On Friday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) held a town hall-style event at a bowling alley in Petersborough, New Hampshire.
During the event, one woman asked Warren the following question about her ancestry: “What do I say to my native american relatives regarding the confusion around the native american ancestry issue?”
Warren replied:
<blockquote>I grew up in Oklahoma, and my three older brothers and I learned about our family [the] same way most people do – from our mom and from our dad. My family’s very important to me, and that’s why many years ago I sometimes identified as Native American.
Boston Globe did a big investigation about this, gosh, what about a year and a half ago, never had anything to do with any job I ever got or any benefit.
But even so, I shouldn’t have done it. I am not a person of color; I am not a citizen of a tribe; and I have apologized for confusion I’ve caused on tribal citizenship, tribal sovereignty, and for any harm that I’ve caused.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Whoa&#8230;
This is quite the admission from Elizabeth Warren on previously identifying as Native American:
“I shouldn’t have done it. I am not a person of color, I am not a citizen of a tribe. And I have apologized for confusion I have caused”<a href="https://t.co/ErjPhVb62h">pic.twitter.com/ErjPhVb62h</a>
— Nathan Brand (@NathanBrandWA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanBrandWA/status/1203053849478602753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
Sen. Warren has been dogged by the question regarding her ancestry for years. Even President Trump took to calling the senator “Pocahontas,” and dared her to take a DNA test.
In October 2018, Warren released a video in which she spoke with Stanford Professor Carlos D. Bustamante, who had conducted a DNA analysis on the senator in order to get to the bottom of the heritage question.
According to Bustamante, who “used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American” due to a lack of available DNA from verified Native Americans, reports <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html?et_rid=654126300&amp;s_campaign=todaysheadlines:newsletter">The Boston Globe</a>, Warren had a Native American ancestor “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.”
Warren’s DNA test stunt troubled some in the Native American community.
Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-warren-i-have-more-indian-blood-she-does-frank-camp">said</a> that the use of “a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong &#8230; dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is [proven].”
Warren allegedly reached out an apologized, after which Hoskins <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690806434/warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-for-dna-test">stated</a>: “We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests. We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end.”
In February, Cherokee Nation citizen Rebecca Nagle dragged Warren, <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-appears-to-joke-about-trail-of-tears-in-tweet-about-elizabeth-warren-1440281667740">stating</a> in part:
<blockquote>Warren has zero Cherokee ancestry. Genealogists in 2012 did her genealogy. That’s what Cherokee genealogists do when somebody claims to be Cherokee &#8230; [Warren] comes from a line of very well-documented white people, going back to before the Trail of Tears&#8230;
There are over forty-five rolls of Cherokee people between the 1810s and the 1910s, and Cherokee genealogists went [and] looked up Warren’s family tree and then crossed-referenced her relatives with those forty-five rolls and looked for them, and they’re not there. So there is no evidence that she has a single Cherokee ancestor. The only evidence she has is this race-based science of a DNA test which you cannot use to lay claim to any tribe or any relationship to any tribe, and people don’t know that.</blockquote>
Warren’s troubles have continued. In February, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on">The Washington Post</a> uncovered the senator’s 1986 “registration card for the State Bar of Texas.” On the card, Warren lists her race as “American Indian.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Here is the form Elizabeth Warren filled out for the State Bar of Texas claiming American Indian heritage. <a href="https://t.co/VwHifS7BCL">pic.twitter.com/VwHifS7BCL</a>
— Amy Gardner (@AmyEGardner) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmyEGardner/status/1092941590555971585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
“The Texas bar registration card is significant, among other reasons, because it removes any doubt that Warren directly claimed the identity,” wrote Annie Linskey and Amy Gardner.
The Washington Post adds that “there’s no indication Warren had anything to gain by reporting herself as Native American on the Texas bar card.”
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-warren-i-have-more-indian-blood-she-does-frank-camp">previously reported</a>, The Washington Post article notes that from 1986 to 1995, Warren listed herself as a “minority” in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directory. Additionally, from 1995 to 2004, Harvard Law School reportedly listed Warren as Native American on forms relating to affirmative action.
The Harvard Law School listing allegedly began well after Warren had been hired. Additionally, according to the outlet, Warren’s ethnicity listing at the University of Pennsylvania changed to “Native American” in December of 1989, two years after being hired.
Warren was even asked when she knew she wasn’t Native American during an appearance on “The Breakfast Club” in May, co-hosted by Charlamagne tha God.
“How long did you hold onto that?” he asked, noting the Texas Bar registration card. “Why’d you do that?”
Warren replied: “You know, so, it’s what I believed. Like I said, it’s what I learned from my family.”
Charlamagne tha God didn’t appear satisfied, asking: “When did you find out you weren’t?”
Warren stumbled. “Well, it’s, I&#8217;m not a person of color. I&#8217;m not a citizen of a tribe – and tribal citizenship is an important distinction.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
REMINDER: Elizabeth Warren has not addressed when she learned that she is not Native American.
Back in May, she refused to answer TWICE when asked at what point she learned that she wasn&#8217;t not Native American. <a href="https://t.co/xRnFBveqiT">pic.twitter.com/xRnFBveqiT</a>
— Nathan Brand (@NathanBrandWA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanBrandWA/status/1203065322120646656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
Despite all this mess, Warren is still seen by many progressives as a possible lock for the Democratic nomination. However, recent polling out of Iowa and New Hampshire (the first two primary/caucus states) show Warren falling, and rival Pete Buttigieg rising.
According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Warren currently sits in third place in Iowa with 17.7% of the vote. Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) rank first and second with 24% and 18.3%, respectively.
In New Hampshire, Warren faces almost identical problems, coming in third place with 14.3%, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Once again, Buttigieg and Sanders have taken first and second place with 20% and 17%, respectively.
In Nevada, Warren is behind Former Vice President Joe Biden by nine points, and in South Carolina, the senator is a whopping 19% down on Biden. In North Carolina (though the polling there is not as fresh), Warren falls 17% below Biden.
Warren sits atop the polls in only two states for which RealClearPolitics is keeping tabs. In California, which will hold its primary on Super Tuesday (March 3, 2020), Warren currently captures 21.5% support to Biden’s 21.3% support. In Massachusetts, the state from which Warren hails as a senator, Warren has 28.5% to second place Biden’s 22%.
Warren has also taken a dive in national polling.
Following a brief rise in October and early-November during which time she threatened to take the top spot from Biden, Warren has tumbled back down to third place. As of publication, Warren sits at 14.2% support in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, Behind Biden at 27.8% and Sanders at 15.6%.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Warren Faces Ancestry Question At Town Hall: ‘I Shouldn’t Have Done It. I Am Not A Person Of Color’

