Swalwell Calls on Barr to Resign: ‘He’s Lost the Credibility of the American People’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

In spite of what Representative Eric Swalwell(DumbassCA)says Attorney General William Barr is still credible to many Americans.

Attorney General William Barr does not need to resign.

Trump ‘acted guilty’

Trump Is a Threat to the Constitution? Nice Try, Nancy

H/T AmmoLand.

The threat to the Constitution does not come from President Donald J.Trump instead the threat comes from the DemocRat Party.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- This week, two high-profile Democrats mouthed their party’s delusional mantra that President Trump is a threat to the Constitution — a rich allegation from those would dismantle major pillars of our republican system of government.

While the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris was still burning, quixotic impeachment crusader, Rep. Steve Cohen, said on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” “What he has done to the Constitution and the rule of law is as bad as that fire did to Notre Dame. He’s torching the entire structure of government and the people’s respect for it. And the Congress needs to act.” Poor form, poor judgment and just plain over-the-top insanity.

The next day on CNN, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “Everything is at stake in this election: the Constitution of the United States, with the president who’s trying to usurp the power of the legislative branch of government; the environment in which we live; a Republican Party that is in denial about the assault on climate and the climate crisis, which is a health issue, a national security issue, an economic and jobs issue, and a moral issue.” Misguided, incoherent hyperbole.

I doubt that these dueling attacks were coordinated. When the party sings from the same hymnal — at least on Trump — conspiratorial coordination is unnecessary. But it’s noteworthy that they’re still beating this drum, even though their collusion gambit has backfired, and considering that they are the ones engaging in a full-scale assault on the Constitution. Let us count the ways.

The framers believed our rights are God-given, and thus inalienable, and they sought to ensure them by designing a system of limited government.

Just providing for the people’s democratic participation would be insufficient to secure their liberty, because people can vote themselves into tyranny. They knew men aren’t angels and that, left to their own devices, they would eventually subjugate others. So, in addition to establishing the Bill of Rights, they divided power among different levels of government — national, state and local — and within the federal branch — legislative, executive and judicial. They crafted a partially but not purely, democratic system. Indeed, they imposed safeguards against pure democracy (including the Electoral College), which they knew would lead to mob rule.

Democrats complain about Trump’s supposedly authoritarian disposition — pointing to his bullying nature and combative tweets, as if Stalin, Mao or Hitler would have relied on such anemic methods to amass their power and terrorize their people. Please don’t respond that Trump is engaged in Nazi-like propaganda, or that he threatens the freedom of the press by calling the “fake news media” the “enemy of the people.” Trump is mostly defending himself against the daily barrage of propaganda leveled against him by a dishonest, monolithic, leftist media that is the arm of the Democratic Party. His rhetorical rejoinders seek to showcase the unfairness and dishonesty of his detractors. And unaccompanied by any effort to muzzle them, they are, in the scheme of things, harmless. They are certainly no threat to the Constitution.

Long before their recent barrage of proposals to alter and circumvent the Constitution to make it easier for them to win elections, the Democrats worked in other ways to undermine our system of limited government. Their judicial activism resulted in the judiciary usurping powers from the other two political branches, thereby upsetting the constitutional scheme. Their penchant for their presidents to issue unlawful executive orders has also undermined the balance of powers. Their passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 resulted in an enormous power shift from Congress to unelected, unaccountable, executive branch, bureaucrats whose administrative agencies are models of the type of tyranny the framers warned about, because they combine legislative, executive and judicial powers under one tent.

By the way, the allegedly anti-Constitution ogre, President Trump, has done more to disempower this “fourth branch of government” than any other president, so the constitutional system is stronger, not weaker, as a result.

More recently, Democrats have proposed a rash of disturbing ideas designed to alter our system of government through fundamental changes in our elections. The same Steve Cohen, who’s now yelling about President Trump’s threat to the constitutional order, introduced a bill to effectively eliminate the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the president and vice president.

Democrats have advanced proposals to pack the Supreme Court, and a majority of them have voted to reduce the voting age to 16, which is egregious on multiple levels and unwise. In addition, Pelosi introduced the euphemistically dubbed For the People Act, which would overhaul federal election laws to micromanage and centralize the election process now administered by the states, and which would favor the election of Democrats. Other examples of Democrats’ mischief that impairs free and fair elections, include their opposition to voter ID laws, and their objection to a citizenship question on the census form.

And please don’t get me started on the Democrats’ failed coup to delegitimize and oust President Trump, or their ongoing efforts to baselessly impeach him. Suffice it to say that he represents no threat to the Constitution, but Democrats do. But why shouldn’t they? Many of them have openly said that America is not that great, so why trifle over preserving the integrity of the document whose ideas make it unique?

David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh

About David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “The True Jesus: Uncovering the Divinity of Christ in the Gospels.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com

Here’s Hollywood’s Mueller Report Meltdown

H/T Godfather Politics.

Poor Little Snowflakes in Hollyweird have been hit by the Trump 2020 Train.

Hollywood celebrities should stick to their craft, professional acting. When it comes to politics they are in way over their heads.

Hollywood Meltdown is a great day for America! It is election night all over again, judging from the left freaking out.

I can’t wait for the master expert level troll James Woods to start hammering his fellow actors.


I pity the foolshttps://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/04/18/hollywood-mueller-report-meltdown-complete-whitewash-trump-is-guilty-as-hell/ 

Hollywood’s Mueller Report Meltdown: ‘Complete Whitewash,’ ‘Trump Is Guilty As Hell’

Hollywood joined Democrats and the establishment media in going into full meltdown mode Thursday following Attorney General William Barr releasing the full Mueller report to the public. Celebrities…


30 people are talking about this

Hollywood joined Democrats and the establishment media in going into full meltdown mode Thursday following Attorney General William Barr releasing the full Mueller report to the public. Celebrities accused President Donald Trump of being “guilty” and called the report a cover-up.

As Barr already stated in his letter to Congress in March, the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election found no evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia and did not recommend criminal charges against the president for obstruction of justice.

Hollywood, having learned nothing since their last Mueller meltdown, simply quadrupled down on their claims that President Trump is a criminal. More

As if I didn’t think so before, I am now convinced that Hollywood people are the low information kind and lack the ability to comprehend complex matters!

And now, the Hollywood Mueller Meltdown as promised:

John Cusack


Barr = complete whitewash coverup
A press circus orchestrated by the White House – 💯 corruption

550 people are talking about this



poor donald …

Rick Wilson


The Attorney General of the United States just defended obstruction because of the President’s hurt feelings.

271 people are talking about this
I seriously doubt that the “Meathead” knows what “prima facie” means. Great to see these idiots so apoplectic.

Rob Reiner


Prima Facie: Trump is guilty as hell.

6,270 people are talking about this

Mia Farrow


Just stunning to see the Attorney General in the role of Trump’s personal attorney

278 people are talking about this

Debra Messing



Ana Navarro-Cárdenas


Barr looks like a teddy bear. But he is complicit. He is duplicitous. He is disloyal to the Constitution. He is in dereliction of duty. He strategically & meticulously planned this charade today when people are distracted by a Holiday week & Congress not in session. He is devious

297 people are talking about this

Jamie Lee Curtis


“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

326 people are talking about this

Sophia Bush


Glad the report helps us get to the bottom of things.

Rep. Don Beyer


Actual pages of the Mueller report as redacted by Attorney General Barr:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
182 people are talking about this

Patricia Arquette


I wish a reporter would have asked Barr if Mueller finished with his investigation unimpeded or if he was asked by anyone to conclude it or if funding was stopped in any way.

348 people are talking about this

rob delaney


I’m not counting on even a Dem led House to do what’s right, so I’d never thought the Mueller report would solve all our problems (We will; through direct action, unions, strikes, protests, primarying, etc) but holy shit it is damning & the president is a garden variety criminal.

332 people are talking about this

Embedded video

Kathy Griffin


Look folks, we can still have a sense of humor while dealing with Orange Dumbass. I have many other items where you can take your anger and have a giggle at the same time. Go to https://store.kathygriffin.com  to check them out.

895 people are talking about this

Patton Oswalt


Sooooooo it’s not illegal if you’re really upset?

1,462 people are talking about this

‘Woke’ Librarian Claims Libraries Are Racist — No, This Is Not Satire

H/T Clash Daily.

Channeling Jonathan Quayle Higgins III  with a British accent I declare “Oh My God!”

In the ever-expanding list of things that are racist, you can add libraries.

Back in December 2017, Tucker Carlson posted an epic thread on Twitter where he listed 100 ridiculous things that Leftists complain are racist. Among the entries that included tamarisk trees in California, Dr. Seuss, the state of New Jersey, milk, Bitcoin, the solar eclipse, and credit reports, he missed the most obvious one — libraries.

At least, it’s obvious to “woke” librarian, Sofia Leung.

Library Journal tweeted out a link to Leung’s blog post that claimed that libraries “promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence.

Library Journal


Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. Via @sofiayleung http://ow.ly/MARS50qs1bE 

8,822 people are talking about this

Her blog covers the topics of libraries, social justice, and critical race theory.

Leung starts by praising Marie Kondo, the decluttering guru who now has a Netflix show. Kondo’s method of “tidying up” includes rather radical and impractical means of decluttering by assessing possessions on whether or not they “spark joy.” (So, I guess it’s ok to get rid of that toilet plunger?!)

Leung was attempting to “connect the dots” on how she came up with the premise that libraries are havens of white supremacy by using Kondo’s principles, a podcast she listened to, a chat she had with another “woke” librarian with whom she was sharing an AirBnB as they attended the “White AF” conference, and her understanding of critical race theory.

By definition, critical race theory presupposes that racism is inherent in American society and it centers race as the primary focus for analysis of legal, social, and educational issues. It is the theory that leftists point to that “reveals” that America is a systemically racist country and that “whiteness” and “white supremacy” is valued by those that hold the reigns of power — which in itself is racist.

Many that ascribe to critical race theory hold the bizarre and incompatible view that race is a “social construct” and should, therefore, be dismissed — unless it means to suppress white people (especially white men) and elevate literally anyone else.

Leong explains that because so many books (historically) have been written by “straight, white men,” libraries are monuments to the worldview and ideas of “straight, white men” as though that is one unified view.

If you look at any United States library’s collection, especially those in higher education institutions, most of the collections (books, journals, archival papers, other media, etc.) are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property with all of the “rights to use and enjoyment of” that Harris describes in her article. When most of our collections filled with this so-called “knowledge,” it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color. Collections are representations of what librarians (or faculty) deem to be authoritative knowledge and as we know, this field and educational institutions, historically, and currently, have been sites of whiteness.

She also claims that “white” people have stolen ideas from people of color without credit to those communities and thereby marginalize them.

Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. They are paid for using money that was usually ill-gotten and at the cost of black and brown lives via the prison industrial complex, the spoils of war, etc. Libraries filled with mostly white collections indicates that we don’t care about what POC think, we don’t care to hear from POC themselves, we don’t consider POC to be scholars, we don’t think POC are as valuable, knowledgeable, or as important as white people. To return to the Harris quote from above, library collections and spaces have historically kept out Black, Indigenous, People of Color as they were meant to do and continue to do. One only has to look at the most recent incident at the library of my alma mater, Barnard College, where several security guards tried to kick out a Black Columbia student for being Black.

Source: Sofia Leung

Ummmm… which is it? Is the “white” perspective the prime example of horrible, monolithic tunnel-vision, or do nefarious white people steal from people of color and promote those ideas as their own? You can’t have it both ways.

Why is it the “woke” anti-racists sound so darned racist all of the time? Oh, it’s because they keep judging an entire group of people based on the color of their skin which is the actual definition of racism. 

Oh, and by the way, the incident at Barnard College that Leung referenced isn’t so cut and dry. It seems that the student was looking for free food late at night and when caught by campus police wandering on campus late at night ignored the request to show his Student ID. The campus police followed him into the library (ironic!) and again asked him to show his Student ID because it was after 11 pm, which is in line with the college’s policy. He still refused, and only after campus police grabbed his arm did someone start filming the incident. So, to sum up, he was belligerent, refused to obey the officers who were just following policy, and then called it racism.

But if you’re looking through the lens of “critical race theory” the details of an event don’t matter — the only thing that does matter is skin color.

