Connect with us

Opinion

NeverTrump Conservative Is Now a Trump Supporter One Year Later

Published

on

She was a NeverTrump conservative because she expected him to be a Progressive, but she’s “thrilled” she was wrong.

It may be unfair to call Molly Hemmingway, the editor of The Federalist, a NeverTrump conservative. NeverTrumpers at the National Review are notorious for never admitting they were wrong. But Hemmingway didn’t vote for Trump because she didn’t expect him to preside as a Conservative.

A year after his inauguration, she has reversed her position. The evidence changed her mind.

She writes in the Washington Post, “I wasn’t a Trump supporter. I am now.

This may seem like an odd moment for saying so, but a year into the presidency of Donald Trump, I’m elated.

Trending: Elizabeth Warren Refuses To Recognize Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital: Still Need To “Determine The Capital”

Trump was not my first or even second choice for president, but a full two years ago I predicted he would win. I also predicted he’d be a progressive president, which explained why I was not among his supporters and why I am so pleased now.

Expecting Progressive Trump was a reasonable assumption. Trump supported the 2009 stimulus, the auto bailouts and the bank bailouts. He’d recently left the Democratic Party and had raised a ton of money for the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi and Charles E. Schumer. He’d supported single-payer health coverage, tax increases and even Planned Parenthood.

It took a while for Capitol Hill to get used to working with Trump, but by the end of the year, lawmakers had passed the largest corporate tax reform in U.S. history and secured tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans.

Businesses are responding to the deregulation and historic corporate tax reform by loosening purse strings and investing in plants, equipment and factories.

Here she is defending Trump three months ago.

Read the entire column.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Porn Star’s Lawyer Faces 42 Years in Jail After Conviction in Nike Extortion Scheme

This is far from the end of his legal trouble, however.

Published

on

Given the sheer amount of scandal that the Democrats have attempted to pin on President Trump, it can be easy to lost track of the host of characters involved in these shenanigans.

For instance, in what was one of the first real controversies of the President’s first term, aging adult film actress Stormy Daniels attempted to ride Trump’s coattails into the mainstream by dredging up a story about “hush money” payments made to her by Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer.

At the head of Daniels’ legal team was Michael Avenatti – the sort of television lawyer that you envision when someone says the words “television lawyer”.  Avenatti was also along for the ride, and turned himself into a bit of a star during the scandal.  This must have gotten to his head because, the next thing you know, Mikey Avenatti is arrested on charges of attempting to extort sneaker giant Nike for millions of dollars.

This week, the one-time regular on the nightly news shows has been found guilty, and faces decades behind bars.

Michael Avenatti, a lawyer who gained fame by representing a porn star in lawsuits against President Donald Trump, was convicted Friday of trying to extort sportswear giant Nike.

The verdict was returned Friday by a Manhattan federal jury after it deliberated charges of attempted extortion and honest services fraud in what prosecutors say was an attempt by Avenatti to extort up to $25 million from Nike with threats to otherwise harm it. The charges carry a combined potential penalty of 42 years in prison.

Avenatti will be back in the courtroom come April as well, as he is being charged with defrauding the aforementioned Daniels out of book proceeds after the porn star penned a tawdry tome about her life and experiences around Donald Trump.

Continue Reading

Opinion

New Democratic Defections Could Spell Swift Acquittal for Donald Trump

This could be HUGE.

Published

on

This week’s impeachment headlines have been dominated by the continuing fight over the potential witnesses that could be called in the case against President Donald Trump.

On the left, lawmakers are practically clamoring for a prolonged and painful trial.  In their never-ending “resistance”, they wish to see the leader of the free world not just humbled, but humiliated.  They want to hear from John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, and others whose testimony will be nothing short of a nightmare to coerce through layers of red tape and claims of executive privilege.

Thanks to the recent disclosures regarding a book by the aforementioned Bolton, it looks as though we may indeed hear from at least a few witnesses, in spite of efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to quash such a circus.

And, in what is surely the most frustrating aspect of this confrontation:  None of it matters.  The Democrats haven’t had the votes to remove Trump from office ever.

In fact, the latest revelations from The Beltway seem to indicate that more than a couple of Democrats could be jumping ship and voting to acquit the President.

Three moderate Democrat senators — Joe Manchin (WV), Doug Jones (AL), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) —may ultimately vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the upper chamber’s impeachment trial, according to a new report.

At least one of the senators have signaled that they could vote in favor of only one impeachment article — the abuse of power — but oppose obstruction of Congress.

In an interview with Politico this week, Manchin said he will only support one of the articles if he “can explain one and not the other.” The West Virginia Democrat, who has yet to decide on whether he will run for re-election in 2024, said he will only make a final decision on how he will vote only after the trial concludes.

There is still some mystery remaining, however.

