While the country has been twisted in knots by the impeachment and trial of President Donald J. Trump, the "Squad" and others have been busy redesigning our immigration system in House Resolution 5383, a bill "To reform the process for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States, and for other purposes."

Jesus Garcia (D-IL), Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar are among the 44 congresspeople that have co-sponsored the bill which was introduced December 10, 2019.

The New Way Forward effectively removes the borders

The New Way Forward bill is designed to remove the borders of the United States of America.

The bill, according to Jesus Garcia, will decriminalize immigration. Now, that sounds good, but legal immigration is not illegal. Illegal immigration is a crime. So, what he really means is this bill will decriminalize illegal immigration. That means that anyone could come into the country because there would be no such thing as illegal immigration.

No such thing as illegal immigration

Under the New Way Forward Act, anyone that comes into the US is in. No crime to enter illegally, no detention for those who enter illegally.

TITLE VI—DECRIMINALIZE 1 MIGRATION 2 SEC. 601. REPEALING MIGRATION CRIMINAL LAWS. 3 (a) CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ENTRY AT IMPROPER 4 TIME OR PLACE.—Section 275 of the Immigration and 5 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325) is repealed. 6 (b) CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR REENTRY.—Section 7 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 8 1326) is repealed.

US taxpayers will pay to lose their country

Of course, the US taxpayer already pays an enormous cost for sanctuary cities, incarceration, detention, education and health care for illegal immigrants. If this new bill passes we will also pay to lose our borders and import more immigrants.

According to The Hill: "The costs of illegal immigration are comprehensive. Even after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants, the 12.5 million of them living in the country results in a $116 billion burden on the economy and taxpayers each year. About two-thirds of this amount is absorbed by local and state taxpayers, who are often the least unable to share the costs."

HR 5383 enables illegal aliens that have been deported to appeal their deportation and the Department of Homeland Security will have to pay to transport them back to the US for their appeals.

(d) TRANSPORTATION.—The Secretary of Homeland 16 Security shall provide transportation for aliens eligible for 17 reopening or reconsideration of their proceedings under 18 this section, at Government expense, to return to the 19 United States for further immigration proceedings and 20 shall admit or parole the alien into the United States.

Wake-up call

Wake up America! This is what the Democrats will do to you if they win the White House and control congress. The bill has been referred to the House subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. This committee is chaired by the now infamous Zoe Lofgren of impeachment fame, and the vice-chair is Pramilya Jayapal.

More to come as this bill will also make ICE ineffective and the whole country a sanctuary for criminal immigrants. This bill poses a significant national security threat. Call your congressmen to oppose it. Call your senators, too.

Tucker Carlson warns: "If Democrats win the 2020 election, some version of the New Way Forward act will become law."

Watch:

 

 

The media has gone into a frenzy with the news that the Trump administration fired Alexander and Yevgeny Vindman, the twin brothers who starred as the "anti-Trump heroes" in the impeachment saga.

But like almost all of their reporting in the last four years, the media is getting it wrong - and they're hurting themselves in the process.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum

"You've begun wrong!" That's how the self-assured Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum responded to Alice in Wonderland when she tried to introduce herself.

The supercilious Vindman twins are very much like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, deeming themselves the arbiters of "appropriate" behavior on the part of the President.

w

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman listened in on President Trump's July 25, 2019, phone call and determined that the President had done something wrong.

He then did something wrong himself. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was willing to subvert the chain of command because he thought that President Trump had "inappropriately" requested the aid of the Ukrainian president to investigate corruption that involved Hunter Biden.

He did not report the inappropriate conversation to his immediate superior Tim Morrison.

Instead, he contacted his brother, an NSC attorney, Deputy Secretary of State George Kent, and an unknown person (probably the whistleblower) according to his own testimony during the House impeachment inquiry.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

In the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings Vindman revealed his inflated opinion of himself as he corrected House Judiciary Committee Ranking member Devin Nunes for calling him "Mr. Vindman" instead of Lt. Col. Vindman.

In his testimony, Vindman came across as a tattletale, but his tales were not told to the person in authority, but about the person in authority; as if he said, "Teacher, teacher, the president broke the rules!" forgetting that the president makes the rules when it comes to foreign policy.

Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman

It has been reported that Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an NSC ethics lawyer, may have reviewed former ambassador John Bolton's manuscript "The Room Where it Happened."