What these advocates of the inherently racist “critical race theory” don’t realize is that they have become the thing that they hate the most — they are vile racists.

You can’t judge a book by its cover, you can’t judge the ideas of an author based on their skin color, but I think it is completely fair to judge someone based on the ideas that they have clearly expressed. As she has revealed in her article, Sofia Leung is racist against white people.

16th Amendment as written: no tax on wages or salaries

H/T BarbWire.

We were sold a pig in the poke so to speak when it came to the 16th Amendment.

This is why the whole Damned system needs to be scrapped and a flat or fair tax implemented.

The current tax code is now four million words long, more than four times longer than the collected works of Shakespeare, and six to seven times longer than the Bible. It requires 25 volumes to contain it, and takes up nine feet of shelf space.

According to Forbes, it takes Americans over six billion hours to comply with its filing requirements. That’s the equivalent of 8,758 lifetimes. In people years, not dog years.

This monstrosity is based entirely on the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress:

“to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

Now the 16th Amendment had to be ratified by the American people. How in the world did the framers of this misbegotten gargantua convince the American people to do this to themselves.

Easy. They lied to us.

They told us “income” meant one thing when they convinced us to vote for it, then they changed its definition when it went into effect and nailed us all to the wall.

The American people were led to believe that the “income” that would be taxed under this amendment was what we today call “unearned income,” that is, profit from investments, dividends, interest, capital gains, and net income from business and corporate earnings.

The term “income” did not apply to wages and salaries. That was considered “earned income,” income received from labor, and not “unearned income,” the money fat cats made from investments and their corporations. What we call “unearned income” was the target of the 16th Amendment.

The American people were told that the income tax provision would apply only to the top one percent of wage earners, and would sock them with a one percent tax on income. The rest of America – you know, the ones that had to vote for this thing – were told we would be left alone. None of this would apply to us.

Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, virtually the sole source of income to the federal government came from tariffs collected on imported goods. That itself was a profound limitation on the size and reach of the federal government. In 1910, for instance, the budget for the entire federal government was $1.042 billion dollars. You read that right. The entire federal budget in 1910 was one billion dollars.

Now ordinary Americans complained that tariffs burdened them but gave a built-in profit margin to American manufacturers. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that production costs for manufactured items were the same in the U.S. as, let’s say, Europe. If importers had to pay, for example a five percent tariff on everything it wanted to sell in the United States, then U.S. manufacturers could raise their prices four percent – pure, unadulterated profit for them – and still undercut international competition.

Since the increased cost for these goods fell upon ordinary, hard-working Americans while at the same time padding the already heavy wallets of the Vanderbilts and the Mellons and the Carnegies and the Rockefellers, working Americans began to feel that they were being taken advantage of, that they were in effect bearing all the cost of funding the federal government, and that the tariff system was essentially a perpetual, taxpayer subsidized bailout for American tycoons.

So, the 16th Amendment was proposed as the solution. It was sold to the American public as a way to make the rich pay their “fair share.” No longer would the federal budget be balanced on the backs of the working poor, no sir. The free ride for the corporate fat cats was over. We were going to sock it to ‘em, by golly.  It was billed as a “soak the rich” scheme.

The meaning of the word “income” was clearly understood at the time. For instance, the authoritative Black’s Dictionary of Law, in its 1891 edition (reiterated verbatim in 1910), defined “income tax” this way:

“A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices.” (Emphasis mine throughout.)

West Publishing Co produced a widely used Judicial and Statutory Definition of Words and Phrases in 1904. It defined:

“income tax” as a “tax which relates to the product or income from property or from business pursuits…[it] includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business.”

You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of “income.” The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits.

As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate:

“An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”

Roger Foster wrote, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913 in 1914. In it he writes:

“[I]t is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue.”

So, wages and salaries were exempt from taxation under the 16tth Amendment; investment and dividend income and profits from business were not.

According to Investopedia, “unearned income” is “Any income that comes from investments and other sources unrelated to employment services.”

As Phil Hart says in his book, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?:

“It is the annuity check you get in the mail from your investments, it’s your passive income. It is not the money you worked for. It is the net income, the profit left over from your ‘income property’ after you have paid all your expenses and taxes on the property. It is the interest income that accrues to your savings account even while you sleep” (p. 236).