When it comes to Sinema, the freshman senator who broke with Democrats to confirm Attorney General William Barr, her silence on impeachment suggests her vote remains up in the air. A spokesperson for the lawmaker recently said she supports gathering additional evidence to “make a more fully informed decision at the end of the trial.”

The senators’ remarks come as Democrats seek to call former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton as a witness. On Sunday, the New York Times reported that Bolton’s upcoming book alleges that President Trump wanted to tie U.S. military to Ukraine to inquiries into allegations of corruption against former Vice President and 2020 Democrat candidate Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. President Trump has denied the claims, calling them categorically “false” during an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, the American people patiently wait for a time when their public servants again work toward something for the betterment of American society, as opposed to this partisan pomp and circumstance.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Hillary Clinton Inexplicably Links Mark Zuckerberg’s “Authoritarian” Streak to Donald Trump

Someone please come get Hillary and take her home.

Published

on

How Hillary Clinton remains relevant in today’s news cycle is completely bewildering.

This is a woman who epitomizes the “Deep State” and the establishment ethos running rampant in the seedy underbelly of Washington DC – even long after her last official stint in politics.

Clinton is a curse on the Democratic Party, even according to those who espouse the beliefs consistent with the political organization itself.  It was her rigging of the 2016 primaries that left a sour taste in the mouth for many, especially those who believe that the Democrats should be doing everything in their power to swing their agenda hard to the left.

Simply put:  Clinton is the corrupt and scandal-ridden old guard who has overstayed her welcome.  Her obliviousness to this fact was on display yet again this week as she attempted to berate Facebook and Donald Trump in the same breath.

Clinton aired her own conspiracy theory in an exchange with Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, at an event hosted by Emerson Collective at the Sundance Film Festival. Reporter Adrienne Lafrance wrote of the exchange:

Listening to Clinton, I was struck by how remarkably similar her account was to something Zuckerberg had once told me. Facts, Zuckerberg had suggested, are best derived from foraging many opinions, ideally from the billions of humans who use his publishing platform, so that each individual might cherry-pick what to believe. (Cherry-pick is my word, not his.)

I wrote at the time that Zuckerberg’s interpretation was unsatisfying for one thing, and Trumpian for another. When I asked Clinton today whether she too sees a Trumpian quality in Zuckerberg’s reasoning, she nodded. “It’s Trumpian,” she said. “It’s authoritarian.” (Facebook did not immediately provide a response to my request for comment from Zuckerberg.)

It has trumpeted its ability to affect the outcome of an election. There’s good reason to believe, Clinton said, that Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”

Of course, Clinton’s assertion doesn’t take into account the severe censorship of conservative voices on the social media platform, which seems to fly in the face of this wild conspiracy theory.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Sekulow Destroys Schiff As Impeachment Trial Starts

Published

on

Jay Sekulow demolishes Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi on executive privilege: Remember Eric Holder?

“Mr. Schiff did say the courts don’t really have a role in this. Executive privilege? Why would that matter? It matters because it’s based in the Constitution of the United States,” Sekulow said. “The president’s opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for judicial review.”

PJM:

During his opening remarks in the Senate impeachment trial, President Donald Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow quoted Democrats’ own words against them. He condemned the House Democrats’ rush to impeach Trump, adding an article of impeachment for “Obstruction of Congress” rather than litigating a matter of executive privilege in court. He quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), each of whom defended Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder when he was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

“Mr. Schiff did say the courts don’t really have a role in this. Executive privilege? Why would that matter? It matters because it’s based in the Constitution of the United States,” Sekulow said. “The president’s opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for judicial review.”

He quoted law professor Jonathan Turley, who warned, “I can’t emphasize this enough…if you impeach a president — if you make a high crime and misdemeanor of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.” More

Jay Sekulow just tore Adam Schiff’s arm off and started beating him over the head with it. And this is just day one. The absolute pounding the Democrats are going to take in this charade is going to be magnificent. A solid, well deserved legal thrashing awaits them. Let’s get on with it!

Why there are no consequences for outright lying and filing of false charges against President Trump is almost unbelievable!

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dems Block A Vote To Support Iran Protesters

Published

on

House Democrats block McCarthy measure supporting Iranian protesters.

House Democrats blocked a vote on a resolution introduced by House Minority Leader California Republican Kevin McCarthy that expressed support of anti-government protesters in Iran and condemned Iran’s role in the downing of a Ukrainian civilian aircraft last week.

Daily Caller:

Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked a vote Tuesday to support the protesters in Iran who are demonstrating against the regime.

Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s resolution was blocked because Democrats advanced the previous question, by a vote of 226-191. The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government, as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 people.

