Jeff Sessions’ GOP Rival Cautions Him Against Senate Bid, Says Trump ‘Is Very Angry With Jeff’

H/T Flag And Cross.

If Jeff Sessions runs in the Alabama Senate race things will get ugly.

Jeff Sessions’ potential opponent in the Republican primary has issued a warning for him not to try and reclaim his old Senate seat, stating that President Trump is very angry with him.

Sessions served as the president’s first attorney general, but was ousted in 2018. Reports have indicated he is strongly considering a bid for his old seat in Alabama. Trump allegedly holds a grudge against Sessions for his recusal from overseeing the Russia investigation, which then directly led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Here’s more from The Washington Examiner:

Trending: ISIS Leader al-Baghdadi Was Located After Kurdish Spy Stole His Underwear [Report]

Republican Rep. Bradley Byrne, a top candidate for the seat Sessions gave up to be attorney general, said he has no plans to bow out of the race if Sessions decides to run.

“The president is very angry with Jeff. I think the president will be very vocal against him,” Byrne told the Washington Post. “For Jeff’s sake, I don’t want that. But I think that’s the reality of what he’s facing.”

Byrne said Sessions’ history in the state would not be enough to counter Trump’s anger toward him. Trump is highly popular among Republican primary voters in Alabama, and Republican officials privately agreed Sessions could face an uphill battle.

“The president will take Sessions to the woodshed,” one Alabama GOP official said.

Sessions must make a decision about whether or not to run by November 8, which is the state’s deadline for filing. Whoever wins the Republican primary will go on to face Sen. Doug Jones in 2020.

How Do We Solve Gun-Related Violence Without Sacrificing Our Rights?


Guest Opinion by Richard Douglas. October 30th, 2019

In the 1990s, Kansas City had a problem — too much gun violence. They had to reduce it.

Their solution? Order police to strip away illegal weapons from the bad guys in ‘problem gun spots’. The results of this simple change were astonishing: A 49% reduction in gun crime.

The best part?

They were able to reduce gun crime and protect our most essential right to bear arms…at the SAME time. Isn’t that the ideal scenario? Think about it: We don’t live in a perfect world. Guns are weapons and just like any weapon — whether it’s AR-10s equipped with scopes or cars — evil people will misuse them. That’s an unfortunate fact of life. Just because a few bad people misuse a weapon doesn’t justify trying to take guns from all. There’s no denying guns are essential for the protection of civil rights and freedoms.

Taking them away and depriving good people of their rights merely opens the door for criminals to rule as well as tyrants — not something that should ever happen. So, what can be done towards mitigating the gun violence problem? By learning for example from…

The Deadly Weapon of Our Past

In 1975, cars were killing WAY too many people. In fact, they killed about 33.5 people per 1 billion miles.

That may not sound like much, but when you compound that over the average miles Americans drive yearly — 3 trillion — you’re left with a STAGGERING number of deaths.

Thankfully, we got smart and found out a way to reduce the number of deaths from automobiles to a mere 11.8 per billion miles. How was that achieved?


As a result of this research, scientists have invented life-saving devices like airbags, anti-lock brakes, effective seat belt laws and reductions in impaired driving, saving millions of lives. You’d expect the same is being done for guns until you read about the amendment that stopped gun research…

The Dickey Amendment

This amendment halted research on guns.


In 1996, the Dickey Amendment (backed by the NRA) was passed, preventing the CDC from researching gun control.

At first, this was welcome. It helped protect the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and made sure bad science or political agendas didn’t erode gun rights.

However, there was an unintended ‘side effect’ of the amendment:

Government gun research became prohibited.

Researchers viewed the Dickey Amendment as a clear line in the sand that gun research SHOULDN’T be conducted. They feared their jobs. As a result, the CDC never conducted much gun violence research, leading we now know to very few tangible science-backed solutions towards improving the gun related violence problem.

Because let’s face it, with people dying due to guns which get blamed for killing more people than cars do, what might be the cause? Gun misuse leading to…


Did you know ⅔ of gun related deaths are attributed to suicide? Yes really, but It turns out gun homicides are actually going down. In fact, gun homicide is literally HALF of what it was in 1993.

So, the fear that guns are getting ‘more dangerous’ just doesn’t align with the hard facts. Gun related violence is actually reducing while misuse is almost increasing, as seen in the graph above.

So, how do we solve gun violence without sacrificing our rights?


More specifically, researching the causes of gun-related violence and how we can reduce it, possibly like what was done with cars as well as paying better attention to genuine mental health issues and drugs usage. With research and hard facts, we can start having productive (and science-backed) discussions about gun-related violence and restrictions on liberty.

Author Bio:
Richard Douglas is a strong 2nd amendment advocate and believes in science-backed gun solutions to our nation’s biggest problems. In his spare time, he reviews various optics and firearms on his Scopes Field blog.

Trying And Failing To Make The Constitutional Case For Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

The Constitution-1 Gun Grabbers-0.

Yale Law School students Joshua Feinzig and Joshua Zoffer may not be able to practice let quit yet, but that doesn’t mean they can’t argue in the court of public opinion, and the pair have put forward their best argument in favor of the constitutionality of gun control over at the Atlantic. Unfortunately for the two Joshuas, their argument isn’t good enough to rise above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Feinzig and Zoffer stake their argument on a brief filed by March For Our Lives with the Supreme Court in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City case. That brief argues that, even though we have a Second Amendment, local jurisdictions should be able to pass virtually any gun control law because of public safety concerns. That’s not making a constitutional case for gun control, it’s making a case that the Constitution is subordinate to the whims of local lawmakers. In fact, Feinzig and Zoffer go so far as to claim that gun control laws represent a form of self-defense.

Gun-control advocates need their own constitutional narrative, one that incorporates a broader conception of self-defense into its vision. Since Heller, the Court has drawn a straight line connecting the broader, constitutionally grounded right to self-defense to the more specific right to individual gun ownership. But defense of oneself and one’s family can be pursued in a variety of ways. An individual right to gun ownership offers one path, deputizing all people to defend themselves with a firearm at their side. Gun regulation offers another such path to self-defense, one vastly more efficacious and preferred by the American public. It represents a mode of preemptive self-defense, whereby the state is tasked by its citizens with limiting access to deadly force.

The problem for the pair of future litigators is that the Second Amendment doesn’t mention self-defense. True, the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the core function of the Second Amendment was to protect the ability to defend oneself in the home, but that doesn’t mean that’s where the right to keep and bear arms ends. As U.S. District Judge Robert Benitez put it in his decision blocking California’s ban on magazines over ten rounds:

The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic. To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights – which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic.

Judge Benitez’s argument hits at the crux of the position of Feinzig and Zoffer. You can’t infringe on the rights of individual Americans in the name of reducing “gun violence”, because those infringements may very well lead to individuals and the Republic becoming less safe. The pair of law school students don’t have a good answer to that argument, other than to claim that the Second Amendment prevents other constitutionally protected rights from being exercised.

In addition to self-defense, other obvious rights and interests of constitutional magnitude are imperiled by gun violence and vindicated by regulation. The right to assembly is put at risk when a single shooter can rain bullets on a peaceful political protest. Freedom of the press is undermined when published words can give way to mass murder, as occurred at The Capital’s Annapolis, Maryland, office in 2018. Other cherished constitutional interests, such as the freedom to vote or access to public education, cannot be secured when mass shootings are a constant specter outside polling places or at the schoolhouse gate. And this is to say nothing of the value of protecting life, a fundamental basis of the Constitution itself that is incompatible with an ever-expanding conception of the Second Amendment.

Feinzig and Zoffer get the argument backwards. The Second Amendment protects rights like the right to peaceably assemble, as well as freedom of the press. You can argue that destroying one constitutionally protected right will allow the others to be protected, but at that point you’re not arguing for the constitutionality of gun control laws, you’re simply arguing that the Second Amendment is a second class right, or not a right at all.


Atlanta Falcons Told Recent Court Ruling Invalidates Stadium Gun Ban

H/T AmmoLand.

This is a win for Georgia gun owners.

Sign outside Cleveland’s First Energy Stadium mandates same NFL rules enforced by the Falcons at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta. (Photo: David Codrea)

U.S.A. – -( The attorney who was successful in persuading the Georgia Supreme Court to send a gun rights case back to the lower courts has put the Atlanta Falcons on notice that its ban on guns is not permitted under state law.

“In light of the Court’s ruling, the Falcons may not prohibit firearms at Mercedes-Benz Stadium,” John Monroe, writing on behalf of his clients, GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc., wrote on Oct. 22 to Michael J. Egan III, Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

The ruling Monroe referred to is from Georgia Carry’s complaint against Atlanta Botanical Garden.  The issue is that while private property owners may ban customers from bringing guns onto their premises, entities that lease public property may not do so.

“The case stems from an incident involving Phillip Evans, a firearms license holder from Gwinnett County, who was escorted off the grounds of the Atlanta Botanical Garden for bringing a gun in the holster of his waistband,” the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported. After a series of back-and-forths with the lower courts over the past five years that resulted in the Georgia Court of Appeals upholding the gun ban, “the state Supreme Court declared the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the lawsuit by summary judgment rather than considering the merits of the case.”

“[T]here are an awful lot of leases of public property out there, and I’m wondering if each one must be litigated. I suppose so it would seem,” Evans wrote on his Pursuit of Patriotism blog. “Four times the word, ‘private’ was inserted before ‘property’ in the weapons law (OCGA 16-11-127), in order to ensure that local governments could not do an end-run around state preemption by leasing public property to a private entity. Looks pretty clear, right?”

“I understand that the Stadium is owned by the Georgia World Congress Authority and Licensed to the Atlanta Falcons Stadium Company as a usufruct,” attorney Monroe explained to Egan. “Based on that information, it is a violation of Georgia law for the Falcons to ban holder of Georgia weapons carry licenses (‘GWLs’) from carrying weapons at the Stadium.

“I am writing to request that you eliminate your policy so that this matter may be resolved without litigation,” Monroe concluded. “I request a response by November 1, 2019.”

Expect the response to reflect the Falcons’ and the NFL’s utter hostility to guns in private hands. After all, we’re talking about a league that bans its own personnel from having the means of defense in “workplace settings.” The NFL allows its licensed trademarks to be used to promote fan disarmament. The NFL and the Falcons reiterate their distrust of those who pay the bills by making them carry clear plastic bags into the stadium. And in a move that can only politely be described as “ironic,” the NFL hired former ATF Director (and Fast and Furious lead apparatchik) B. Todd Jones as counsel for player misconduct.

“Things are looking up for liberty here in Georgia,” gun owner Evans, optimistic from his win, tells AmmoLand Shooting Sports News. “Let’s just hope the Georgia General Assembly has the fortitude to allow liberty to continue to bloom, and not pour any poison on it.”

As he implies, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

I’d expect the Falcons and the NFL to marshal all the resources they can to fight this in the courts and to press for legislative change. In the meantime, I sure wouldn’t be the one to try and test Mercedes-Benz Stadium security, but then again, why any gun owner would pay for the “privilege” of swapping unalienable rights for trivial bread and circuses is something I have never grokked in the first place.

Joe Biden: Surrender Your AR-15 or Register It With the Government

H/T Breitbart.

Hey, Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden stick your plan up your goofy ass.

Part of Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s overarching gun control plan is to pay AR-15 owners to surrender their rifles or allow them to keep the guns, as long as they register them with the government.

Biden’s plan would apply not only to AR-15s but also to AK-47s, variants of both rifles, and other firearms that Democrats label as “assault weapons.” The call to surrender or register would also apply to “high capacity” magazines.

Biden’s campaign site indicates he will give those who “possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.”

This plan to buyback or register AR-15s appears on the campaign site just paragraphs after spelling out Biden’s position that the Second Amendment “is limited.”

The buyback or register aspect of Biden’s plan is followed by his pledge to close the “gun show and online gun sales loophole,” the “boyfriend loophole,” the “hate crime loophole,” the “Charleston loophole,” and the “fugitive from justice loophole.”

The campaign site also stresses Biden’s intention to resurrect the Social Security gun ban, which President Trump repealed February 28, 2017.

Tragic Accidental Shooting Highlights Importance Of Talking About Gun Safety

H/T Bearing Arms.

Families need to discuss firearms safety children are never too young to teach to be safe around guns.

No one goes into parenthood expecting to outlive their children. We just don’t. We tend to view our children as part of our legacy, someone to carry on after we are gone.

It doesn’t always work that way, though. Thing happen. Childhood diseases, fires, car accidents, and any number of other things can change that plan in an instant. I always think of my friends who lost children and I can’t help but wonder how they manage to even crawl out of the bed after something like that.

I expect many parents in such a situation blame themselves. I can only imagine how bad it must be when it might have been prevented.

That’s what went through my mind when I read about a young child who accidentially shot their sibling.

Experts are urging gun owners to talk to their children about gun safety. This comes after a 4-year-old was accidentally shot by their 9-year-old sibling in Anderson County.

It happened Sunday night in Rocky Top. The Anderson County Sheriff’s Office said those injuries are not life threatening and won’t require surgery.

“It’s very important that the children understand how to handle it, what to look for and what the consequences are,” said Joanie Vandagriff with S.E.T. Guns and Range.

Recent numbers show at least 73 children under the age of 12 were killed last year from accidental child deaths involving a gun. Local experts say it’s a tragedy that can be prevented and it all starts with education.

“It needs to be a conversation from day one,” said Vandagriff.

I couldn’t agree more.

“But Tom, didn’t you say just a few hours ago that this isn’t a pressing issue?”

Yes. Yes I did.

I stand by that, too. That doesn’t mean that as parents, we shouldn’t make sure our children understand how to properly handle a firearm should they come across one. Further, I also believe firearm safety should be part of the school curriculum in every public and private school in the country. Of course, I also think firearm proficiency should be taught too, but that’s just me.

Regardless, while it’s not an epidemic, it’s still a risk that children may or may not face in their day to day life. Kidnapping by strangers isn’t exactly common either, yet we still teach “stranger danger,” right?

Please, folks, teach your children what to do should they encounter a firearm. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program that will help with that. There are also some books written for children by people who know what they’re talking about as well. Regardless of what you use to teach your kids, teach them to be safe.

Firearms are considered forbidden in today’s society, yet that’s likely to make them all the more attractive to children. You need to let them know that they’re not, expose them to firearms in a responsible manner, and keep a dialog with them so they can view firearms as tools and not something to play with.

The last thing I want to see is more stories like this. Let’s all work together to put an end to them.

Dems Release Impeachment Resolution That Puts Adam Schiff in the ‘Driver’s Seat’

H/T Town Hall.

Pencil Neck Schiff(Delusional-CA) is in the driver’s seat alright and he is headed for a cliff at full speed.

Democrats have just met their deadline to provide the text of their impeachment resolution against President Trump. It outlines the new authorities Democrats will have during the impeachment inquiry. For instance, it will grant House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff the power to call public hearings.

As Politico’s Andrew Desiderio put it, this will put Schiff “in the driver’s seat.”

Andrew Desiderio


NEWS: The House’s impeachment procedures resolution is out 

Andrew Desiderio


The resolution empowers Schiff to call public hearings. It also eliminates the five-minute rule for lawmakers and allows staff/counsel to question witnesses. 

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
174 people are talking about this

The resolution also reads that Republicans can suggest subpoenas or witnesses as part of the inquiry. But, those must be submitted in writing and can be vetoed by Democrats.

The measure establishes procedures for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee, and sets forth due process rights for the president and his Counsel. Republicans stormed recent closed door testimonies demanding that Democrats grant Trump the same due process as was granted to former Presidents Clinton and Nixon.

You can read the entire resolution here. Congress is expected to vote on impeachment procedures on Thursday. It will mark the first time that members will be going on record to vote on the controversial matter.

Meanwhile, President Trump and the Republicans blasted the inquiry on Tuesday, telling “Shifty Schiff,” “Nervous Nancy” and the rest of the Democrats that they know this is all about reversing the 2016 election and upending the White House’s agenda to jeopardize the next one.

Donald J. Trump


Nervous Nancy Pelosi is doing everything possible to destroy the Republican Party. Our Polls show that it is going to be just the opposite. The Do Nothing Dems will lose many seats in 2020. They have a Death Wish, led by a corrupt politician, Adam Schiff!

39.8K people are talking about this

On Capitol Hill this morning GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy urged his colleagues to stop with the impeachment “sham” and start focusing on the issues that got them elected to Congress. He added, for emphasis:

Kevin McCarthy


Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff have turned the House Intelligence Committee into the Impeachment Committee.

It appears they are more concerned with removing President Trump from the White House than they are with removing terrorists from the battlefield.

1,926 people are talking about this

This post has been updated.

Three GOP Senators Have Yet to Back Movement to Condemn Democrat Impeachment Practices

H/T Breitbart.

Add lace to Mitt Romney’s(RINO-UT) Magic Mormon underwear and call him Wilma.

 Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) and Susan Collins(RINO-ME)have always been gutless and spineless.

Three Republican senators have yet to back a resolution to condemn House Democrats’ secret, closed-door impeachment inquiry practices.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a resolution Thursday night to condemn House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) secretive impeachment inquiry proceedings.

Graham announced Friday that the resolution had gained 50 cosponsors across the Senate Republican conference; three senators have yet to cosponsor the resolution sign on.

Sen. Johnny Isakson’s (R-GA) office told Breitbart News that the senator wants to ensure that the impeachment inquiry remains a “fair process.”

The three Republican senators that have yet to back the impeachment resolution are Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Even though these senators have yet to cosponsor the resolution, this does not mean that they may not cosponsor the resolution in the future or vote for the bill should it come to the Senate floor for a vote.

Sen. Murkowski’s office told Breitbart News that the senator has yet to review the Graham resolution.

Sens. Romney and Collins did not respond to a request for comment from Breitbart News.

Republicans’ fight against the House Democrats’ secretive impeachment inquiry practices has quickly become a rallying cry for the GOP.

Graham announced during a press conference Thursday that his and McConnell’s resolution gained 41 cosponsors. Now, the resolution nearly has the backing of the entire Senate Republican conference.

Conservative activist groups have also backed the bill. The Club for Growth “key voted” the Graham-McConnell resolution, and the Tea Party Patriots Honorary Chairman Jenny Beth Martin praised McConnell’s bill.

Senators have backed the resolution Friday, decrying the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry as “one-sided.”

“I have co-sponsored the Graham resolution because in an impeachment process, the American people above all expect it to be fair,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said in a statement Friday, announcing his support for the Graham-McConnell bill. Alexander added:

House Democrats might want to stop and take a look at how the House Democratic majority bent over backwards to include Republicans and the President’s representatives in the 1974 Nixon impeachment, and compare that with the one-sided, largely secret inquiry they are conducting today.

Sen. Graham said Thursday that the “growing” list of Republican senators backing the bill shows that the GOP is fighting back.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Reverses Ruling… Covington Kids ‘Could’ SUE The Hell Out Of The MSM Now

H/T Right Wing Tribune.

After the way the drive-by media slandered the Covington Kids, I hope they collect millions of dollars.

Covington teen Nick Sandmann, through his attorneys announced that they are suing the Washington Post and othe leftist media outlets for “ignoring the truth” about the incident and says the paper “falsely accused Nicholas of … ‘accosting’ Phillips by ‘suddenly swarming’ him in a ‘threatening’ and ‘physically intimidating’ manner … ‘blocking’ Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips ‘to retreat,’ ‘taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,’ [and] chanting, ‘Build that wall,’ ‘Trump2020,’ or ‘Go back to Africa,’ and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct. …”

Sandmann’s attorneys accuse The Post of publishing seven “false and defamatory” articles about the incident between Jan. 19 and 21 and claim the paper “knew and intended that its false and defamatory accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media.”

Initially, a federal judge dismissed Sandmann’s case but that has changed.

On Monday that same judge, William O. Bertelsman, partially reversed his ruling to dismiss the case and will now allow discovery, according to one of Sandmann’s attorneys — which is pretty great news for Sandmann and pretty bad news for those scumbags at the Post.

Todd V. McMurtry@ToddMcMurtry

NEWSFLASH: Federal Judge William O. Bertelsman partially reversed his ruling to dismiss ‘s claims against the @washingtonpost. Nick’s case may now proceed into discovery. The ruling bodes will for the NBC and CNN cases, as well. @LLinWood

View image on Twitter

Todd V. McMurtry@ToddMcMurtry

This is a huge win. Now will be able to start discovery and find out exactly what the reporters were thinking when they attacked Nicholas and the kids.

428 people are talking about this

Lin Wood@LLinWood

As a prepare for summary judgment hearing today in LA in Vernon Unsworth v. Elon Musk, the news of our team’s huge win in Covington, KY reaffirms my career-long belief that our system of justice works. Nicholas Sandmann deserves his day in court against WaPo. Now he will get it.

2,028 people are talking about this

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Kentucky, accused The Post of practicing “a modern-day form of McCarthyism” by targeting Nicholas Sandmann and “using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles … to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.”

Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, became a target for outrage after a video of him standing face-to-face with a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, while wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat surfaced in January. Sandmann was one of a group of students from Covington attending the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, D.C., while Phillips was attending the Indigenous Peoples’ March on the same day.

Sandmann and the Covington students were initially accused of initiating the confrontation, but other videos and the students’ own statements showed that they were verbally accosted by a group of black street preachers who were shouting insults both at them and a group of Native Americans. Sandmann and Phillips have both said they were trying to defuse the situation.

Sandmann’s attorneys sent preservation letters to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities and politicians — including The Post, The New York Times, CNN, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and actors Alyssa Milano and Jim Carrey — the first step in possible libel and defamation lawsuits.

This is just the beginning folks.

Let’s pray that justice is served.

Roger Stone Says You’re ‘Naive’ If You Think A Trump Senate Acquittal Is Automatic. Here’s Why He May Be Right

H/T Town Hall.

If by chance the Senate Republicans vote to remove President Trump from office that will be the end of the Republican party.

Even with the American people pretty much divided along party lines on whether or not President Donald Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office for the non-crime of asking the president of Ukraine to investigate a possible crime, Trump supporters haven’t seemed to be really all that worried about the prospect. That’s probably because of the widespread belief that, regardless of what the Democratic-controlled House does, the Senate, firmly in the hands of the venerable Cocaine Mitch’s GOP, would easily vote to acquit the president.

And those who want to see Trump removed wouldn’t just need a simple majority, something that could be obtained even without the votes of RINO squishes like Romney, Collins, and Murkowski, but a SUPER majority, or 67 senators. In other words, 20, yes 20 Republican senators would have to defect and vote to remove Trump in order to make it happen.

So we’re safe, right? … Right??

Uh, not so fast! At least that’s what embattled Trump confidante Roger Stone says, warning Trump via a Friday media interview to take the ongoing impeachment inquiry “very seriously” and not to assume an automatic Senate acquittal.

The former Trump associate speculated that “wobbly Republican senators” could vote against the president unless pressure from their constituents is brought to bear.

“I think that those who sit back and say, ‘Well, the House may impeach the president, but surely the Republican Senate will never convict him,’ I think are being naive,” said Stone, adding that Trump is “in for an incredible fight” because the media and the “two-party duopoly” is against him and hope the attacks against him “will wear his support down in the states where there are wobbly Republican senators, so they feel comfortable voting for his removal.”

Stone said the notion that anything in Washington these days is simply “Republicans vs Democrats” is “outdated thinking.”

“This is insiders versus an outsider,” he said. “This is the status quo versus a disruptor.”

So, is Stone onto something here? I sure would love to say no way, that is if my Daily Caller colleagues hadn’t contacted EVERY SINGLE Republican Senate office just last week to ask them if they would rule out impeaching and removing Trump from office. Out of 53 senators, how many do you think responded in the affirmative?

Twenty? Thirty?

How about … seven.

Give a round of applause to Senators Jim Inhofe, Thom Tillis, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Roger Wicker, Mike Rounds, Rob Portman, Jerry Moran for seeing through this ridiculous charade right away. But what’s up with the other 46? Even accounting for some who didn’t respond because they didn’t get the message in time or others who know how they’ll vote but want to hold out official comment because of their potential role as “juror,” that’s a pretty high number. Sure, nobody thinks Ted Cruz would really vote to remove Trump from office, but they only need 20, remember? Suddenly, it doesn’t seem like such an impossible reach.

Then, you might remember, there’s GOP consultant Mike Murphy, who claimed last month that upwards of 30 Republican senators would vote to remove Trump from office if only their vote were held in secret. Sure, he’s a former Romney, McCain, and Jeb! advisor, so take what he says with more than a little grain of salt, but it’s still a disturbing thought.

What’s the answer? Well, Stone’s suggestion for the president, and it’s a great one, is to use his “incredible fundraising juggernaut” to advertise in states where “there are Republican senators who may be thinking about joining this lynch mob.”

“As long as the president remains more popular in those states than those individual senators, they will be loath to cast a vote against the president, particularly based on the thinnest read that we have seen so far,” he said. Stone’s advice to Trump, and I completely concur: “Take this very seriously. Continue to demand total transparency. Stay very focused on those states with wobbly Republican senators. That is where this fight will be won or lost.”

In sum, some of these “wobbly” GOP senators may dislike, even hate President Trump in secret, but odds are they like their power and position even more. They need to unequivocally know that stabbing Trump voters in the back will mean the end of their political career, period. Good luck getting elected dog catcher, much less to another Senate term. They can pack up and take their misguided “principles” to the house.

“Donald Trump is the toughest guy I’ve ever met, and he isn’t doing it for himself. He’s doing it for us,” said Stone.

Maybe so, but going forward he’s going to need a LOT of help.

Perhaps the Senate vote will indeed turn out to be a breeze, especially if no evidence of actual lawbreaking turns up, but given today’s crazy political times, it would be a mistake to take ANYTHING for granted.