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Elizabeth Warren

Race

Top Democrats called for restricting Americans&#8217; constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights on Friday in response to an alleged Saudi Arabian military official opening fire and killing several people at a U.S. naval base in Florida.
Several of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, including a couple of the top-tier contenders, rushed to politicize the attack.
<ul>
<li>Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1202980913296089090">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Pearl Harbor. Pensacola. Not even our military bases are safe from gun violence. I&#8217;m heartsick for the victims and their families. We must end this epidemic and protect the lives of our service members.&#8221;</li>
<li>South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1202991768700100608">tweeted</a>: &#8220;While we wait for more information, my thoughts are with the victims and their families. Service members and the dedicated civilians who support them deserve nothing less than safety on American soil and communities free from gun violence. Enough.&#8221;</li>
<li>Former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro <a href="https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1203010902536138752">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Not even our military bases are safe from mass shootings. From Pearl Harbor to Pensacola, gun violence is destroying our communities. My deepest condolences to the grieving families. This can&#8217;t be the world we want our kids to grow up in. We must act.&#8221;</li>
<li>Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) tweeted: &#8220;The shooting in Pensacola has wounded several people and taken the lives of at least three victims. This is the second shooting to happen this week at a Navy base. As we learn more about the situation, there’s one thing we know: Gun violence just has to stop.&#8221;</li>
<li>Marianne Williamson, who is surprisingly still in the race, <a href="https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1203003890804953088">tweeted</a>: &#8220;What will it take to wage peace? It will take outer work and it will also take inner work. It will take regulating our guns and it will also take regulating our hearts.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
In-depth profile pieces on the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates from Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer have previously highlighted the gun policies of the aforementioned candidates:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-elizabeth-warren-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Warren</a>:  Warren has frequently supported gun control policies that would infringe upon Americans’ Second American rights. She supports expanded background checks, limitations or bans on certain weapons and magazines that are currently in wide distribution, and supports controversial “red flag” gun legislation. Warren supports a ban on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer">lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-pete-buttigieg-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Buttigieg</a>: Buttigieg supports “universal” background checks, thereby requiring a government intermediary for all private transfers of firearms. He is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a consortium of pro-gun control mayors. Buttigieg supports a <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/buttigieg-endorses-nationwide-gun-licensing-system">national gun registry</a>, which is a longstanding policy nemesis of Second Amendment supporters. He supports banning the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer">lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-julian-castro-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Castro</a>: Castro has frequently espoused support for gun control policies that would infringe upon Americans’ Second American rights. He supports expanded background checks and limitations or bans on certain weapons and magazines that are currently in wide distribution. Castro <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-julian-castro-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-8-issues">supports a ban</a> on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer">lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-amy-klobuchar-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Klobuchar</a>: Despite her representation of a largely rural state, Klobuchar has a historically poor record on Second Amendment issues. Klobuchar supports “universal” background checks, which often serve as a rhetorical euphemism for the government serving as an intermediary in all private firearms transfers. She <a href="https://amyklobuchar.com/issues/a-safer-world/">supports</a> a ban on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could lead to the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer">banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-marianne-williamson-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Williamson</a>: Williamson supports <a href="http://www.marianne2020.com/issues/gun-control">many policies</a> that would infringe upon Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. She supports expanded background checks and limitations or bans on certain weapons and magazines that are currently in wide distribution. Williamson <a href="https://www.marianne2020.com/issues/gun-control">supports a ban</a> on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer">could lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.</li>
</ul>
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said in response to the attack that the attack was not merely murder, but &#8220;an act of terrorism.&#8221;
“If this were a murder, it would typically be investigated by NCIS … but this was not a murder,” Gaetz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-attacker-at-florida-military-base-was-member-of-saudi-military-was-an-act-of-terrorism-congressman-says">said</a>. “This was an act of terrorism and as we speak the investigation is being handed over from the NCIS to the FBI, that is the signal that this will now be treated by our government as an act of terrorism, not a murder.”
“Major news organizations are now reporting the information that we began to learn earlier this morning that it was a Saudi Arabian military official in Pensacola, in our community for training, who committed these murderous acts and this terrible, terrible violence at NAS Pensacola,” Gaetz added. “This event represents a serious failure in the vetting process and in the way in which we invite these people into our community. So today, as we learn more as the investigation continues to unfold … I’m going to be very active in working with the Department of Defense and the Department of State to ensure that we have extreme vetting for the people that come into our country on our bases and in our communities.”

Democrats Call For Restricting Americans&#8217; Freedoms After Saudi Military Official Attacks U.S. Military Base