In addition, the resolution; “(3) condemns the Government of Iran for repeatedly lying to its people and to the world about its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752; (4) calls on the Government of Iran to— (A) refrain from the use of violence; and (B) protect the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; and (5) supports the protestors in Iran, their demands for accountability, and their desire for the Government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights.” More

Trump derangement syndrome has the Democrats and their MSM defending Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Just like Obama ignored the people of Iran to side with the Mullahs and to protect his nuke deal, the Democrats are once again on the wrong side of history protecting their own interests. Do you remember how decently the Iranian gov’t treated those protesters after they knew the Obama Administration wasn’t going to care?

Continue Reading

Democrats

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!:  United States Supreme Court Dismisses Impeachment Articles

Published

on

By

By Ivan E. Raiklin

This week, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will submit her two Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate.  Impeachment is an authority granted to the U.S. House in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.  “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  (emphasis added)

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 vests the power to impeach with the House of Representatives.  “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”  The House Judiciary Committee began its impeachment inquiry by interrogating Cory Lewandowski (I was sitting behind him), when that failed, Speaker Nancy Pelosi then moved the inquiry to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where no due process was afforded the President in this closed door session, then back to the Judiciary Committee where the President was denied his 5th Amendment Due Process rights by not allowing any witnesses to respond to the allegations.  Upon completion of these hearings, the House of Representatives voted on the following two impeachment articles, titled:

Article 1:  Abuse of Power (December 10, 2019)

Article 2: Obstruction of Congress (December 10, 2019)

For the U.S. House to transmit articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate, the articles must meet the minimal Constitutional threshold of being a charge of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.  Based on the Supreme Court’s analysis below, neither article of impeachment charges the president with either treason, bribery, or a high crime and misdemeanor and thus cannot be transmitted to the U.S. Senate for a trial under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Article 1:  Abuse of Power:[i]

TreasonNowhere is the term treason used or alleged in this article of impeachment.

Bribery-Nowhere is the term treason or bribery used or alleged in this article of impeachment.

or other high Crimes- The article lists no mention of a crime being committed as taken from either Title 18 U.S. Code or any other Title of the U.S. Code for that matter.  Additionally, reviewing Title 18 U.S. Code, nowhere is there a reference to the term “abuse of power”.  Without a crime of “abuse of power” there can be no basis for there to be a “high crime”.

and Misdemeanors[ii] As mentioned above under high crime, without a crime, there can be no misdemeanor crime to charge the president with in order to impeach him.

 

Article 2:  Obstruction of Congress:

TreasonNowhere is the term “treason” used or alleged in this article.

Bribery-Nowhere is the term treason or bribery used or alleged in this article.

or other high Crimes- The article lists no mention of a crime being committed as taken from either Title 18 U.S. Code or any other Title of the U.S. Code for that matter.  Additionally, reviewing Title 18 U.S. Code, nowhere is there a reference to the term “obstruction of Congress”.  Without a crime of “obstruction of Congress” there can be no basis for there to be a “high crime”.

The only felony in the US Code that references the term “obstruction” is found at: Title 18 USC § 1505. “Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees”. [iii]  Even if the US House of Representatives is referencing this statute as the basis for its impeachment, this statute clashes with the president’s power of executive privilege.  The House will need to await the adjudication of the Federal Courts if Presidential executive privilege will outweigh the demand

and Misdemeanors-The only federal misdemeanors that reference the term obstruction do not reference obstruction of Congress.  Rather, they are:

  1. 18 USC §1509 obstruction of court orders
  2. 18 USC §1701 obstruction of mails generally
  3. 40 USC §5109(b) obstruction of roads

 

Recommendation:  White House Counsel file a motion outlining Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s/the U.S. Congress’ violation of Article II Section 4 in the following manner:

  1. To the U.S. Supreme court, under its original jurisdiction authority as this is a case “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” Article III, Section 2.
  2. To the US Supreme Court requesting a writ of certiorari on the matter
  3. To the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, followed by appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and concluding with the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the preferred method as this process will take several weeks, if not months to adjudicate, while the U.S. Senate continues to confirm President Trump’s federal judge appointments without any breaks.

 

Possible Outcomes:

  1. The U.S. Supreme Court dismisses the Articles of Impeachment and thus no Senate trial.
  2. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the articles of impeachment do meet the constitutional threshold of a high Crime or misdemeanor, then the Speaker of the House can send them to the U.S. Senate and act on them as outlined in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 wherein “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
    1. The Senate dismisses the articles of impeachment upon receiving them for lack of an offense/sufficient evidence.
    2. The Senate calls witnesses[iv] to determine President Trump’s state of mind when he asked Ukraine President Zelinsky to investigate corruption. President Trump through the calling of these witnesses exposes the illegal coup by the previous administration, exposes all deep state actors, exposes corruption by the Bidens that he was interested in investigating and brings justice to all those negatively impacted by the illegal Crossfire Hurricane operation and FISA abuses to include LTG (R) Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopolous and Carter Page.