Parts of this manuscript were leaked to the media, triggering the Democrat House managers to demand that John Bolton testify at the Senate impeachment trial. They claimed that Bolton's testimony would show that the president was holding up military aid to Ukraine to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Who leaked it?

Vindictive, retaliation, retribution

Of course, the mainstream media is already decrying the removal of Vindman Dee and Vindman Dum running headlines like these:

  • Washington Post: "Trump ousts Vindman and Sondland, punishing key impeachment witnesses in post-acquittal campaign of retribution"
  • Washington Post: "With Vindman’s dismissal, Trump gets especially vindictive"
  • Business Insider: "Trump also fired the twin of impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in apparent retaliation for his brother's testimony"
  • ABC News: "Emboldened Trump fires 2 officials who testified in impeachment inquiry"

The mainstream media wants to spin the removal of the Vindman twins as vindictive retribution and retaliation. They continue to argue that Trump does not have the right to appoint and fire whom he will in his own administration.

But they are misleading their readers.

President Trump needs support, not spies

The president has the right to hire and fire whom he will to staff his administration. He needs to purge the White House of overweening bureaucrats who are spying on him and leaking to the media.

These spies and leakers have been obstructing him for 3 years now. It is high time that he surrounds himself with people that share his vision and support him, not career officials who obstruct him.

The entire nation has been through a gut-wrenching political nightmare as the Democrats in Washington acted out a three-year temper tantrum because Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

Now, it's time to celebrate and thank God that the efforts of the Democrats to remove the President have failed. The country is still in one piece thanks to sober-minded Republicans in the Senate.

Acquitted forever

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell deserves a lot of the credit for guiding the impeachment trial calmly through to the predictable end, not allowing Chuck Schumer and the Democrat House managers to bully him into giving them more than they deserved.

McConnell held the line, maintaining that the impeachment was illegitimate and should be treated as such in the Senate. And the Democrats were bullies, threatening all sorts of dire consequences if the Senate didn't give them their way. No matter, President Donald Trump is forever acquitted. 

State of the Union

In spite of the colossal efforts of the House Democrats to obstruct President Trump, he had a great year.

His SOTU was a long list of accomplishments including the signing of the trade agreement USMCA, historically low unemployment rates through every demographic, a roaring stock market, and millions of new jobs.

10 million people are off the welfare rolls.

Trillions of dollars of wealth have been created by the roaring stock market.

The Senate has approved 187 judges.

The President reaffirmed his commitment to life, promising to push a ban on late-term abortions, and he committed to pursuing school choice for American families. In spite of the 24/7 media blitz against him, the President is enjoying a good approval rating that remained steady throughout the impeachment process.

The impeachment effort by the Democrats only seemed to consolidate the President's support among the GOP senators and congressmen. This party unity has been forming since the beginning of this Congress, and it is very welcome. With the support of Republicans in the House and Senate, the President should enjoy even more success.

Pelosi and the Democrats

No doubt the Democrats will make another run at the President, but they run the risk of crying wolf too many times. Americans of every political stripe are tired of the hysterics coming out of D.C.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to signal her frustration with the failure of impeachment when, at the end of the State of the Union speech, she tore up her printed copy in a childish display of temper.

UnMITTigated Disaster

Then there's Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is either gullible or malicious. This writer believes the latter.

He has opposed President Trump since he joined the Senate in 2019 after cultivating the President's endorsement to win his senate seat. He justified voting to convict President Trump for obstruction of congress as the morally right thing to do to fulfill his oath.

Romney accepted the Democrat's accusation that the only reason President Trump would want the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens would be to affect the 2020 election, refusing to entertain the idea that the president had a legitimate reason to look into corruption, especially by a former vice president. He invoked the name of God, his oath, and his faith as reasons to vote to convict:

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

Romney said he could not ignore the evidence, but the Democrats presented no evidence, only hearsay, and presumption. If Romney, along with the Democrats were successful in convicting the President with such "evidence" the Republic could no longer provide justice for all.

Romney's decision to embrace the Democrats accusations will make him a political pariah, and rightly so. He should really consider switching to the party that hates the president as much as he does. Utah has to be embarrassed to have to own the one GOP senator that voted against the President. Even before the vote, a movement was underway in Utah to remove Romney. Go Utah!