Florida

Gun Control

Guns

Saudi Arabia

Second Amendment

Shooting

U.S. Navy

Public House hearings moved this week from the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee, and three law professors — ranging from the merely left-leaning to the unreconstructed leftist — testified on Wednesday about the Constitution’s impeachment standards and whether President Donald Trump’s conduct on his July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky amounted to the level of an <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W4zbKy46CXzNVVLnnCM4TYnBY0/5/f18dQhb0S1Xm28_NrPN11fJdWgsW7gN2pvMjbjSRjhW64705d7CXvL9W7Y5yvg6T68W2W5fBjTc7bhTYpW5Nhrgs5YSgPVW5JyX-d2pM8kQW7yyHZS4jv2s_W6HRmCZ1r2X5SW2ldxnB6zHpVgW8lfw2b3sC_ckW4BPMBH6JdxX3W6Z6Q362rkP7sW1d9wGW6zHxrsW5wyLrl8kYFyBW3dXRF44Yrr-4W5f9VG975vDGcW61_5Jq7h2HW6Tq5NJ2qM4WDW82c-s64jF1J2W7D3GM06rwKh3W5y2KrQ3yTVxkW8-CRnB5Tp1xtW3dvkDY58B50dW55zGbt2JTsL8W3-ldF32ldfTpW8T-spx5Jn5ncN8fZbFHnz1_mW1-_BW41WxLGfN8xwbkLqFHNbW31JBnj67PCMQVkdqSq5-Rw8RW5HxHlp5P5dtLW22rjJV7w7bdVW7sppbJ1t_v2qW7v1fPk6dKbHbW1H72Vz4qz6tnW2vgRrj2NCCCHW1JCLx05w0t62W2v24rX2zwXGbVlkkXD77x38cW4-czyV3rp_lvVD0fSy8FCQxNW2hSXRw7B5y4NW1WV2Nl4bqrJ4LgwTy2Tq9l103" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W4zbKy46CXzNVVLnnCM4TYnBY0/5/f18dQhb0S1Xm28_NrPN11fJdWgsW7gN2pvMjbjSRjhW64705d7CXvL9W7Y5yvg6T68W2W5fBjTc7bhTYpW5Nhrgs5YSgPVW5JyX-d2pM8kQW7yyHZS4jv2s_W6HRmCZ1r2X5SW2ldxnB6zHpVgW8lfw2b3sC_ckW4BPMBH6JdxX3W6Z6Q362rkP7sW1d9wGW6zHxrsW5wyLrl8kYFyBW3dXRF44Yrr-4W5f9VG975vDGcW61_5Jq7h2HW6Tq5NJ2qM4WDW82c-s64jF1J2W7D3GM06rwKh3W5y2KrQ3yTVxkW8-CRnB5Tp1xtW3dvkDY58B50dW55zGbt2JTsL8W3-ldF32ldfTpW8T-spx5Jn5ncN8fZbFHnz1_mW1-_BW41WxLGfN8xwbkLqFHNbW31JBnj67PCMQVkdqSq5-Rw8RW5HxHlp5P5dtLW22rjJV7w7bdVW7sppbJ1t_v2qW7v1fPk6dKbHbW1H72Vz4qz6tnW2vgRrj2NCCCHW1JCLx05w0t62W2v24rX2zwXGbVlkkXD77x38cW4-czyV3rp_lvVD0fSy8FCQxNW2hSXRw7B5y4NW1WV2Nl4bqrJ4LgwTy2Tq9l103&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFkcIYfhILNw0PxF5mabmujoklYaw">impeachable offense</a> As I wrote in a Daily Wire <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W8h5BKD6hqr7hW5c7zV67Qx36H0/5/f18dQhb0S2C67r61sRVWnCwy199RG3Vj2B8K1tfsQ1W1_Zp6X3RsdjFW1-hv7L2R6y5fW7wDL6P1rYb21W5tWDYg4gGQnGW8b39YW52FJt0W1Vg-HD29w5lLW4c118f6H4GdmW3hZ6Fk6XZz7mVbxmx67P8YbnN5mxCv7C2l9xW5LVXRd3JXvrSW2qBg1h3nFQwlN8Z38XL4d9V9N5_JgNg72WPlW3KhQ_G72YxklMSD9VjlDNmvN2lzzdzkJhH7W5gMhZL1By9hzW2ClhFp19k7fkW5T_qJd2cYVpYW6XMcJt8K2vvJW4h8b2c9dflHGW2F67w73b8JH3N9jlsy5gkKdVW5NkFBd26DJt3W8mvCPC6b7WfYW2QTD7L8j0XrcV3dtw92GqGK_W8gK5PZ4w2slJW4zPVKb371mFwW2x8c0b56lcMjW8GhBMS48n2HwW1Hy9f76wWTF0W8VVwVt49QWnpW6y-rnN1VL1wsW1W4fxy7mNJFTW4rCf1P8CGkJ7W8_8-Cv6lXvCQW7pgd982Qq29jW5wN9t332lSZCW2s14ds92fkS5W4F3BYB3mgW_GW7bn4VQ8DsXtpW2tv5hh8SnHv9Vd_qVc597L8QW4HNRCR5l49-H0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W8h5BKD6hqr7hW5c7zV67Qx36H0/5/f18dQhb0S2C67r61sRVWnCwy199RG3Vj2B8K1tfsQ1W1_Zp6X3RsdjFW1-hv7L2R6y5fW7wDL6P1rYb21W5tWDYg4gGQnGW8b39YW52FJt0W1Vg-HD29w5lLW4c118f6H4GdmW3hZ6Fk6XZz7mVbxmx67P8YbnN5mxCv7C2l9xW5LVXRd3JXvrSW2qBg1h3nFQwlN8Z38XL4d9V9N5_JgNg72WPlW3KhQ_G72YxklMSD9VjlDNmvN2lzzdzkJhH7W5gMhZL1By9hzW2ClhFp19k7fkW5T_qJd2cYVpYW6XMcJt8K2vvJW4h8b2c9dflHGW2F67w73b8JH3N9jlsy5gkKdVW5NkFBd26DJt3W8mvCPC6b7WfYW2QTD7L8j0XrcV3dtw92GqGK_W8gK5PZ4w2slJW4zPVKb371mFwW2x8c0b56lcMjW8GhBMS48n2HwW1Hy9f76wWTF0W8VVwVt49QWnpW6y-rnN1VL1wsW1W4fxy7mNJFTW4rCf1P8CGkJ7W8_8-Cv6lXvCQW7pgd982Qq29jW5wN9t332lSZCW2s14ds92fkS5W4F3BYB3mgW_GW7bn4VQ8DsXtpW2tv5hh8SnHv9Vd_qVc597L8QW4HNRCR5l49-H0&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG1h-gqkKdaRGWQZsalbziG_FWDow">op-ed</a>, this hearing — along with the entirety of the current impeachment charade — was a monumental waste of time: “Why do we need three left-leaning law school professors — who, by definition of their ivory tower perches, all emanate from one of America’s leading institutional bastions of <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W1hbNHV1tS2-SW3xgHDV77-0P_0/5/f18dQhb0S1Xn2dYTs8T_Fyf65Np_GW19PtvX7GDK-nN4nL3Hpr2mSsW3Tz_DM2N1YdZW6P7-4F7s38Z4W8hLdxY20Z7_kN9kD-5BgmPrGW5jK3Dn8JzpdmVL0BZ97nnPxwW5QBst849YFTmW7pMMdT60Pqm3W5z7_1K5QFn8GW4_HR_18PfX84W2SDgJq2-jcFzMpLqgj8sWtBVbpJ132RzMFXW7MKq9s2PMSbhW763PdK4jZhT0N4d3LVZCcxskW7j6GhG2wCD60W4_1hgk7bdMhrW3_hdPt26SNlpW5xbv0X6bYWmnW2Pq9Wv7Ng6Y4W8Z5cTB1dn8PkW6NVYDx2LgD9zW3_Vnht6j-lsTN69NWW38lbbWW126fzB8SPDskW1jrMVt6zphNwW391M9B4-9SrHN85LXZfd_V8BW2rNYQq32dVb3W7hfnWZ67BCvZW1LM9Y-629s4QW3wtKgZ5dB4vlW6RjZg96yGhXnW91WX255CXSjRW5D4lZW6VqwSYW2bSTWh6Ks1dXW8_68Pw7Q_qkFW9j6rhK2DPssMV2vlL_9lYn5Ff6j4glx03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W1hbNHV1tS2-SW3xgHDV77-0P_0/5/f18dQhb0S1Xn2dYTs8T_Fyf65Np_GW19PtvX7GDK-nN4nL3Hpr2mSsW3Tz_DM2N1YdZW6P7-4F7s38Z4W8hLdxY20Z7_kN9kD-5BgmPrGW5jK3Dn8JzpdmVL0BZ97nnPxwW5QBst849YFTmW7pMMdT60Pqm3W5z7_1K5QFn8GW4_HR_18PfX84W2SDgJq2-jcFzMpLqgj8sWtBVbpJ132RzMFXW7MKq9s2PMSbhW763PdK4jZhT0N4d3LVZCcxskW7j6GhG2wCD60W4_1hgk7bdMhrW3_hdPt26SNlpW5xbv0X6bYWmnW2Pq9Wv7Ng6Y4W8Z5cTB1dn8PkW6NVYDx2LgD9zW3_Vnht6j-lsTN69NWW38lbbWW126fzB8SPDskW1jrMVt6zphNwW391M9B4-9SrHN85LXZfd_V8BW2rNYQq32dVb3W7hfnWZ67BCvZW1LM9Y-629s4QW3wtKgZ5dB4vlW6RjZg96yGhXnW91WX255CXSjRW5D4lZW6VqwSYW2bSTWh6Ks1dXW8_68Pw7Q_qkFW9j6rhK2DPssMV2vlL_9lYn5Ff6j4glx03&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGcdyuPMMzPaS-dC2_mJwA4dOAFWQ">sclerotic