Hart adds:

“[T]he target of the income tax amendment was income from unincorporated businesses and from investments” (p. 243).

He concludes:

“The people of America simply did not think the 16th Amendment was ever going to tax the wages or salary of a working man” (p. 313).

But it wasn’t long before the federal government, insatiably greedy for our money, changed the definition of “income” from the one we had voted for – investment and dividend income and corporate profits – to include wages and salaries. And so the march to a 3.8 million-word Leviathan began. It wasn’t long before ordinary working stiffs like you and me got completely hosed. A law intended to soak the rich instead now threatens to drown us.

Most folks, including me, will pay their taxes for the simple reason that they don’t want to go to jail. But the bottom line is this: if we are to be guided, as we should be, by the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and the intent of the American people when they voted for the 16th Amendment, then there is absolutely no constitutional authority for your wages or salaries to be taxed by Uncle Sam. None, nada, zilch, zip.

Host, “Focal Point” on the American Family Radio Network

Ocasio-Cortez Says Cutting US Aid to Israel ‘Is Certainly on the Table’

H/T BarbWire.

I do not see President Trump allowing aid to Israel to be cut.

The West Bank is part of Israel even if Alexandria Occasional-Cortex does not think so.

The West Bank aka Judea and Samaria have been part of the Nation of Israel since the days of King David and before.

Freshman Congresswoman and outspoken socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the US should consider cutting aid to Israel following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent election victory.

When asked on Yahoo News‘ “Skullduggery Podcast” whether US policy towards Israel should change after Netanyahu vowed to extend Israeli sovereignty to Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Ocasio-Cortez said:

“I think so.”

“I think these are part of conversations we are having in our caucus, but I think what we are really seeing is an ascent of authoritarianism across the world. I think that Netanyahu is a Trump-like figure,” she added.

Trending: 120 Christians Killed in Nigeria and the World Remains Silent

She also said reducing military and economic aid to Israel “is certainly on the table.”

“I think it’s something that can be discussed. I also acknowledge my role in this as well in that I think that I hope to play a facilitating role in this conversation, a supportive role in this conversation, but I also know that people have been leading on this for a long time.”

One of the leaders Ocasio-Cortez referred to is Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) who  proposed a bill in November 2017 that requires:

“the Secretary of States to certify that United States funds do not support military detention, interrogation, abuse or ill-treatment of Palestinian children.”

The bill claims the Israel Defense Forces detains “around 500-700 Palestinian children between the ages of 12 and 17 each year” and does not provide them due process. Israel denies that it is unjustly imprisoning children.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America criticized Ocasio-Cortez for promoting the idea of cutting aid to Israel and urged her to speak with Jewish leaders in the House of Representatives.

“We are pleased Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recognizes she is NOT a leader on Israel in Congress. We recommend she engage with Dem leaders Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, & Ted Deutch before contemplating the future of US military aid to Israel,” the group said. “US-Israel ties must supersede politics.”

Ocasio-Cortez is a harsh critic of Israeli policy and advocates for a two-state solution.

“I believe absolutely in Israel’s right to exist,” she has said. “I am a proponent of a two-state solution.”

DHS Panel Calls for Urgent Action to Address the Border Crisis

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Everybody except the Dumbass DemocRats can see we have a crisis at our border.

‘This challenge requires emergency action,’ experts say

Highlights from Mueller’s report on Russia investigation

H/T Fox News.

The Drive-by Media and the Dumbass DemocRats will never let this drop they think they can beat President Donald J. Trump with this in 2020.


The public was able to get its first detailed look at Special Counsel Robert Mueller’sbombshell report on his years-long investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election early Thursday.

Attorney General William Barr released the 448-page “limited” redacted document after giving a brief interpretation of the findings.

The major takeaway, according to Barr, was that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, the report also noted that while it didn’t conclude Trump committed a crime, it doesn’t formally “exonerate” him.

But there were some key details Barr previewed that constituents and lawmakers alike were eager to learn more about, particularly President Trump’s dialogue with campaign associates and the issue of obstruction of justice.

Although Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein didn’t find sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on that front, the report listed 10 episodes related to the allegations that piqued public interest.

Here’s a look at some of the main highlights from the report:

No evidence of collusion

As stated in Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary last month, and reiterated again at his news conference Thursday morning, the special counsel did not find evidence of collusion with members of the Trump campaign and Russia.

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” the report said, though it noted there were “links” between the two.

Those links included several main points of communication between Trump campaign officials and people with ties to the Russian government.

Those communication points include: Russian officials reaching out to Trump’s foreign policy advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos; the campaign’s interactions with the D.C.-based think tank, the Center for the National Interest (CNI), whose president and CEO, Dimitri Simes, had “connections to the Russian government,” according to the report; and the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, senior adviser Jared Kushner and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The investigation further looked into the meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the week of the Republican National Convention and afterward; Manafort’s connections to Russia through his previous work for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine; and the Trump Tower Moscow Project.

According to the report, Mueller’s team looked into whether the campaign intended to work with Russia to interfere in the election, but “the investigation did not establish such coordination,” the report said.

‘Catalyst’ for Comey’s firing

Trump’s abrupt firing of former FBI Director James Comey allegedly stemmed from his refusal to tell the public the president wasn’t being investigated.

“Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the president’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation, despite the president’s repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement,” the full statement reads.

In the following section, the report also notes that other evidence “indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign.”

“The day after learning about the FBI’s interview of (Michael) Flynn, the President had a one-on-one dinner with Comey, against the advice of senior aides, and told Comey he needed Comey’s ‘loyalty.’  When the President later asked Comey for a second time to make public that he was not under investigation, he brought up loyalty again, saying ‘Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know.’”

Though the report claims Trump “had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him,” the evidence “does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia,” it reads.

Shortly after firing Comey, Trump called the former head of the FBI “crazy” and a “real nut job.”

“The President also told the Russian Foreign Minister, ‘I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off ….. I’m not under investigation.’”

Former White House Counsel Don McGahn also urged Trump not to fire Comey and suggested he let Comey resign instead.

“McGahn and [Uttam] Dhillon urged the President to permit Comey to resign, but the President was adamant that he be fired,” the report reads.

Trump’s fiery reaction to Russia probe: ‘I’m f—ed’

Trump, after learning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to lead the investigation, “slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f—ed,” according to the report.

The report continues to say Trump subsequently “lambasted” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions “for his decision to recuse from the investigation. The report states the president went on to say Sessions was “supposed to protect [him],’ or words to that effect.”

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me,” Trump added, according to the report.

“‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f—ed.'”

— – President Trump, according to Mueller’s report

Separately, after learning of the Special Counsel’s appointment, former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks “described the President as being extremely upset.”

“Hicks said that she had only seen the President like that one other time when the Access Hollywood tape came out during the campaign,” the report reads.

The report also allegedly found evidence Trump was “angered by both the existence of the Russia investigation and the public reporting that he was under investigation, which he knew was not true based on Comey’s representations.” The president also told his advisers if the public thought Russia had aided him in winning the 2016 presidential election, “it would detract from what he had accomplished,” it continues.

Trump’s call to McGahn

From the moment Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, Trump complained Mueller had a conflict of interest, including being interviewed for the FBI director position, working for a law firm that represented people affiliated with the president and Mueller’s dispute of membership fees at a Trump golf course in Northern Virginia, according to the report.

The president’s advisers disputed those issues as conflicts of interest, but Trump continued to try to dismiss Mueller from the position. In June 2017, media reports were published saying that the president was under investigation and had obstructed justice. Publicly, the president tweeted criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation, but privately he took more action.

On June 17, 2017, President Trump allegedly called White House counsel Don McGahn at his home and told him to call Sessions to say the special counsel had a conflict of interest and should be dismissed from the position.

“McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre,” the report said, in reference to the Watergate scandal.

McGahn resigned in August.

Sessions’ recusal, resignation

Trump’s rocky relationship with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was no secret.

The president publicly blasted Sessions, voicing his frustrations after the former Alabama senator recused himself from the Russia investigation in early 2017.

“I don’t have an attorney general. It’s very sad,” Trump previously tweeted.

Mueller’s lengthy report describes Trump’s fiery reaction to Sessions’ announcement that he would remove himself from the probe following revelations he didn’t immediately tell Congress he had spoken previously with Russia’s ambassador on two separate occasions. The president allegedly tried to convince Sessions to “unrecuse” himself despite suggestions it would be a conflict of interest.

“The President continued to raise the issue of Sessions’ recusal and, when he had the opportunity, he pulled Sessions aside and urged him to unrecuse. The President also told advisers that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him, the way he perceived Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder to have protected their presidents,” the report states.

“The President made statements about being able to direct the course of criminal investigations, saying words to the effect of, ‘You’re telling me that Bobby and Jack didn’t talk about investigations? Or Obama didn’t tell Eric Holder who to investigate?’” it continued.

When Trump learned in May 2017 that Muller was approved as special counsel, he blamed Sessions.

“How could you let this happen, Jeff?” Trump asked, adding that Sessions had “let him down,” per the report.

The report indicates Trump then suggested Sessions should resign from his post. Sessions agreed, delivering his resignation letter to Trump in the Oval Office the next day.

Trump campaign’s ‘interest’ in hacked Wikileaks emails

The Trump campaign “showed interest” in stolen emails obtained by WikiLeaks — an anti-secrecy website — that belonged to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democratic groups during the 2016 election, according to the report, which added Trump’s team “welcomed their potential damage” to the then-Democratic presidential nominee.

Around the time of WikiLeaks’ first email dump in July 2016, Trump allegedly said he hoped Russia would find emails “described as missing” from a private email server Clinton used when she was secretary of state.

“[Trump] later said he was speaking sarcastically,” the report added in parenthesis.

Sections regarding WikiLeaks were heavily redacted, citing “harm to ongoing matter.” The blackouts are potentially related to the recent arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was federally charged by the U.S. last week for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and ongoing legal issues facing Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone. Stone has pleaded not guilty to obstruction of justice, witness tampering and lying to Congress during the Russia probe.

Several Trump campaign aides, including Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Richard Gates, were said in the report to have “reacted with enthusiasm” to news of the email hacks.

The report is consistent with testimony Cohen provided in late February in which he alleges Stone phoned the President to warn him of the massive Democratic email release. Stone has repeatedly denied he had any communication with Assange and didn’t have any advance notice.

“There is no such evidence,” Stone told Fox News in a text message on Feb.15. Again, on Feb. 27, Stone said Cohen’s claims were “not true.”

Trump Campaign Rakes in Massive Cash, Dominating Dems

H/T Town Hall.

You will not read much if any of this information in the drive-by media.

The Trump 2020 campaign raised $30 million in its first quarter of the year, beating all Democrat rivals attempting to win the White House.

“Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee announced a massive fundraising haul for Q1 2019, and will report a combined $76.1 million haul to the U.S. Federal Election Commission. Together, the Campaign, the RNC, and the joint fundraising committees have a striking $82 million cash on hand,” the campaign released in a statement. “Independently, the Trump Campaign now has approximately 21 times more ash on hand than the Obama campaign had at this point in the re-election cycle. The Campaign took in $30.3 million overall in the first quarter and now has $40.8 million cash on hand.”

Kayleigh McEnany


The Trump campaign is announcing a massive fundraising haul for Q1:

– We have 21 x more cash on hand than Obama at this point

– We have nearly 99% small donors

– Our average donation is $34.26

– We have enlisted 1 mil+ new small donors since Inauguration


718 people are talking about this

During her tenure at the RNC, Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has been a fundraising machine.

Ronna McDaniel


There’s already so much enthusiasm and support for President Trump’s re-election.

We’re investing in our expansive field program to put @realDonaldTrump and Republicans in prime-position for another historic election night in 2020!https://apnews.com/38f693eed70940a7a71ad7997f6e56b3 

APNewsBreak: Trump campaign to report $30 million haul

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is set to report that it raised more than $30 million in the first quarter of 2019, edging out his top two Democratic rivals…


1,794 people are talking about this

Not only is President Trump in good shape compared to former President Barack Obama, who was elected twice, he’s far outpacing Democrats fighting for definition and relevancy in a crowded primary. The DNC is still financially devastated from 2016 and at least $5 million in debt going into the 2020 cycle.