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.

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.

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.

Fox News’ Jesse Watters Compares Hillary Clinton To OJ Simpson: She ‘Should Be Banished From Polite Society’

On Monday, Fox News Jesse Watters said that 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is comparable to OJ Simpson and that the former secretary of state “should be banished from polite society.”

Watters made his remarks during a discussion on the program “The Five.”

RELATED: What Did Clinton Know And When Did She Know It? The Russiagate Evidence Builds

Watters: ‘I think Hillary should be banished from polite society’

Watters was reacting to recent court filings from special counsel John Durham that showed Clinton’s role in trying to tie former President Donald Trump to the Russians during the 2016 election.

Not only Trump’s campaign was monitored, but also the new Republican administration after he entered the White House.

Co-host Dana Perino said that Durham’s investigation appeared to be picking up steam with more cooperating witnesses, saying “It sort of means to me that people just don’t want to go to jail so they start talking.”

“I think Hillary should be banished from polite society,” Watters shot back. “I’m not comparing her to O.J., because, you know, we have no proof that she ever murdered anybody, but I would like to see Hillary treated the way O.J. is.”

“He’s not really welcome places, he’s kind of a pariah,” Watters said.

“Right now she is a certified political criminal,” Watters continued. “Her husband has been #metooed and has been finger to be on Epstein’s island and you know the Foundation, that’s just like a washed up money laundering operation.”

You can see the The Five’s discussion about it here:

RELATED: Trump Blasts Media For Not Covering Alleged Clinton Spying, Calls It ‘The Beginning Of Communism’

Watters Describes What He Thinks Happened

Watters then described what he thinks happened based on Durham’s court filings.

Watters said, “This is what happened. She paid people to hack into Trump’s computers and frame him for being a Russian traitor! That would be like paying someone to break into Trump Tower at 2:00 in the morning, plant a bunch of guns and drugs and Russian documents and then call the FBI and say hey guys, I got a tip, why don’t you go raid the tower. That’s the same thing.”

“And we now know too that this was happening as far back as 2014,” Watters continued. “The CIA knew Crooked was trying to frame him, they briefed Obama that Hillary was going to frame him.”

Watters starts taking about Hillary at the 1:07 minute mark:

He went on, “They briefed the FBI that this was a frame job so Mueller was just a clean-up operation to tee up the impeachment.

“And it failed,” Watters added.

The post Fox News’ Jesse Watters Compares Hillary Clinton To OJ Simpson: She ‘Should Be Banished From Polite Society’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Will Run For President In 2024, Jim Jordan Predicts

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) went on Fox News on Tuesday night to predict that Donald Trump will run for president again in 2024.

Jordan Predicts Trump Will Run In 2024

“I think he is,” Jordan told host Sean Hannity when asked if Trump will run. “Every time I speak to him, it — he says that he wants to run. He plans to run, I think, but he hasn’t fully committed that yet. But I certainly hope he does because no president has done more of what he said he would do than President Trump. Best president I think we’ve ever had:”

“Keeping his word, doing what he said, doing what he was elected to do,” he continued. “That’s the kind of individual we need in the White House, and that’s the kind of individual that our adversaries respected because they knew he was putting America’s interests first and standing strong for the principles that matter.”

Related: Trump And Newt Gingrich Teaming Up For New ‘Contract With America’

Mark Meadows Agrees 

Jordan’s former House Freedom Caucus colleague Mark Meadows feels the same way.

“Listen, Sean, when he came down that escalator, the left has been going after him attack after attack after attack, from Russia hoax to impeachment,” Meadows said. “Now, we’re even still seeing it in New York City.”

“Here’s what I will say is, the American people want him to run,” he added. “I believe he’ll run. And at the end of the day, it’s a time for choosing, and the American people will choose Donald Trump.”

Trump ‘Beyond Seriously’ Considering Running 

Last month, Trump said that he is “beyond seriously” considering running for president again in 2024.

“I say this: I am looking at it very seriously, beyond seriously,” Trump told Fox News when asked about a potential 2024 run. “From a legal standpoint I don’t want to talk about it yet.”

Related: We Don’t Need A New Party, This Is Our Party Now

Sources close to Trump told Politico that he has been saying that he will run again assuming he is healthy enough to do so.

“He has been saying he’s going to. He’s seriously considering it — he’s probably going to do it — so we’ll see what happens,” said Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who served as White House physician, told Insider’s Kimberly Leonard.

This piece was written by James Samson on May 27, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Surprising New Details Emerge About Meeting Between Trump And Obama
No Love Lost Between Biden And Harris
‘The View’ Explodes After Meghan McCain Compares AOC’s ‘Squad’ To Marjorie Taylor Greene

The post Trump Will Run For President In 2024, Jim Jordan Predicts appeared first on The Political Insider.

GOP Sen. Toomey Says Trump Can’t Be The GOP Nominee In 2024 Because He Cost Republicans Senate And White House

Retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) spoke out on Friday to say that former President Donald Trump should not be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024.

It should be noted that Toomey was one of the Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump in his second impeachment trial last month.

Neil Cavuto Questions Toomey

Toomey made his latest comments on this while appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto.”

“I know you’re leaving the Senate,” host Neil Cavuto said. “You got into a storm of controversy with your own state GOP because you voted to convict the president in the impeachment trial in the Senate.”

“Do you look back at that and have any regrets and the wrath you have received for that vote and the criticism of the president and others?” he asked. 

Toomey Responds 

“I did what I thought was right,” Toomey replied.

“Over time what Republicans will do is we’ll acknowledge and recognize, as most already do, that there were some tremendous accomplishments by the Trump administration during those four years, but in my view, the behavior of the president after the election, culminating on January 6, was completely unacceptable,” he added. “And I think I did the right thing.”

“Do you believe he should run and deserves to run for president if he wants to? Would you support him if he were your nomination?” Cavuto questioned.

“I don’t think he can be the nominee,” Toomey responded. “Look what happened. He won the election in 2016, and then we lost the House.”

“And then he cost us the White House, which was a very winnable race,” he added. “And then he cost us control of the Senate by what he did in Georgia. I think with that kind of track record. It’s not likely that he’ll be the nominee.”

“If he were, would you support him?” Cavuto asked, to which Toomey replied, “I don’t see that happening.”

Related: Trump Not Considering Replacing Pence On Potential 2024 Ticket, Jason Miller Claims

Jim Jordan Endorses Trump

This comes days after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) officially endorsed Trump, should he run again in 2024.

“[H]e’s the leader of the conservative movement,” Jordan said of Trump. “He’s the leader of the America first movement, and he is the leader of the Republican Party.”

“And I hope, and you know, I hope — like I said yesterday, I hope on January 20, 2025 he’s, once again, will be the leader of our country,” he added. “I hope he runs, but he’s definitely the leader of our party.”

“We need to stay together, and the vast, vast, vast majority of our party supports President Trump as our leader,” Jordan said.

Full Story: Jim Jordan Defies Left To Say ‘I Hope On January 20, 2025’ Trump Is The President Again

This piece was written by James Samson on March 6, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
GOP Rep. Moore Rips Biden As He Says He’s ‘Nowhere To Be Found’ – Predicts ‘Tremendous Landslide’ Wins For Republicans In 2022
Joe Scarborough Claims Senator Josh Hawley Is ‘Responsible’ For Capitol Riot
Mitch McConnell Is Asked Directly If He Regrets Condemning Trump After Riots – Desperately Dodges The Question

The post GOP Sen. Toomey Says Trump Can’t Be The GOP Nominee In 2024 Because He Cost Republicans Senate And White House appeared first on The Political Insider.

Dem Rep. Raskin Warns That Trump ‘Remains A Clear And Present Danger To The American People’

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) went on “The View” on Monday to attack Donald Trump, claiming that the former president “remains a clear and present danger to the American people” despite the fact that he is out of office and has been banned from social media.

Raskin Attacks Trump

“I believe in Donald Trump’s mind he absolutely is the future, and he’s going to try to maintain that kind of authoritarian relationship with people in the Republican Party,” Raskin said.

 “I think we need to confront his criminality, his corruption, and his dangerousness every single day. As long as he’s still out there, he remains a clear and present danger to the American people,” he added. 

“He spent four years in office cozying up to every dictator and despot on earth, from Putin in Russia to Orbán in Hungary to Duterte in the Philippines, el-Sisi Egypt,” Raskin said. “You find a criminal in public office that was Donald Trump’s guy.”

“They’re going to be, you know, sending Jared Kushner out there on a globetrotting tour of every kleptocracy and autocracy on earth in order to collect the money they feel they deserve from having worked with all of these regimes,” he continued. 

Related: Jim Jordan Calls Out Dems’ ‘Double Standards’ – They ‘Objected To More States In 2017 Than Republicans Did Last Week’

Raskin Doubles Down

“That money will be used to try to get Donald Trump to return to the White House,” Raskin said. “Of course, if he were to ever able to get back in, he would try to stay forever. He was already talking about a third term and how the Democrats owed him more terms and so on.”

“So I think he remains a very clear and viable threat to the American republic and obviously to the Republican Party. He is likely to destroy the republican party because of his authoritarianism and his determination to remain a cult leader,” he concluded. 

During the four years that Trump was in office, Raskin was one of the most fiercely anti-Trump people in Congress. That’s why it came as no surprise when he became the lead House impeachment manager during the Democratic Party’s latest attempt to impeach Trump.

Related: Trump Fires Back At Pelosi’s 25th Amendment Push – Says She’s Actually Targeting ‘Sleepy Joe’

This piece was written by James Samson on February 22, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
How Do You Stop Murders In A Democrat City?
Michael Moore Launches Vile Attack On Rush Limbaugh – Adds ‘You Can’t Get More Stupid Than The State Of Texas’
Asa Hutchinson Says He’ll Refuse To Support Trump In 2024 – ‘He Should Not Define Our Future’

The post Dem Rep. Raskin Warns That Trump ‘Remains A Clear And Present Danger To The American People’ appeared first on The Political Insider.