and ideologically monolithic groupthink</a>  — to tell us something that no less a Founding Father luminary than Alexander Hamilton quite clearly told us himself [<a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W4M0wXN8ng17ZVhy77K3Gb7T60/5/f18dQhb0SbTT8YHrXgN8HWm5lHyjJqVQsSmj8rldKYW3hHh8X2P7_nXVcnTGj98kNPXW26n-yd25xxTKW5t2x5c4v13hrN98jppGZbhHpW4r1N_c5tXDYXW1wJ6H251RS_HW61SSZm7mG7sDW51vX4y6HrZgDW7lVtgt4s2-MqW8f6L0f3VpzgTW9dSlS635rgClW94-4T07sLptqW41TlcR3TwTqCW4KbJZx2kGg8MW6sCkcN4YFc44W57-WqM3H_PtyW2DzCtR1yC0KCW2jvpl-84J7blW1gJ54W8blsppN5ppTfnHxvgwW1MvhvB83KJ46VTT66k8kVsV9W5_-LR-93LlMLVGF58Q4GfYqgW91z-2W33pcZ9W3vZ3rX2PKW0hW1y12ky7sXnPdW7Lt8dd3c41gdW8lmrRX6Pc2NRN7PwBwqVzQv-VVn7DD8G42FVW1RP_SX32Sff8N4JWF2MhL_4cW24Zwh22nRylcW5rNJF98M-_nCW4xDRMb5_5kBjW6bTQFf9hG8GgW48WCw28jMqd_MVMPVbVrLq8W74bS8d3tskjd0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W4M0wXN8ng17ZVhy77K3Gb7T60/5/f18dQhb0SbTT8YHrXgN8HWm5lHyjJqVQsSmj8rldKYW3hHh8X2P7_nXVcnTGj98kNPXW26n-yd25xxTKW5t2x5c4v13hrN98jppGZbhHpW4r1N_c5tXDYXW1wJ6H251RS_HW61SSZm7mG7sDW51vX4y6HrZgDW7lVtgt4s2-MqW8f6L0f3VpzgTW9dSlS635rgClW94-4T07sLptqW41TlcR3TwTqCW4KbJZx2kGg8MW6sCkcN4YFc44W57-WqM3H_PtyW2DzCtR1yC0KCW2jvpl-84J7blW1gJ54W8blsppN5ppTfnHxvgwW1MvhvB83KJ46VTT66k8kVsV9W5_-LR-93LlMLVGF58Q4GfYqgW91z-2W33pcZ9W3vZ3rX2PKW0hW1y12ky7sXnPdW7Lt8dd3c41gdW8lmrRX6Pc2NRN7PwBwqVzQv-VVn7DD8G42FVW1RP_SX32Sff8N4JWF2MhL_4cW24Zwh22nRylcW5rNJF98M-_nCW4xDRMb5_5kBjW6bTQFf9hG8GgW48WCw28jMqd_MVMPVbVrLq8W74bS8d3tskjd0&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHqUmQsVugwoQMHYinwS6AKacgeWA">The Federalist No. 65</a>]? Why, for that matter, do we need weeks of subpoenas, depositions, and hearings to recount first-, second-, and third-hand accounts about a diplomatic phone call for which the transcript is …  <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W7TpmNs7Wq5x-W6kZrJr2Jpr2z0/5/f18dQhb0SbTV8YHsrKN8HWm5lHyjJqVQsSmj8rldKYW3hHh9c2P7_nXVcnTGj97zmB3W1mhW2D4vgKM1N97-21rZb0crW6PslQc98PFGhW1nhckj4XrdgbMQsF6vRYvqbN7fZrtRQZqZHW61SSZm7mG7sDW51vX4y6HrZgDW7lVtgt4s2-MqW8f6L0f3VpzgTW9dSlS635rgClW94-4T07sLbG-W2tf_7z5rC5Q6W3l6ccQ8mQMYTW7NM5zG73DbNnW7P1-wW33FK-yMqPkxDnjZC8W4hvVy283czRmW4BJZzn4R5CB1W83Gdk47q6z8nW2qZ3XF2sqTDpW4ctP9K4NpyqcW56B2lg11xdKhW9cYwCW1FgJxXW2fry1X4gg02XN55cMQG7TCyVW5b8D0M7sCZqGW6WrBwy5Yx5R1W1fLmkN2p8_TTW7-cq2V3d0zvxW4p7yDT2BPMnkW3M3wF823MT29W3ghJk26Y91GnV215-p1Jp45SW2DzG0g6y2gZpVlSbbr5J6yTYW7T8yVq5X9XZJW7LqJsX36sLG2w1NsfDK9Mhd2Wd3h02" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W7TpmNs7Wq5x-W6kZrJr2Jpr2z0/5/f18dQhb0SbTV8YHsrKN8HWm5lHyjJqVQsSmj8rldKYW3hHh9c2P7_nXVcnTGj97zmB3W1mhW2D4vgKM1N97-21rZb0crW6PslQc98PFGhW1nhckj4XrdgbMQsF6vRYvqbN7fZrtRQZqZHW61SSZm7mG7sDW51vX4y6HrZgDW7lVtgt4s2-MqW8f6L0f3VpzgTW9dSlS635rgClW94-4T07sLbG-W2tf_7z5rC5Q6W3l6ccQ8mQMYTW7NM5zG73DbNnW7P1-wW33FK-yMqPkxDnjZC8W4hvVy283czRmW4BJZzn4R5CB1W83Gdk47q6z8nW2qZ3XF2sqTDpW4ctP9K4NpyqcW56B2lg11xdKhW9cYwCW1FgJxXW2fry1X4gg02XN55cMQG7TCyVW5b8D0M7sCZqGW6WrBwy5Yx5R1W1fLmkN2p8_TTW7-cq2V3d0zvxW4p7yDT2BPMnkW3M3wF823MT29W3ghJk26Y91GnV215-p1Jp45SW2DzG0g6y2gZpVlSbbr5J6yTYW7T8yVq5X9XZJW7LqJsX36sLG2w1NsfDK9Mhd2Wd3h02&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFvCbUoxri7VP-vHqhSYjwSytyTPA">literally already public</a>?”
The big news yesterday was that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made it official that the House will formally impeach. As James Barrett of The Daily Wire <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W6n_BV_2Ng785V8YlXn8V_G_x0/5/f18dQhb0S3kc2RhFmhW12d-175k7YynVgnB601flmR5W4lwMSn7mDKk5W7_vBq03nKs7XW3tWPRd5cmDbqW456ShF1lLBYPVbB66n55hbWDW5kJwjy76mJHDW4qTfpD90PZn4W8DtGQ76tGZdfW7Lqnj-1R1qSxW5Ds97D1wfCX_W69Ncdq5bP0r-W2vbVkV71t72nW1T2Kpb86k5FzN8gq6rLCZrv1W1gl75K6Q1kfXW5XJ-pz1tsPwLN6sF2wPh-W6TW1k868h2TYbBmW6vRkBB6H3MJgV2jtBb2spcGrW4YzB9Q1RKGq6W7LsGj42lghFQW8c4yQG9lnvvFVGsxb03L9X_2W522Q5y74ll11VMPD5m4HHLRDW3gJckB1crBpRW7pg1403-r1_hW4C1NBh37NBDTW1yzLH-8W2CxmW2_vr5X54yrf5W6fMR5x3CxdQwW3ZMV3z60q9hZVtvx2j1fH_34W4vn45663r4LDW5xX0PY7tLxVMW600msk3TB4LwW6bQ68S7BczM4W6ChTmJ5FLsq3W709Rt58Sqr45W4sp8-R51RXFTW7BGcRG6-Lc9VN5x_4vrQD9JRW1X46B343y1BQf2w9HvR03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*W6n_BV_2Ng785V8YlXn8V_G_x0/5/f18dQhb0S3kc2RhFmhW12d-175k7YynVgnB601flmR5W4lwMSn7mDKk5W7_vBq03nKs7XW3tWPRd5cmDbqW456ShF1lLBYPVbB66n55hbWDW5kJwjy76mJHDW4qTfpD90PZn4W8DtGQ76tGZdfW7Lqnj-1R1qSxW5Ds97D1wfCX_W69Ncdq5bP0r-W2vbVkV71t72nW1T2Kpb86k5FzN8gq6rLCZrv1W1gl75K6Q1kfXW5XJ-pz1tsPwLN6sF2wPh-W6TW1k868h2TYbBmW6vRkBB6H3MJgV2jtBb2spcGrW4YzB9Q1RKGq6W7LsGj42lghFQW8c4yQG9lnvvFVGsxb03L9X_2W522Q5y74ll11VMPD5m4HHLRDW3gJckB1crBpRW7pg1403-r1_hW4C1NBh37NBDTW1yzLH-8W2CxmW2_vr5X54yrf5W6fMR5x3CxdQwW3ZMV3z60q9hZVtvx2j1fH_34W4vn45663r4LDW5xX0PY7tLxVMW600msk3TB4LwW6bQ68S7BczM4W6ChTmJ5FLsq3W709Rt58Sqr45W4sp8-R51RXFTW7BGcRG6-Lc9VN5x_4vrQD9JRW1X46B343y1BQf2w9HvR03&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEDReNOVqenK6rqRXa4bc8L3y68aQ">reported</a>: “A day after the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it official Thursday morning: The Democrats are moving forward on drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. … ‘Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our Founders, and our heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with the articles of impeachment,’ said Pelosi.” For whatever it may be worth, Pelosi seems to have now genuinely bought into the argument that Trump ought to be impeached — in fairly marked contradistinction to her previous two to three years of stonewalling the efforts of the more left-leaning congressmen who sought impeachment. Either that, or the speaker is a better actor than I had ever realized she is.
National polling remains narrowly in favor of impeachment. As of December 4, 2019, <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*VqB7M626Yw5ZW5Fjds-1pG76s0/5/f18dQhb0S3-R2dYTs8LCdRXc5PxdW8g8THM2vCJLMW8_xqJ53TzNNCW39c0M_2LsRD4W1CgTwC6NHnFyW3mM3QK4cf1sSN1KKS-_LHDWDW219gkz2RzQ6yW8Nrbsz7f8BjqW77XPBr3R3572W5kThL42Ttd7CW8gTBH05LdLSLN1Xt45cJVQVvW46xnVk7CGFFJW1Yryx053KR1TW4MJdGj8GFHbrW7N2ffT2rlqCpW3-0xYt2xRrMPVh0ZdC53c_wpW209MBm46x8svVRq9fN90l6xvW3zqY2B7Jfxx6W5jTjVm2vz-v1W3yr2g41jDj1FW3dJbrx91RBsdW8GHDWD2R5_M-W5WLfn68jrz_lW6FwR6J6KGTGZW81NLvg64JnsJV6h9bR3X0N6tW1bcBqd1FPMVMW6TJ3bg6HbkjJW3b2FsY6PBvQPW7C_MH97fcDs_W3C2L9y5wBZDlW7M_pWk7zMTBRW8zzG5P2yv-T_W63-HNv34N8n-W3rZfn_1Y_nKZW2ZsJfn4Yr4FbW3f-DhS33pr7cW8cSYnV8DpQmFW4zTPWL5MwcbTW5QJjv25-tnLpVz68B91CVwbjVpc95s9dNyBQ102" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*VqB7M626Yw5ZW5Fjds-1pG76s0/5/f18dQhb0S3-R2dYTs8LCdRXc5PxdW8g8THM2vCJLMW8_xqJ53TzNNCW39c0M_2LsRD4W1CgTwC6NHnFyW3mM3QK4cf1sSN1KKS-_LHDWDW219gkz2RzQ6yW8Nrbsz7f8BjqW77XPBr3R3572W5kThL42Ttd7CW8gTBH05LdLSLN1Xt45cJVQVvW46xnVk7CGFFJW1Yryx053KR1TW4MJdGj8GFHbrW7N2ffT2rlqCpW3-0xYt2xRrMPVh0ZdC53c_wpW209MBm46x8svVRq9fN90l6xvW3zqY2B7Jfxx6W5jTjVm2vz-v1W3yr2g41jDj1FW3dJbrx91RBsdW8GHDWD2R5_M-W5WLfn68jrz_lW6FwR6J6KGTGZW81NLvg64JnsJV6h9bR3X0N6tW1bcBqd1FPMVMW6TJ3bg6HbkjJW3b2FsY6PBvQPW7C_MH97fcDs_W3C2L9y5wBZDlW7M_pWk7zMTBRW8zzG5P2yv-T_W63-HNv34N8n-W3rZfn_1Y_nKZW2ZsJfn4Yr4FbW3f-DhS33pr7cW8cSYnV8DpQmFW4zTPWL5MwcbTW5QJjv25-tnLpVz68B91CVwbjVpc95s9dNyBQ102&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGhIpORATlCnzL3evR9yxOOcxPoWw">FiveThirtyEight </a>indicates that Americans now support impeachment by a 3.8% margin. This is pretty consistent with the past few weeks’ of national polling. Nonetheless, as I noted last week, impeachment still <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*MC6Syj9kzWdW95LS7c4tHswk0/5/f18dQhb0S65P2dYBPtW12NSPc4-BNM7W2G6RyZ1m2hWFW87mzBS6t31KyW1LP82G68hg3bW3Nd2SJ3N2bl5W7Yn4ZD6_STmLW7J22Jq20BBTdW607DSz8j3WnWW36Shc8626YPLW166vkW2dbJh8W4tc4nT2X4pw6W6cnJMg4y25ySN90YSlqKk8sXW1C_sqr1VLcsWW51qbsb7zvC2KW8Zw59P1vxHkxN2C5J8mFDY1lW1wNrSP7r_LlxW6tjb5G2_Cq6JVW1rLv75pSSKVd_25-64l00MW5MFR6t1G9Rl9W1pLSq43hkhrKW1ClkRK3-mnyrW5nQnxd17y-PBV7xZhK31TncXW2qRH385f1nY_W7g9MGK2KNbJ2W6rKvzw7BKl1QW2nMHv96mT34YV3ZmpM1yWtNNW8DzHgl87wZ9lW8F8lzy4H3f4sW90b_6c3lGr4JW6fhXxr42V0H_W86SN5c3W230_W6m_qbx6b5JsbW3M3xpx2nnkyPW7yDy8V4rqZMZW7LT0ZV2PV3j5W5KR_z_33cBRPW5Z33bf4srqDkN2Nfb3pmvCTDW4b7pWC4nKWHtW5dbCrh55VknyW8MPZXS88-GV7W6NfF6M70j3NfW4jNZPQ3TXPZNW6TzqP-8Y8F8KW5h_Gd43tnLr4f6mkv3T04" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W37-dxZ4__1ylN8lD4V43WW2X0/*MC6Syj9kzWdW95LS7c4tHswk0/5/f18dQhb0S65P2dYBPtW12NSPc4-BNM7W2G6RyZ1m2hWFW87mzBS6t31KyW1LP82G68hg3bW3Nd2SJ3N2bl5W7Yn4ZD6_STmLW7J22Jq20BBTdW607DSz8j3WnWW36Shc8626YPLW166vkW2dbJh8W4tc4nT2X4pw6W6cnJMg4y25ySN90YSlqKk8sXW1C_sqr1VLcsWW51qbsb7zvC2KW8Zw59P1vxHkxN2C5J8mFDY1lW1wNrSP7r_LlxW6tjb5G2_Cq6JVW1rLv75pSSKVd_25-64l00MW5MFR6t1G9Rl9W1pLSq43hkhrKW1ClkRK3-mnyrW5nQnxd17y-PBV7xZhK31TncXW2qRH385f1nY_W7g9MGK2KNbJ2W6rKvzw7BKl1QW2nMHv96mT34YV3ZmpM1yWtNNW8DzHgl87wZ9lW8F8lzy4H3f4sW90b_6c3lGr4JW6fhXxr42V0H_W86SN5c3W230_W6m_qbx6b5JsbW3M3xpx2nnkyPW7yDy8V4rqZMZW7LT0ZV2PV3j5W5KR_z_33cBRPW5Z33bf4srqDkN2Nfb3pmvCTDW4b7pWC4nKWHtW5dbCrh55VknyW8MPZXS88-GV7W6NfF6M70j3NfW4jNZPQ3TXPZNW6TzqP-8Y8F8KW5h_Gd43tnLr4f6mkv3T04&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1575689736826000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHVfeAgL3pweE9dvoYFVWvCojDOwg">polls underwater</a>in many of the key swing states for next November. It seems entirely plausible, therefore, that House Democrats may be rushing their current impeachment push to get it out of the news cycle as quickly as possible in advance of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. If that were truly House Democrats’ timing calculation, then that would amount to a catastrophic error in political judgment. But, to borrow from poker terminology, House Democrats are now “pot-committed” to holding the impeachment vote.
Moving forward, the only big questions are (1) when the Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)-led House Judiciary Committee will formally draft articles of impeachment and (2) when Pelosi will stage a formal chamber-wide impeachment vote. Many have expected the Democrats to rush their formal impeachment vote to take place before Christmas, but there has been some recent speculation that Pelosi may push the vote into the new year. Alas, no matter when Pelosi holds the vote, impeachment will be dead on arrival upon its progression to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) Senate.
This piece will be frequently updated.

House Democrats Hold Meeting To Discuss Impeachment Inquiry

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

Donald Trump

Impeachment

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

For the Democratic Party, the better the economy, the more difficult it will be for them to succeed in their primary goal: to dethrone Donald Trump in 2020. In that light, the latest jobs report presents a bunch of very bad news for the party so desperate to see Trump go down.
That the excellent economic news comes one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that her party was officially moving forward on drafting articles for their entirely partisan impeachment — public support for which has been waining — doesn&#8217;t help.
Just how good for the American people/bad for the Democrats are the November jobs numbers? Here are the highlights of the expectations-smashing figures via <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobs-report-november-2019-labor-department-225145709.html">Yahoo Finance</a>:
<blockquote>The U.S. economy added <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">far more jobs than expected in November</a> and the joblessness rate edged down to a 50-year low, as the domestic labor market continued to fire on all cylinders. &#8230;
Change in non-farm payrolls: +266,000 vs. +180,000 expected and +156,000 in October
Unemployment rate: 3.5% vs. 3.6% expected and 3.6% in October
Average hourly earnings month over month: +0.2% vs. +0.3% expected and +0.4% in October
Average hourly earnings year over year: +3.1% vs. +3.0% expected and +3.2% in October</blockquote>
That 3.5% overall unemployment rate matches the lowest figure in 50 years, dating back to 1969.
&#8220;The total labor force participation was nearly unchanged at 63.2%, just a hair below October’s 63.3%, which had reflected the largest share of the working population employed or looking for work since 2013,&#8221; Yahoo notes.
In its official report on the November numbers (full report below), the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> also provides the breakdown on key demographics, showing the continued excellent numbers across the board, particularly for minorities who are experiencing record-low unemployment under the Trump administration:
<blockquote>Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.2 percent), adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.0 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.6 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in November.</blockquote>
The new report also includes upward revisions to payroll figures for both September and October, revised up 13,000 and 28,000 to 193,000 and 156,000, respectively, raising the three-month average increase to 205,000.
The release of the stellar jobs report comes one day after Speaker Pelosi held a press conference <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-pelosi-makes-it-official-we-will-impeach-trump-responds">announcing</a> that she has ordered the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee to begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump.
The move is politically risky as Democrats have failed to convince any Republicans to join their effort, while recent polls have consistently shown either a plateauing of public support for impeachment or, more often than not, a decline. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2019/12/05/more-on-impeachment-polls/#4ddbe3d448f9">Forbes</a> provided an update on some recent polls on Thursday:
<blockquote>In <a href="http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/11/25/rel13a.-.trump,.impeachment.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/11/25/rel13a.-.trump,.impeachment.pdf">CNN’s November 21-24 poll</a>, 50% said President Trump should be impeached and removed from office. The responses were identical to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6508707-Trump-Impeachment.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6508707-Trump-Impeachment.html">CNN’s mid-October poll</a>. When asked whether they felt strongly or not strongly, 91% of those who supported impeachment and removal said they felt strongly, as did 89% of those who felt strongly that he shouldn’t be impeached. In <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us11262019_uaov53.pdf/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us11262019_uaov53.pdf/">Quinnipiac’s late November poll</a>, 45% of registered voters said he should be impeached and removed; 48% didn’t think so. In their <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3645" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3645">late October poll</a>, those responses were 48% to 46%.</blockquote>
Below is the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> official November report (formatting adjusted):
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 266,000 in November, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and technical services. Employment rose in manufacturing, reflecting the return of workers from a strike.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 5.8 million, changed little in November. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.2 percent), adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.0 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.6 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in November. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million, was essentially unchanged in November and accounted for 20.8 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.2 percent in November. The employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the third consecutive month. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million, changed little in November. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In November, 1.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 432,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 325,000 discouraged workers in November, down by 128,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 921,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 266,000 in November. Job growth has averaged 180,000 per month thus far in 2019, compared with an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In November, notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and technical services. Employment also increased in manufacturing, reflecting the return of workers from a strike. Employment continued to trend up in leisure and hospitality, transportation and warehousing, and financial activities, while mining lost jobs. (See table B-1.)
In November, health care added 45,000 jobs, following little employment change in October (+12,000). The November job gains occurred in ambulatory health care services (+34,000) and in hospitals (+10,000). Health care has added 414,000 jobs over the last 12 months.
Employment in professional and technical services increased by 31,000 in November and by 278,000 over the last 12 months.
Manufacturing employment rose by 54,000 in November, following a decline of 43,000 in the prior month. Within manufacturing, employment in motor vehicles and parts was up by 41,000 in November, reflecting the return of workers who were on strike in October.
In November, employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up (+45,000). The industry has added 219,000 jobs over the last 4 months.
Employment in transportation and warehousing continued on an upward trend in November (+16,000). Within the industry, job gains occurred in warehousing and storage (+8,000) and in couriers and messengers (+5,000).
Financial activities employment also continued to trend up in November (+13,000), with a gain of 7,000 in credit intermediation and related activities. Financial activities has added 116,000 jobs over the last 12 months.
Mining lost jobs in November (-7,000), largely in support activities for mining (-6,000). Mining employment is down by 19,000 since a recent peak in May.
In November, employment in retail trade was about unchanged (+2,000). Within the industry, employment rose in general merchandise stores (+22,000) and in motor vehicle and parts dealers (+8,000), while clothing and clothing accessories stores lost jobs (-18,000).
Employment in other major industries&#8211;including construction, wholesale trade, information, and government&#8211;showed little change over the month.
In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 7 cents to $28.29. Over the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.1 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 7 cents to $23.83. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.4 hours in November. In manufacturing, the average workweek increased by 0.1 hour to 40.5 hours, while overtime decreased by 0.1 hour to 3.1 hours. The average workweek of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees held at 33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised up by 13,000 from +180,000 to +193,000, and the change for October was revised up by 28,000 from +128,000 to +156,000. With these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 41,000 more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 205,000 over the last 3 months.

Jobs Report Presents Terrible News For Democrats As They Push Forward On Partisan Impeachment

Economy

Don&#8217;t look now, but twice-failed Democratic candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke may be back for a third run at Washington, D.C.
Supporters of the former Congressman (and former Texas Senate candiate and former Democratic presidential candidate) are reportedly trying to convince O&#8217;Rourke to jump in the Democratic primary to challenge Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) at the eleventh hour &#8212; a move that would displace a handful of Democrats who have been running for the opportunity to take on Cornyn for several months.
But, <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/12/03/beto-orourke-backers-cite-poll-showing-hed-sail-through-senate-primary-cornyn-wary-hell-heed-the-call/?fbclid=IwAR1RDwVO6gQacApa2PUhb_Fl_vhE0t3j-y2WxJuWgYYr_iNpN7GIzgT5Wn0/">the Dallas Morning News reports</a>, there is no candidate in the race that truly presents a challenge to Cornyn and Texas Democrats are rather convinced that O&#8217;Rourke is their best chance to unseat the longtime Republican Senator.
&#8220;Poll after poll shows Cornyn would trounce the dozen or so contenders for the Democratic nomination at this point. None can touch the near-universal name recognition O’Rourke enjoys among Texas Democrats after his near-miss against Sen. Ted Cruz last year,&#8221; according to the Dallas outlet.
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s supporters even went so far as to commission a poll, testing whether O&#8217;Rourke would be competitive against Cornyn. Unfortunately for O&#8217;Rourke, though, it doesn&#8217;t seem he&#8217;d win, though he would fare better than the current crop of contenders.
&#8220;[A] new poll commissioned by backers worried that the current crop of candidates would fall short shows that O’Rourke is by far the top choice of Democratic voters in Texas at 58%, with the runner-up, state Sen. Royce West of Dallas at 13%&#8230;The poll also shows [O&#8217;Rourke] in a near-tie, trailing Cornyn 46-42 at this point, which is far stronger than others already seeking the nomination.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign operation is currently dormant, and it doesn&#8217;t appear he shares the enthusiasm of his supporters &#8212; and, as the Dallas News points out, Beto O&#8217;Rourke specifically took a pass on taking on Cornyn in order to run for president, a move that some Texas Democrats interpreted as O&#8217;Rourke abandoning the state party for a more lucrative national career.
To get back into Texas Democrats&#8217; good graces, O&#8217;Rourke has been quietly pushing an effort to flip the Texas House, according to the <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Democrat-Beto-O-Rourke-turns-his-attention-to-14876379.php">Houston Chronicle</a>.
&#8220;A month after ending his presidential campaign, Democrat Beto O’Rourke has turned his attention to state politics — namely, an effort to help flip the Texas House of Representatives from Republican control to the Democrats,&#8221; the Chronicle reports. &#8220;With Texas Democrats nine seats away from retaking the majority of seats in the Texas House, O’Rourke is trying to convince his donor base to send money to an organization called Flip The Texas House, which has targeted 17 House Districts in which Republican candidates won by fewer than 10 percentage points last year. More than half are districts in which O’Rourke won the majority of votes as he ran for U.S. Senate.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke has even sent out emails on behalf of the &#8220;Flip Texas House&#8221; effort, pushing some of the same themes he pushed in his presidential campaign. In his latest missive, O&#8217;Rourke claims a Democratic Texas House would mean &#8220;an end to racist gerrymandering, and a chance to address gun violence, reproductive rights, Medicaid expansion, criminal justice and climate change in Texas.”
Texas has come close to flipping before, but O&#8217;Rourke is just the latest in a long line of Democrats to fall short of expectations there.

Beto O&#8217;Rourke

Beto Back? Texas Dems Looking To Recruit Failed Presidential Contender To Take On John Cornyn