The Ingraham Angle provides some great commentary on the momentous events:

If you were having trouble understanding what the Iowa caucuses are, the stunning lack of results will only increase your confusion. This writer is too lazy to find out how the caucuses work, and now I really don't want to know.

But the Democrat candidates vying for the nomination to run for president care very much and had a lot riding on the results out of Iowa. They have been campaigning in Iowa, it seems like for months, spending millions and millions to win the caucuses.

Candidates are issuing their own results based on their own internal data, to bolster their campaigns. Mayor Pete claimed an "undeniable reality" that he is headed to New Hampshire victorious.

There is speculation that the results are not being reported because Joe Biden performed poorly and Bernie Sanders got the most delegates. That is bad news for the Democrat party.

Now on the day after the President's State of the Union speech, 71% of precincts are reporting that Pete Buttigieg is at the top with Bernie in second! The only surprise here is the choice of Buttigieg in first. No one doubted that Bernie would best Biden in the Iowa contest. We are still waiting for the final results.

The problem of Bernie

There has been fear in the Democrat party that Bernie Sanders would come out on top of the Iowa caucuses, with many in the mainstream media trying to torpedo his campaign. Remember the last Democrat debate, where Elizabeth Warren tried to take Bernie out as a sexist?

The Democrats fear Bernie because they believe if he gets the nomination, he could not beat Trump in the 2020 general election. But really, who, in the Democratic field could? Klobuchar? Warren? Buttigieg? Biden?

In a moment of honesty, MSNBC host Chris Matthews said he is not happy with the Democrat field. Apparently, he doesn't believe any of them, including Bernie, can beat Trump, but he believes that Bernie will win Iowa and New Hampshire, which is a problem for the Democrats because Sanders won't be able to beat Trump.

Watch:

Chaos equals opportunity

Whether it was intentional, as some cynics believe, or unintentional, the chaos in Iowa could be the perfect opportunity to jettison the state's status as trendsetter. Matthews has been very vocal about the candidates, but he also has been lobbying to move the first voting on the Democrat candidates away from Iowa to a warmer, more progressive and diverse state, California. He thinks the Democrats are wasting their time in a little state like Iowa, and that the mess in Iowa is a good reason to ditch Iowa.

Former candidate Julian Castro called for the first Democrat primary to be moved to a state that better reflects the diversity of the Democrat party, (Iowa, like the Democrats running for the nomination, is too white for his taste.)

36 hours after the close of the caucuses, Democrats are calling for a change of venue.

Senator Dick Durbin also called for the end of the first in the nation status of the Iowa caucuses.

Democrats are saying Iowa can't count and Iowa should lose its "first in the nation" status.

Iowans can't be very happy to wake to a less than complimentary national status now. Democrat Iowans should reconsider their party affiliation. Perhaps they should switch to a party that respects them as Americans. 

Update:

Over the weekend the DNC chairman Tom Perez did not rule out the possibility that Iowa would lose its first-in-the-nation status in the 2024 election cycle.

Republicans on the chaos

Republicans are taking the opportunity to say that the Democrats want to run the entire US economy but they can't seem to count in Iowa.

Tucker Carlson provided his incisive commentary on the mess in the Democrat party.

Watch:

During the questioning period of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts refused the question that Paul sent to the desk. Today, Paul read the question on the Senate floor. The question was refused, presumably, because it contained the identity of the now-infamous "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella. Paul pointed out that Adam Schiff denies knowing who the whistleblower was and no one else knows, including Roberts, so how can his question about Ciaramella be disallowed? Roberts refusal to read the question unintentionally reveals the identity of the whistleblower.

Adam Schiff revealed that he knew that Lt. Col. Vindman knew the whistleblower when Rep. Devin Nunes questioned Col. Vindman in the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry meeting. Schiff warned Vindman to not answer questions that might reveal the whistleblower, which prompted Nunes to point out that Vindman had already testified in his deposition that he didn't know who the whistleblower was, so how was it possible to out the whistleblower.  Vindman then said he was advised not to testify about anyone in the intelligence community.

Rand Paul's question

Manager Schiff and counsel for the president, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when working at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

Paul justified asking the question because there had been news articles about their activities. "If six people working together gamed the system to bring down the President, we should know about that. "

Please watch Senator Paul's speech here:

Politico reports:

Paul said Tuesday that he supports protections against reprisal for whistleblowers but not necessarily anonymity.

"In the first month of [Trump's] office, in January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment," he alleged. "And you say 'Well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserves anonymity.' The law does not preserve anonymity. His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he's not supposed to be fired. I'm for that."

The Democrats want to keep the identity of the whistleblower secret, and the media, the House Democrats, and the Chief Justice have protected his identity so far. But Paul claims that the law provides protection from retaliation and termination, but does not promise anonymity. Perhaps the senator should have sent that question to the Chief Justice. Does the whistleblower law protect the anonymity of the whistleblower?

Secret Courts endanger freedom

The whistleblower is just one piece of the coup. The resistance in the intelligence community also weaponized the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court)  and FISA warrant process to spy on President Trump. Senator Paul has been warning that the use and abuse of secret courts endanger the liberties of the American people, and now he has real ammunition to demand reforms in the secret FISC since the ICIG report on FISA abuse. Since the revelations of the Horowitz report in December 2019, the DOJ has admitted that two of the FISA warrants granted to spy on President Trump's campaign aide, Carter Page, lacked probable cause and were therefore illegal. These abuses weren't just "mistakes," as sloppy James Comey asserted, but malicious attempts to unseat a duly elected president. Do we need to rehearse how harmful such actions are to the security and peace of the country?

Never again

Paul insisted that his question needs to be answered and we need to know how this all started so that it never happens again. Americans should insist that the perpetrators of this unprecedented and dangerous coup be held accountable so that this can never happen again.

 

 

The House impeachment managers and President Trump's counsel made their closing arguments today before the entire world.

The President's lawyers were well reasoned and thoughtful. The same can't be said for Adam Schiff.

Patrick Philbin: voice of reason

The president's counsel made their closing arguments in a respectful, organized way. Patrick Philbin argued in his reasonable, clarifying way, that the House managers hadn't followed the law in the impeachment process.

In very significant and important respects they didn’t follow the law. From the outset, they began an impeachment inquiry here without a vote from the House, and therefore without lawful authority delegated to any committees to begin an impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States. That was unprecedented in our history.

Watch Philbin's closing argument:

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow rehearsed the arguments proving that neither impeachment article brought by the House managers rose to the level of impeachment. He then showed that the House Democrats had been planning to impeach President Trump from the moment he was inaugurated.

Sekulow provided slides and video of the Democrats talking about impeaching the president even before he was inaugurated.

Schiff, Alaska and Jared Kushner

After the reasonable and calm presentations of the president's lawyers, Adam Schiff's closing statements came across as hysterical and poorly reasoned. He even claimed that if Donald Trump was allowed to remain in office, he might even give Alaska to Russia! The House Democrats even drew from the King James Version of the Bible, citing the president's love for "filthy lucre."

Schiff hysterically argued that if "abuse of power" was not impeachable, then President Trump could give Alaska to the Russians! or permanently move to Maralago and let Jared Kushner run the country!

Watch:

The neverending impeachment

If you think that the impeachment trial will be over when the Senate votes to acquit the president on Wednesday, think again. Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser to the president, says impeachment will not end until the Democrats no longer control the House.

No surprise

Anyone following the "soft coup" to remove the president will not be surprised at the idea that the Democrats will continue to leak damaging information about President Trump. They will continue to go after people like John Bolton in order to get them to betray the president.

Spies in the White House hurt us all

One wonders why the president allows White House staff like Colonel Alexander Vindman to remain in a position to, (dare I say it?) spy on him. When will the president purge all the Obama holdovers? Do we need any more affirmation that people appointed by Obama (like former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch) were and are willing to do whatever is necessary to advance the cause of removing the Great Disruptor, President Trump?

These "spies" don't just hurt the president, they hurt the entire country, when they provide ammunition to the media and the House Democrats. The media uses this ammunition to maintain a 24/7 prime-time assault on the president, which is intended to destroy his chances in 2020. That obstruction, as in the case of USMCA, deprived the country of months of prosperity and lost opportunities.

The House Democrats use the leakers to conduct fake investigations into the president's policies and appointments, designed to injure and obstruct the president, all the while accusing the president of obstruction of Congress.

The president needs people in his administration that will support his policies here and abroad, and he shouldn't be afraid to get rid of anyone who puts his or her ideas of policy above the president's agenda, the agenda that the American voters put him into office to achieve.

The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to investigate the coup

You might be wondering if justice will ever be done regarding the lies Adam Schiff told in the impeachment hearings and trial.

You might wonder if people like James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Stzok, and Andrew McCabe will be held accountable for spying on Carter Page, and through him, the president.

Senator Lindsay Graham and Steve Bannon are both calling for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into the Mueller Probe, the FISA court abuse and the 2016 election, the Ukraine matter and the "whistleblower" otherwise known as "the coup."

The president and his team get things done

Meanwhile, the president recently signed USMCA, a trade agreement that should benefit the US. He also just signed an executive order strengthening our ability to go after human traffickers, especially those that exploit children. The order also strengthens Native American tribes' ability to fight trafficking in their communities. He also took out one of the worst terrorists of the 21st century, Iranian General Soleimani. The president encouraged and helped both Theresa May and Boris Johnson to get Brexit done.

Keep up the good work, President Trump.

Watch:

The House Democrats have been accusing the Senate of conducting a sham trial because there will be no witnesses are allowed. They have said, ad nauseum, that the Senate trial must have witnesses, and if the Senate won't vote to have witnesses, then they will be part of the biggest cover-up since Watergate.

All of the managers have repeated this argument fervently, eloquently, passionately. Blah, blah, blah.

The House Democrats obviously believe that Americans have very short memories. It was only two months ago that the entire country was held captive by the House Intelligence Committee and then the House Judiciary Committee for weeks during their "impeachment inquiry." Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler tried to muzzle the Republicans on those committees, but they couldn't completely silence them. Representatives Elise Stefanik, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Louis Gohmert and others did their best and succeeded to show the unfairness, the sham of the inquiry and the unfitness of the "witnesses."

Republican representatives stormed the secret meetings in the SKIF, and told the American people were told that the president was not allowed to have counsel present in the inquiry for over 70 days. The Republicans on the committees were not allowed to call any witnesses that might contradict the Democrat's charges. These hearings were not fair.

The"witnesses" that were called were asked leading questions so the Democrats could get the soundbites they wanted to further their case, but the Republicans poked holes in their case by exposing the unfitness of the witnesses. Not a single witness had first-hand knowledge of any wrong-doing by the president, including the so-called "whistleblower."

The "witnesses called before the Judiciary committee were just legal "experts" with opinions and/or disdain about and for the president, Jonathan Turley excepted. They had no first-hand knowledge of any wrongdoing. This evidence was no evidence at all, but the Democrats ran with it, knowing the media would cover for them.

Indisputable case

The Democrats in the House declared after their inquiry, that their case was airtight, undisputed, and indisputable. They drafted their articles of impeachment and voted to adopt them.

All the Democrats but one, voted for the first article, "abuse of power." A Democrat joined the Republicans in voting no. The second article, "obstruction of Congress," was similarly adopted, except that a couple more Democrats joined the Republicans in voting no.

The Senate acts fairly

The articles contained no charges of a crime, and in a court of law, would be rejected. But an impeachment trial is not a court of law, and so the Senate had to receive them. 

So the Senate spent a very late night debating what the rules of the trial would be, with the House managers demanding witnesses. Then the Senate listened to the opening arguments in which the Democrats frenetically accused the president of crimes for 23 hours over three days, and yet charged him with zero crimes. They accused the Senate at the same time, saying that if the Senate didn't do what the Democrats wanted they would be undermining the constitution!

The Senate listened to the much more respectful opening argument in defense of the president. The president's lawyers spent two hours on the first day of their 24 hour period, and just a normal time on day two.

The Senate and the country sat through 16 hours of questions over a period of two days, probably with a collective sigh of relief, because Chief Justice Roberts asked the questions, and the hysterical Democrats only spoke half the time. The other half of the time, the president's legal team, especially Pat Philbin, spoke with dignity and clarity, which was a balm to this weary soul.

The Senate provided a fair forum with ample time for the Democrats to make their case. They failed to bring actual crimes to be tried, and they know they have failed.

Acquittal is fair when the impeachment is a sham. It is time to vote to acquit President Donald Trump. No crimes, no removal.