 

About the Author:  Ivan E. Raiklin is a Constitutional and National Security attorney and Green Beret who has served for over 22 years in various sensitive roles in the Department of Defense and U.S. Intelligence Community under the previous four administrations.

[i] https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/articles-of-impeachment-trump-abuse-obstruction-full-text-pdf-080185

[ii] https://www.vox.com/2019/12/10/21004695/articles-of-impeachment-full-text-read

[iii] https://www.vox.com/2019/12/10/21004695/articles-of-impeachment-full-text-read

[iv] The following witnesses will need to be called to address legitimate concerns of corruption

  1. Ukraine Related
    1. Hunter Biden-Questions related to waivers to join US Naval reserve and Board seat on Burisma
    2. Hunter Biden’s baby mamas
    3. Joe Biden-Discussions of placing son on Board of Burisma and other dealings involving firing of prosecutor general in Ukraine (Quid Pro Quo)
  2. Impeachment related
    1. Nancy Pelosi-all discussions and deliberations regarding the first time impeachment of president up until the actual impeachment
    2. Adam Schiff-all conversations with the whistleblower and his staff related to the whistleblower
    3. Eric Ciaramella-all communications between him and the rest of the witnesses and staffs listed
    4. Mark Zaid-Lawyer for Eric Ciaramella
    5. Andrew Bakaj-Lawyer for Eric Ciaramella
    6. John Brennan & Staff
    7. Sean Misko
    8. Al Green
    9. Rashida Tlaib
    10. Jerry Nadler
    11. Maxine Waters
    12. Michael Atkinson
    13. Debbie Mucarsey Powell (Drafted Articles of Impeachment?)
    14. Robert Paul (Husband of Powell, received $700 K from the Ukrainian Oligarch
    15. Every member of Congress who made public statements professing to impeach President Trump before the first impeachment hearing September, 2019.
  • Origins of Coup Attempt
    1. White House
      1. Barrack Obama
      2. Susan Rice
    2. Intelligence Community
      1. James Clapper
      2. John Brennan
    3. DOJ
      1. Loretta Lynch
      2. Andrew Weissman
      3. Eric Holder
    4. FBI
      1. James Comey
      2. Rod Rosenstein
      3. Andrew McCabe
      4. Peter Strzok
      5. Lisa Page
      6. Joe Pientka
      7. Bruce Ohr
      8. Nellie Ohr (Wife of Bruce, at Fusion GPS)
    5. State Department
      1. Hillary Clinton
      2. John Kerry
      3. Victoria Nuland
      4. Alexandra Chalupa
    6. Fake Dossier Origins:
      1. Joseph Mifsud
      2. Glen Simpson
      3. Fusion GPS team
      4. Perkins Coie team
    7. Kathryn Rumler
    8. Devon Archer
    9. Christopher Steele
    10. DNC members working on Steele Dossier
    11. Crowd Strike
    12. Andriy Telizchenko
    13. Cody Shearer
    14. Bret Kimberlain
    15. Sid Blumenthal
    16. Derek Shearer
    17. Ian McKinnon
  1. Press
    1. CNN
    2. MSNBC
    3. ABC
    4. CBS
    5. NBC
    6. NY Times
    7. Washington Times
    8. Facebook
    9. Twitter
    10. Alphabet (Youtube, Google)
  2. Support Witnesses
    1. Rudy Giuliani
    2. Jim Jordan
    3. Matt Gaetz
    4. Devin Nunes
    5. IG Horowitz
    6. John Durham
Continue Reading

Opinion

Watch Iran Protesters Refuse To Trample American And Israeli Flags

Obama allied with the brutal Mullah oppressors. Trump allies with the enslaved Iranian people who yearn for freedom.

Published

on

The Iranian protesters refused to walk on the US and Israeli flags. The few people who did walk over the flags were booed by protesters in the area with chants of ‘shame on you.’ Some reports said that the protesters chanted ‘our enemy is in Iran, not America.’

Breitbart:

A video clip highlighted on Sunday by U.N. Watch, a non-governmental organization based in Switzerland, showed students at Iran’s Tehran University refusing to trample on American and Israeli flags as directed by agents of the Basij, a paramilitary force controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In the video, only a handful of Iranian regime agents were willing to walk on the flags. The students responded by heckling them as “dishonorable” and “shameless.”

Other video clips of the incident illustrated how much care the students took to avoid stepping on the flags.

President Donald Trump approvingly commented on the trend Monday morning, hailing it as a sign of “big progress” in Iran. More

This whole Iran incident has turned out to be a disaster for the Democrats. Nothing they hoped for materialized most of all war. This has the potential to have the significance of Reagan’s “tear down this wall” moment. Can you imagine an Iran freed from the rule of the Mullahs‽

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend