinois for millions to help the Windy City cope with its several thousand illegal immigrants Texas provided. In January, however, the state turned her down, saying it had already spent close to $120 million on its “asylum seeker emergency response.”  

That response came last September when Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued an “emergency disaster proclamation.” His proclamation and the words of other state leaders presented a schizophrenic picture in which they portray Illinois as a “welcoming beacon of hope” and complain they weren’t given “official advance warning.”

Most of the money Illinois spent – more than $61.5 million, or roughly $31,000 per immigrant – went to contracts with organizations or staff “who provided on site case management and other services at multiple locations.”  

Illinois dropped another $8 million on “interim housing,” nearly $4 million on “health screenings for asylum seekers, and more than $29 million on “hotel, transportation and housing costs,” according to their breakdown.  

Nowhere did Pritzker or Lightfoot question the wisdom of the Biden administration ‘s border policies, and there was no indication they understood the burdens that had been put on border cities and states. Instead, the unmistakable message was that if illegal immigrants were going to be sent where the “welcoming beacon” shone, other people should pay for it.

RELATED: Rio Grande Border Patrol Agents Assaulted While Apprehending Illegal Aliens

“They can say all that is for free, but now they’re finding out they can’t have a welfare society and an open border,” said Lora Reis, the director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Denver held a budget “transparency and equity” meeting earlier this month at which Chief Financial Officer Margaret Danuser said the city will have spent between $17 and $20 million on housing and other services for between 5,000 and 6,000 illegal immigrants between Dec. 2022 and this June. The city hoped to get federal taxpayers to reimburse it for $2.8 million, and a Colorado state fund for another $3.5 million.

Those figures show Denver spent about the same as Chicago at roughly $33,000 per immigrant, costs that are still far below New York City’s. 

“None of these sanctuary mayors or governors have ever asked for a secure border, it was always just, ‘feds, give us money!’” said Reis. “They can say all that for free, but they are finding out you can’t have a welfare system and an open border.”

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post Where Did All the Biden Illegal Immigrants Go? Sanctuary Cities Like New York Are Only Part of the Answer appeared first on The Political Insider.

With Assist From Manhattan DA, Trump Once Again Enjoys United GOP Support

By Philip Wegmann for RealClearPolitics

Donald Trump again made history Thursday evening, this time by becoming the first former president of the United States to be indicted, stemming from charges related to illegal hush money payments made to a porn star in 2016.

And yet even while in legal jeopardy, blindsided by an indictment he hoped to avoid, Trump has tightened his grip on the GOP. His wrongful persecution has become the defining cause of the right. At least that’s how many Republicans see it.

RELATED: Flashback: Presidential Candidate John Edwards Acquitted On Campaign Finance Charge, Hillary Clinton Only Paid Fine for Violation

“When our justice system is weaponized as a political tool, it endangers all of us,” said Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. “This is a blatant abuse of power from a DA focused on political vengeance instead of keeping people safe.”

Allies close to the former president previously cautioned him to avoid controversy and to move beyond personal politics to focus on the challenges facing the nation. If he could just do that, Sen. Lindsey Graham predicted in an interview last summer with RealClearPolitics, Trump had “a damn good chance of winning” not just the nomination but once again the White House.

“If it is a grievance campaign,” the South Carolina Republican almost sighed, “then he is gonna have a problem.” Less than a year later, Trump is a candidate again. And Trump is very much aggrieved. But this time, the grievance isn’t exactly by his own invitation. Graham now sees it central to his return to power.

“How does this end, Sean,” the senator told the host of Hannity on Fox News, “Trump wins in court. And he wins the election. That’s how this works.” A loyal surrogate for that presidential campaign, he urged viewers three different times to go donate to the former president because “he has spent more money on lawyers than most people spend on campaigns – they’re trying to bleed him dry.”

Graham isn’t wrong, not just about mounting legal expenses, but more broadly about Trump’s mounting lead in the polls since predicting nearly two weeks ago that he would soon be arrested. He was already the undisputed front runner in the polls before the indictment.

Now defense of the former president is the united cause of the Republican Party. It instantly shifted the 2024 landscape. The scope of the indictment is not known, though some early reporting suggests Trump could face more than 30 counts related to business fraud. Forthcoming legal details, however, were immediately eclipsed by political considerations Thursday evening.

RELATED: Mask Off Moment: Pelosi Shredded After Suggesting Trump Needs to ‘Prove Innocence’ at Trial

The indictment was just more of the same, Trump said in a statement, likening it to “Russia, Russia, Russia; the Mueller Hoax; Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine; Impeachment Hoax 1; Impeachment Hoax 2; the illegal and unconstitutional Mar-a-Lago raid; and now this.”

For Republicans, it was muscle memory to rally to Trump’s defense like they have done so many times before. “Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a statement echoed across all corners of the right from old Trump rivals, like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who said the indictment signaled “the death of the rule of law,” and new Trump allies, like Ohio Sen. JD Vance who called it “political persecution.”

Trump loyalists seem to have been caught off guard Thursday by leaked news that a grand jury voted to indict the former president. Given that federal prosecutors declined previously to take up the issue of hush payments made ahead of the 2016 election, they had hoped that Bragg wouldn’t ultimately follow through.

Alina Habba, Trump’s attorney, said in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News that she was “shocked” by the news. She confirmed that a booking at the New York City courthouse, complete with fingerprinting and a mug shot, was soon expected.

If the coming legal wrangling is unprecedented, the political fallout was somewhat familiar. Although Trump’s 2024 rivals were quick to condemn the looming indictment, either by accident or design, the Manhattan district attorney has shifted the national political landscape just 10 months before the Iowa caucuses.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who is expected to make his own bid for the White House, said the treatment of his old boss was an “outrage” that amounted to “political persecution.” A representative for the Nikki Haley campaign pointed RCP to previous comments the former ambassador made condemning the then still rumored indictment as motivated by “revenge.”

But perhaps the most significant development came from another Florida Republican, the only other potential candidate polling within striking distance of Trump.

RELATED: President Donald Trump’s Lead Grows After Indictment

That state’s governor, Ron DeSantis, earlier incurred the wrath of Trump and many in his orbit for not speaking out sooner when the former president prematurely predicted his indictment. When first addressing the controversy, DeSantis pledged to avoid “the circus” altogether. Worse in the eyes of MAGA? DeSantis made reference to the underlying facts of the case.

“I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair,” DeSantis said at a press conference. “I just, I can’t speak to that.”

But the governor did not take any shots, veiled or otherwise, at Trump Thursday evening. Instead, DeSantis condemned the indictment as “un-American.” DeSantis vowed that Florida, if it came to that, would not cooperate with forcing the former president from his estate in Mar-a-Lago to face charges in New York.

“Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda,” he said in a statement.

And just like that, with an assist from a local Democratic district attorney in a state no Republican has carried since 1984, it seems that rather than revisiting old grievances, a newly aggrieved Trump has moved one step closer to the Republican nomination. Lindsey Graham seemingly spoke for the GOP, while making little distinction between opposing an allegedly politicized prosecution, supporting Trump, and defending America itself.

“This is the most irresponsible and dangerous decision by a prosecutor in the history of the country,” the South Carolina Republican said. “He’s opened up a Pandora’s box against the presidency itself.”

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post With Assist From Manhattan DA, Trump Once Again Enjoys United GOP Support appeared first on The Political Insider.

Mask Off Moment: Pelosi Shredded After Suggesting Trump Needs to ‘Prove Innocence’ at Trial

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the justice system in the United States. At least, it was.

The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is something every American has heard uttered throughout their lifetime. It is a legal principle that puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As with many fundamental norms in the justice system, Democrats eschew such basic rights when it comes to their political opponents.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in responding to the indictment against Donald Trump, ripped that mask off and suggested the former President must now “prove innocence.”

“The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law,” Pelosi said in a statement.

“No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

Read that again – Trump now has a “right to a trial to prove innocence.” That’s not how that works, you ignorant buffoon.

RELATED: President Donald Trump Indicted by Manhattan Grand Jury

Pelosi Statement on Trump Indictment Leads to Ridicule

Sometimes it’s difficult to even know where to begin when a dyed-in-the-wool liberal lunatic makes such a ridiculous comment.

Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that, since Pelosi was roundly condemned on social media for her remarks about the Trump indictment.

Attorney Eric Matheny kicked things off by stating the very, very obvious.

“Defendants in America don’t prove their innocence,” he wrote.

Author Alex Berenson was torn between being impressed that an elderly woman is seemingly writing her own tweets and full-blown panic that the same woman, a lawmaker, “has no idea how the law works.”

“The last time Americans had to ‘prove their innocence,’ we were governed by the British,” tweeted comedian Tim Young.

The political pundit known as the ‘Redheaded Libertarian’ spat fire at Pelosi in a smoking hot tweet.

“This is the most anti-American vomit that has ever exited your commie mouth,” she said.

I mean … maybe? Pelosi has a long and storied history with vomiting anti-American, pro-commie gibberish so, there’s that.

Pelosi’s Tweet Gets a Fact Check

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s tweet about Trump needing to “prove innocence” in regard to the indictment was slapped with a Community Notes disclaimer by Twitter.

“Ms. Pelosi mistakenly says that Trump can prove his innocence at trial,” the added context reads. “Law in the US assumes the innocence of a defendant and the prosecution must prove guilt for a conviction.”

Twitter commentators know that basic fact. One of the most powerful Democrat lawmakers in the land? Not so much.

But where did anyone get the idea that Pelosi was “mistaken”? 

This isn’t the first time prominent Democrats have struggled with the basic concept of the presumption of innocence.

Senator Cory Booker (D-Sparta), during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggested he be replaced “whether he’s innocent or guilty” of fabricated sexual assault allegations.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Golden Corral) at around the same time said Kavanaugh is “not entitled to those (due process and the presumption of innocence).”

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Fang Fang) claimed that when the former President’s White House opted not to play the impeachment game by refusing to send documents and witnesses to mount a defense against the televised circus, this was an admission of guilt.

“We can only conclude that you’re guilty,” Swalwell stated.

“In America, innocent men do not hide and conceal evidence,” he added. “They are forthcoming and they want to cooperate and the president is acting like a very guilty person right now.”

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution enshrines the concept that someone is “innocent until proven guilty.”

The clause regarding self-incrimination was designed to prevent the accused from being forced to testify against themselves, leaving the burden of proving that a person has committed a crime to the government.

And Democrats across the board want to reverse that.

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 Mask Off Moment: Pelosi Shredded After Suggesting Trump Needs to ‘Prove Innocence’ at Trial appeared first on The Political Insider.

Why Hasn’t the GOP Yet Walked the Walk on Its Mayorkas Impeachment Talk?

By James Varney for RealClearInvestigations

It’s almost an understatement to say that Republican candidates campaigned hawkishly on border control in the runup to the 2022 midterms: As they decried the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico, many vowed to impeach the man they largely blamed for the mess, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Republicans have continued hammering Mayorkas since taking control of the House. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, who called the flooding of more than 5 million illegal immigrants across the southern border since President Biden took office an “intentional” policy, has made several visits to the U.S.-Mexico border with other Republicans, and the House has held multiple hearings on immigration. 

RELATED: Mayorkas Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban But Can’t Define ‘Assault Weapons’

But as winter has turned to spring, the GOP has taken little action to remove Mayorkas. Republicans Andy Biggs of Arizona and Pat Fallon of Texas  have each filed bills, but the House Judiciary Committee, from which any impeachment move must come, has not taken up either resolution. 

Conservative groups focused on the southern border told RealClearInvestigations that impeachment did not come up during recent meetings in Washington. 

“I just came from the Hill and a bunch of meetings with staffers and they’re reporting the same thing; one said the conference is split, with a lot of GOP ‘George W. Bush types’ who love the cheap labor for American industry and agriculture,” said Todd Bensman of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and author of “Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History.”  

Bensman calls it an “old story,” but cheap labor is only part of it. Republicans aren’t united on this issue because some fear that following through on impeachment talk will alienate the moderate swing voters that the GOP needs to remain in control of the House.

Even Republicans who have publicly attacked Mayorkas are now reticent about discussing impeachment. RCI reached out to 16 GOP House members for comment. Neither Biggs nor Fallon responded. Virginia Rep. Bob Good, a member of the Freedom Caucus who is co-sponsor of both resolutions, declined to comment on the record. Other outspoken administration critics such as Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Tom McClintock of California, and Matt Gaetz of Florida did not respond. 

Only two of the 16 Republican House members agreed to speak on the record.

“I have repeatedly called for his impeachment and am confident that Chairman Jordan will hold true to his word of impeaching Mayorkas for overseeing an unprecedented surge of illegal activity at our southern border,” Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona said.  

RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania said Biden administration officials have lied about what they have done at the border but was more circumspect on impeachment, suggesting a wait-and-see attitude may be behind the aggressive rhetoric. 

“I’m not on the Judiciary Committee and it would have to come from there,” he said. “My hope is that at least some information will come from hearings because some members legitimately have some questions.” 

Perry and others said they would like to see the Judiciary Committee make the case for impeachment, a process Jordan appears to be favoring. For the moment, however, the only concrete step Republicans have taken is a symbolic gesture by Rep. Chip Roy of Texas to try to cut Mayorkas’ salary from the DHS budget. 

The bills filed by Reps. Biggs and Fallon contend that Mayorkas’s conduct meets the constitutional threshold for impeachment, “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Fallon’s bill, H. Res. 8, alleges that the secretary has violated the oath all cabinet members take to “faithfully uphold” the laws of the United States by failing to enforce: 

  • The Secure the Fence Act of 2006 that requires the DHS secretary to “maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”
  • The Immigration and Nationality Act that requires the DHS secretary to “detain inadmissible aliens arriving in the United States or aliens who are present in the United States without inspection until processed.” Instead, it claims, Mayorkas’ “catch and release” approach has allowed more than “1,000,000 illegal aliens” into the country. 

While referencing those two laws, the Biggs resolution, H. Res. 582, also accuses Mayorkas of violating the Public Health Services Act by failing to protect U.S. citizens from “risk and exposure to and contracting Covid-19 by refusing to take necessary steps to prevent contagious illegal aliens from entering the United States.”  

In sum, the Biggs resolution concludes Mayorkas should be impeached because “his actions have subverted the will of Congress and the core tenets of the Constitution.” 
RCI reached out repeatedly to a dozen Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee seeking comment on a possible impeachment of Mayorkas and their reaction. None of them responded.

RELATED: Mayorkas Falsely Claimed Border is ‘Closed’ Ahead of Biden Trip to El Paso

Mayorkas has stated repeatedly he has no intention of resigning, a suggestion Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas made again Tuesday when Mayorkas appeared at a Senate committee hearing. “If you had any integrity you would resign,” Cruz said.

The volley came after the two got into a verbal spat over how truthful the administration has been about the border. Cruz cited comments by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that people are “not walking across the border” along with photographs of people doing just that. “You claim you care, Mr. Secretary –– that is a lie,” Cruz said. 

Cruz again accused Mayorkas of dissembling after the DHS chief would not answer a question about whether Jean-Pierre lied. Mayorkas called Cruz’s accusation “revolting.”

Nevertheless, the department is bracing for a possible impeachment and taking steps for Mayorkas’ defense. A government contract was signed with the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton to provide legal assistance to the secretary; that contract would kick in only if the Judiciary Committee moved an impeachment motion to the House floor.

Debevoise & Plimpton did not respond to a request for comment about the arrangement. Biden administration officials familiar with it said it was necessary because the impeachment of a cabinet secretary is so rare none of its legal staff has any relevant experience. 

The terms of the contract were not disclosed, although officials pointed to examples in the past where House Republicans hired outside legal counsel to assist it on legislation that proved legally fraught.

A DHS spokesperson said the contract was necessary to “ensure the Department’s vital mission is not interrupted by the unprecedented, unjustified and partisan impeachment efforts of some members of Congress, who have already taken steps to initiate proceedings.”

History shows the House can move swiftly on impeachment if members choose to. The Democratic majority, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to impeach departing President Trump just one week after the post-election riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  

RELATED: New U.S. Border Data: 284 Suspected Terrorists Apprehended So Far in Fiscal 2023

Defenders of the government’s current border policies say that the conservatives’ argument is flawed. The Biden administration’s approach is basically a relaxation of the Trump administration’s more stringent strategy. As such, they amount to policy differences between the two major political parties and fall far short of any “crimes and misdemeanors” that would justify impeachment.  

But, as RCI has previously reported, President Biden’s policies have marked a sharp break from his predecessor’s, since Biden’s first day in office, when he signed seven executive orders on immigration that, among other things, suspended deportations. 

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who co-authored the February report, “The Case for Impeachment of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas Secretary of Homeland Security,” defended the impeachment argument from liberals who deride it as purely political. 

“It inaccurately and incorrectly asserts that we are confusing the requirements of the Immigration and Naturalization Act with the Trump administration policies,” he said. “Our analysis is based not on disagreeing with the policies implemented by Mayorkas, but with his violation of federal immigration law.” 

“I think we have laid out in our paper what we think the basis is for impeachment,” von Spakovsky told RCI. They include the claims that Mayorkas:  

  • “deliberately defied and contravened the laws he is charged with faithfully executing.” 
  • “repeatedly abused the authority of his office, including by, among other conduct, enticing a flood of aliens to cross the U.S. southern border with his policies and Statements.” 
  • “betrayed the trust of the people by lying to Congress and withholding information and misleading the public in an effort to hide and suppress the nature and consequence of his abominable policies.” 

Von Spakovsky added that “the misguided priorities of Mayorkas have resulted in a huge backlog in the adjudication system that unfairly hurts the many thousands of U.S. citizens and lawful applicants whose immigration matters are delayed many months.” 

RELATED: There Have Already Been 1.6 Million Known Illegal Border Crossings This Fiscal Year

Although von Spakovsky and others argue impeachment is warranted “consistent with U.S. history and constitutional traditions,” it would also be a highly unusual move. Only one cabinet member has ever been impeached, President Ulysses S. Grant’s War Secretary William Belknap in 1876, but he resigned the same day the House voted unanimously against him.  

Attorney General Harry Daugherty in 1922 and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon in 1932 also faced possible impeachment proceedings by the House, but the former resigned in 1924 and the latter left the cabinet and became U.S. ambassador to England. 

Impeachment supporters also point to the dangers the Biden administration’s porous border have created. In addition to the humanitarian issues of hundreds of thousands of people migrating through Mexico to the U.S., and the money they have paid to Mexican cartels to facilitate their passage, the southern border has become the main conduit for deadly illicit fentanyl.

Scott Perry said his constituents would like to see the Republicans do more than simply talk about the border crisis, though he noted that Mayorkas is the agent who carries out policies set by President Biden. 

“It’s chaos down there with the fentanyl and the cartels making millions of dollars,” he said. 