The calls for John Bolton, President Trump's former National Security adviser, from the House managers, to be a witness at the Senate impeachment trial have been long and loud. The media, including Fox News, have also been aiding and abetting the Democrats in the pursuit. But Bolton is just a red herring meant to distract from the real issue at hand.

Democrats have no case

The real issue at hand is that the House Democrats have brought articles of impeachment to the Senate that contain no high crimes, misdemeanors, or bribery. They have witnesses that witnessed nothing. They want to convict and remove the president for having the wrong motives. This has been obvious all throughout the impeachment inquiry in the House and is still very apparent in the Senate trial. The Democrats have rhetoric and the mainstream media helping them, but in the end, the Democrats have no case. 

Enter the Red Herring

So, almost on cue, John Bolton's manuscript was leaked to the press on the first day of the president's defense in the impeachment trial. The manuscript is supposed to have evidence that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. (I thought we already knew that because President Trump released the transcript of the call?)

The Vindman brothers

Who leaked the details in the manuscript? No one knows conclusively, but Yevgeny Vindman, the identical twin brother of Alexander Vindman, an NSAC ethics lawyer, had access to the manuscript to review it for classified materials.

You will remember that Alexander Vindman bypassed his immediate superior, Tim Morrison, to report the president's July 25th call to his brother, an unknown person (probably the whistleblower), and Secretary George Kent. His testimony in the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings revealed his inflated opinion of himself and his disdain for President Trump's Ukraine policy.

He came across as a tattletale, but his tales were not told to the person in authority, but about the person in authority; as if he said, "Teacher, teacher, the president broke the rules!" forgetting that the president makes the rules when it comes to foreign policy.

Why are they still anywhere near the president?

NSC manuscript review process and leaks

Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the National Security Council’s records management division on Dec. 30. Manuscripts written by former members of the NSA need to be reviewed for sensitive information that could jeopardize our national security. Leaking material from such manuscripts is just reckless.

John Bolton's attorney, Charles J. Cooper,  said, “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript."

The smoking gun

Amid all the speculation that Bolton's testimony would be the smoking gun the Democrats need to convict and remove the president, a recent interview of John Bolton surfaced. Bolton was interviewed by Radio Free Europe in August 2019 and in it he described the president's call to President Zelensky of Ukraine.

Bolton described the calls to Zelenskiy warm and cordial and that the US considered the welfare of the Ukraine a priority. Policy toward Ukraine was discussed in the interview, and Bolton's description of the president's calls was completely positive. Bolton even emphasized the president's policies toward Russia were very tough, contrary to public perception.

President Trump declares Game Over!

Need a good laugh? Tired of impeachment?

Relax and watch Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn discuss CNN and Don Lemon's latest gaffe. They are sure to bring a smile to your face.

Ignorant Boomer Rubes with Southern accents

Lemon, New York Times columnist Wajahat Ali, and Rick Wilson, former GOP strategist, guffawed together on CNN about Trump and his supporters whom, they joked, are geographically challenged among other things, and wouldn't be able to find Ukraine on a map even if it was marked with a U and a picture of a crane.

Wilson said Trump's administration is defined by ignorance of the world. When impersonating Trump supporters, he embellished his jokes with a hick accent.

Don Lemon laughs at jokes about people groups

The story dominated twitter today, and there has been a lot of pushback from former Deplorables and current Credulous Boomer Rubes. In an apparent attempt to set things right,  Lemon responded with "Just to make this perfectly clear, I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people."

Don Lemon quite obviously thinks his critics are stupid. He apparently wasn't taking notes when Hillary Clinton called Trump supporter's "deplorables."

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, and Trump supporters ran around in t-shirts that said things like Proud Deplorable.  Steyn suggested that  Don Lemon and his panel be renamed The Trump Reelection Committee.

Watch Carlson and Steyn dissect the incident.

Don Lemon and the CNN black hole theory

Don Lemon has suggested things that might be considered stupid, e.g. that the Malaysian jet that disappeared in 2014 might have flown into a black hole. His guest panelist sets him straight.

Watch:

Jon Stewart roasts CNN and Don Lemon

And finally, Don Lemon and CNN were roasted mercilessly by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show because their theories were just so dumb.  "Now, stupid me!"

Warning: Jon Stewart makes fun of Bill O'Reilly viewers in this segment.

Watch:

Copyright© 2025 - Conservative Institute LLC - All Rights Reserved