“Most of our constituents are distraught about that and want it fixed, and many would like accountability for how it occurred. Ultimately, the president is responsible so why not impeach him?” 

But as to what might actually happen with Mayorkas, Perry acknowledged he wasn’t sure. 

“My sense is that with the Judicial Committee holding hearings we are working toward those kind of things,” he said. “That will go to the fact-finding we need to have to convince some of our skeptical members.” 

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post Why Hasn’t the GOP Yet Walked the Walk on Its Mayorkas Impeachment Talk? appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Has the Perfect Job in Mind for MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

By Dr. Derek Ellerman

One complaint you’ll never hear about Donald Trump is that he doesn’t have any good ideas. 

Sure, you’ll definitely hear that his execution isn’t always perfect, and you’ll definitely hear that some of the people he chooses to accomplish those ideas leave much to be desired. (Hello, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Nikki Haley!)

But the man most certainly has many good ideas. And he just dropped a great one: 

(Shoutout to Citizen Free Press for the above video!)

RELATED: Trump Demands January 6th Prisoners Let Go, House Select Committee Prosecuted After Tucker Carlson Releases Bombshell Videos

MTG for Senate! 

At his campaign rally in Waco, Texas over the weekend (also an excellent idea, as the crime against women and children that took place there 30 years ago still has not been prosecuted), Trump wondered aloud if MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia should run for the Senate in Georgia. 

It took long enough, but Trump finally endorsed someone for Georgia Senate who is actually worth voting for. 

I’m not going to get into the question of “electability” here. 

“We have to vote for Empty Suit Candidate because they can win” has no power here. 

Whether or not someone “can win” depends on many factors, first and foremost their campaign operation. But crucially, whether or not a candidate can win is a question that comes only after the question of whether or not they should win.

Should they win because they have the correct ideas and positions? If the answer is yes, let’s hit the trail. 

If the answer is no, because they’re a big-spending warmonger who will do whatever Mitch McConnell tells them to do, then it doesn’t matter if they “can win.” 

So let’s start with that first and most important question. 

RELATED: MSNBC’s Joy Reid Livid Over Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Oversight Committee Assignment, Compares MTG to Jefferson Davis

MTG: Get Rid of the RINOs

At the rally in Waco, MTG went after McConnell and Lindsey Graham:

OK, we’re off to a good start. She knows who the empty suits are. 

Is she committed to doing the right thing, even if it’s unpopular? 

Let’s check: 

Alright, we’re off and running now! 

Only one thing could derail this train. Where is MTG on the singularly most important topic?

Now we’re cooking with gas! 

The truth is, Ukraine, in addition to being the most important subject at the moment, also provides the world’s easiest litmus test for our politicians. 

Should the people currently conducting an illegal war in Syria continue to unnecessarily provoke a nuclear power by taking money from Americans and giving it to a corrupt authoritarian?

Or should our politicians, who have rung up over $30 trillion in debt, actually put America and the American people first? 

Like I said, easiest litmus test. MTG passes with flying colors. How many other Republicans can say the same? 

Now let me be clear, I don’t think MTG is going to run for the Senate, and I don’t think she should risk her House seat at the current time, given how “voting” currently works in Georgia. 

But the difference between people like you and I and the grifters who latch on to establishment politicians for a big payday is that you and I ask the right question first. 

Can she win? I’m not sure. 

Should she win? No doubt about it. 

POLL: Should Marjorie Taylor Greene run for Senate?

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

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 Has the Perfect Job in Mind for MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared first on The Political Insider.

CNN Gives Schiff, Swalwell, and Omar an Entire Panel to Continue Their Committee Removal Whining Tour

CNN offered Ilhan Omar, Eric Swalwell, and Adam Schiff an entire panel segment so they could continue whining about being removed from House committees by Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

By now, you all know the background. Swalwell has engaged in a reported relationship with a Chinese spy while Schiff has been accused of leaking classified information in order to propagate the Russia collusion hoax.

As such, he has rejected a bid to keep Schiff and Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee and is seeking to do the same with Omar on the Foreign Affairs Committee due to a career’s worth of anti-Semitic comments.

CNN swooped in and offered all three a panel on “State of the Union” with host Dana Bash – not a single dissenting voice – to express their outrage for being removed from their committee assignments.

Because the press conference they held on the matter, Swalwell’s statements accusing the Speaker of trying to have them murdered, Schiff’s TikTok video, and the trio’s incessant tweeting on the perceived miscarriage of justice wasn’t enough publicity.

RELATED: Ilhan Omar Whines That Democrats Being Kicked Off Committees is a ‘Threat to National Security’

Claim They’re Being Targeted Because They’re Really Good at What They Do

All three Democrats took a swipe at McCarthy for removing or seeking to remove them from various committee assignments.

Swalwell called the Speaker’s actions “BS” and suggested he targeted them because he perceives all three to be “effective political opponent(s).”

Swalwell, aside from having an affair with a Chinese spy – allegedly – is best known for riding a camel shirtless in Qatar during the pandemic and blaming a mug for an extremely embarrassing live interview moment.

But yea, he’s effective.

Schiff suggested the whole thing was some sort of effort by McCarthy to protect former President Donald Trump and secure support from MAGA Republicans.

“The only real explanation is he needs Marjorie Taylor Greene’s vote, he needs Paul Gosar’s vote,” Schiff stated.

“He wants to retaliate for their removal from the committee, and apparently, he believes I was very effective in exposing … Donald Trump’s misconduct, and that’s what they’re trying to stop.”

RELATED: Swalwell Lashes Out After Learning McCarthy Will Remove Him, Ilhan Omar, and Adam Schiff from Committees

Schiff, Swalwell, and Omar Run Into Some Trouble Explaining Behavior That Led to Loss of Committee Assignments

Perhaps the triumvirate of weak Democrats thought an interview with CNN would go off without a hitch, but each congress member had to do some level of explaining as to the real reasons for the committee controversy.

Bash brought up Swalwell’s Chinese spy affair.

“Did you put yourself in a vulnerable position in any way, so that this alleged Chinese spy could have benefited or even learn American secrets?”

“Absolutely not,” Swalwell fired back adding that the FBI claimed, “All I did was help them, and also, I was never under any suspicion of wrongdoing.”

Bash pivoted to Schiff and pointed out he lied about not knowing who the whistleblower involved with the first Trump impeachment was.

“Ahead of the first Trump impeachment, you said the committee had not spoken to a whistle-blower,” Bash challenged. “In fact, that turned out not to be true. The Washington Post said so in their fact check.”

Schiff responded that he “should have been more clear in my answer.”

That’s an incredibly strange way of saying, ‘I lied and got caught doing so.’

The former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee also continued pushing the Russia collusion hoax, the very thing he’s accused of using classified information to help spread in an effort to take down Trump.

“To most Americans, that is collusion,” Schiff said referencing the famed Mueller report. “Now, whether it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy … I have always distinguished between the two.”

Then it was Omar’s turn.

Bash brought up her history of anti-Semitic comments to which the Minnesota Democrat insisted she had no idea that suggesting pro-Israel politicians were “all about the Benjamins” and that Israel had “hypnotized” the world would be controversial.

“I might have used words at the time that I didn’t understand were trafficking in anti-semitism,” Omar asserted. “When that was brought to my attention, I apologized. I owned up to it.”

Where will the whining tour head next? Swalwell has insisted they are “not going away” and McCarthy will “regret giving all three of us more time on our hands.”

It’s clear the attention-starved Democrats will continue soaking up the media spotlight as long as they can.

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 Gives Schiff, Swalwell, and Omar an Entire Panel to Continue Their Committee Removal Whining Tour appeared first on The Political Insider.