Beto O'Rourke

Texas

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about the failure of Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. Video and partial transcript below: 
But on that point, on 2020, on the leader of the free world and the hope for the future and the hope for 2020: Another one bites the dust. You&#8217;ve probably already seen this going around the Internet, Kamala Harris is officially out of the race. 
It&#8217;s not significant, in terms of the actual election — no one thought that Kamala Harris was going to be able to claw her way out of the 2% in the polls that she had, but it does say something about the state of the Democratic Party right now. The fact that her candidacy flopped, her candidacy — which looked very good on paper — flopped. Tells you a lot about where we are. 
Why did the candidacy look good on paper? Because the Left is obsessed with identity politics, racial identity, and sexual identity politics. Obviously, Kamala Harris checks those boxes. The Left is obsessed with unfettered immigration; Kamala Harris is the child of immigrants. In terms of presidential appeal, in terms of how these races tend to work, if you&#8217;ve been on the scene too long, generally that doesn&#8217;t bode well for you, especially in the Democratic Party. 
Now think of Barack Obama, [who] goes up against Hillary Clinton. We all knew Hillary forever, she&#8217;d been around since the dawn of time &#8230; Barack Obama, very little was known about him, and that actually helped him. He was a better candidate because people didn&#8217;t know that much about him. They could project their hopes and dreams onto him — hope and change was the big theme of that campaign. 
Same thing was true of Kamala Harris. People didn&#8217;t really know who she was. She was an attractive-looking candidate. She sounded pretty good when she wasn&#8217;t giving that awful cackling laugh, she had been attorney general, she had been a prosecutor, she had been a senator for about five minutes. Everything looked good about her campaign, except ideologically because Kamala Harris couldn&#8217;t pick a lane. 
This could be the name of the 2020 Democratic primary — “Can you pick a lane?” Pick-a-lane primary, no one&#8217;s able to do it. They&#8217;re all veering left, they&#8217;re all veering center. Liz Warren, is she going to be a kind of establishment Harvard professor, or is she gonna be this radical leftist trying to go to the left? Bernie Sanders — Mayor Pete, is Mayor Pete going to be this radical person saying that if you don&#8217;t support abortion and gay marriage, you&#8217;re not a Christian? Or is he going to be the moderate guy in Joe Biden&#8217;s lane? Joe Biden himself, who is the moderate in the race, is Joe Biden going to lean into being a moderate, or is he going to support lifting the ban on taxpayer funding for abortion? That&#8217;s the trouble with this race. 
One thing we&#8217;re seeing is it doesn&#8217;t hurt you to be in either of those lanes when Joe Biden is playing the moderate. He generally does pretty well when Bernie Sanders is playing the leftist — he generally does pretty well. But when you start to veer left and center and left and center, that&#8217;s when you fall apart, and that&#8217;s what happened to Kamala Harris. 
Kamala Harris lost because of her own weaknesses — she also lost because Tulsi Gabbard absolutely shanked her during one of the Democratic debates. You can almost pinpoint there — there are two moments, I think that you can pinpoint when Kamala Harris’ campaign completely fell apart. One of them [was] at the hands of Tulsi Gabbard on CNN. 
<blockquote>GABBARD: Senator Harris says she&#8217;s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she&#8217;ll be a prosecutor president, but I&#8217;m deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite, but she put over fifteen hundred people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana. She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so, she kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep a cash bail system in place that impacts people in the worst kind of way.
GABBARD: When you are in a position to make a difference and an impact in these people&#8217;s lives, you did not. And worse yet, in the case of those who were on death row, innocent people — you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do. So there is no excuse for that, and the people who suffered under your reign as prosecutor, you owe them an apology. </blockquote>
Tulsi, stop it! Stop it, Tulsi, she’s already dead! So this was the attack, the attack on Kamala. Kamala was a cop, Kamala is too tough on crime, Kamala was throwing people into the prison system — that was the attack from the Left, which is funny that it&#8217;s made by Tulsi Gabbard, who is ostensibly more to the right of the Democratic Party on a number of issues. That was the hit that they were putting on Kamala. It worked very well, because Kamala played her whole campaign as though she&#8217;s going to prosecute the case against Donald Trump. 
Right, she&#8217;s the tough prosecutor, she&#8217;s the serious candidate, she&#8217;s she&#8217;s not one of these hippy-dippy candidates, she&#8217;s going to be really tough. And what Tulsi Gabbard did is she didn&#8217;t go for Kamala’s weaknesses, exactly. She went for her strengths — Kamala is running, “I&#8217;m the ex-attorney general, had a good career as a prosecutor,” and Tulsi goes for that strength. Now, if Kamala were a smart candidate, she would have leaned into that. She would have said “Yes, damn right, I put criminals in jail and I&#8217;m going to put the biggest criminal in America who&#8217;s sitting in the White House, whose name is Donald Trump. I know, put that guy in jail.” It would have kind of done what Donald Trump did in 2016, right. 
Donald Trump in 2016, when Hillary Clinton said, “I don&#8217;t want to live in an America where you&#8217;re president,” Trump said, “Yeah, that&#8217;s because you&#8217;d be in jail.” He&#8217;s leaning right into it, that&#8217;s what Kamala Harris should have done. Instead, she didn&#8217;t, she goes on the Breakfast Club, this popular radio show, and talks about how much she loves smoking joints, and blunts, and listening to Snoop Dogg. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

UCFW Hosts Democratic Presidential Candidates At &#8220;Future Of Work&#8221; Forum In Iowa

KNOWLES: Another One Bites The Dust

Kamala Harris

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is vehemently pro-abortion. And she wants everyone to know.
At a town hall in Iowa over the weekend, the Massachusetts Democrat was asked by a supporter: &#8220;I was wondering what your plans are to make reproductive health care accessible to all women, no matter their economic status and/or racial background?&#8221;
&#8220;Oh that&#8217;s fabulous!&#8221; the effusive candidate said. &#8220;OK. So, can I do a small pitch to start?&#8221;
Then Warren recounted a story about attending President Trump&#8217;s inauguration. &#8220;I come from a witnessing tradition. This is a part of the transfer of power in our government,&#8221; she said.
&#8220;But it was important to me what I wore,&#8221; she told the group of supporters, prompting laughter. &#8220;I&#8217;ll tell you what I wore. I wore my scarf that has in big letters on it, embroidered, Planned Parenthood.&#8221; She then thrust a fist into the sky as the crowd cheered (&#8220;Yeah, abortion!&#8221;).
The next day, Warren said, she attended the Women&#8217;s March. &#8220;I spoke and I wore my pink Planned Parenthood scarf. Now that&#8217;s two. So here&#8217;s my plan for number three. I&#8217;m gonna be wearing that scarf when I&#8217;m sworn in as president of the United States.&#8221; Huge cheers.
Warren is apparently already measuring the drapes in the Oval Office. She often talks about when she&#8217;ll do various things as president.
In the same speech in Iowa, Warren said she&#8217;ll <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/knowles-liz-warren-needs-radical-proposals-to-stay-relevant">do away with the Electoral College</a> set up by America&#8217;s Founding Fathers.
“My goal is to get elected — but I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College. I want my second term to be elected by direct vote,” Warren said during the campaign event. “I want to get rid of it. I just think this is how a democracy should work. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win.”
Under the Constitution, the Electoral College is comprised of a temporary group of electors equal to the total number of representatives in Congress — with each state getting the same number of electoral votes as it has members of Congress. Most states have systems in which the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a state wins all that state&#8217;s electoral votes. In modern times, whoever gets to 270 of the 538 total electoral votes wins the White House.
Just five times in history has a presidential candidate won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. It happened in 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more than 65 million votes and President Trump got more than 63 million votes, but Trump won the Electoral College by a vote of 304–227. Democrats want to do away with the Electoral College in order to take away power from smaller, rural states and give more clout to states with larger, more urban populations.
Warren also said in her speech that she plans to wipe away the student debt of 43 million Americans. The price tag is astronomical. &#8220;The average American household with student loan debt owes almost $50,000, according to figures published by personal finance website <a href="https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt/">NerdWallet</a>, and a total of $1.6 trillion of debt still has to be paid back by approximately 43 million borrowers,&#8221; Evan Stern wrote in the <a href="https://www.michigandaily.com/section/columns/evan-stern-why-forgiving-student-loan-debt-bad-idea">Michigan Daily</a>.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren Campaigns In Iowa

Elizabeth Warren Vows To Wear Pro-Abortion Scarf When Sworn In As President

Abortion

Leftism

Planned Parenthood

Progressivism

Women's March

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about Elizabeth Warren’s plan to get rid of the electoral college. Video and partial transcript below: 
Liz Warren, who&#8217;s now considered a top-tier candidate — all sizzle, no steak. In the case of Elizabeth Warren, it&#8217;s all smoke signals, no peyote. Elizabeth Warren comes out a couple of weeks ago, she unveils her health care plan, and this gets her a lot of attention. [It’s a] $52 trillion dollar plan, she has no idea how she&#8217;s going to pay for it — she says that she&#8217;s going to pay for it by taxing billionaires. 
That doesn&#8217;t make any sense — 621 billionaires in the country, their combined net worth is about $3.2 trillion. If she took away all of their money, it wouldn&#8217;t get her through one year of her plan. But it gets a lot of attention, she&#8217;s rising up — all the momentum&#8217;s with Elizabeth Warren. Then, once people stop and consider that plan, she starts to tank in the polls. 
Once you get into this cycle, once you get into the cycle of requiring all of this just negative attention and attention at all costs to stay relevant, to stay in the headlines — it creates a very vicious cycle. So now she&#8217;s out of the news for a little bit, all that good press that came quickly has fizzled, so she&#8217;s trying to recapture it by even more radical plans. She just endorsed, the other day, getting rid of the Electoral College. 
Here she is:
<blockquote>QUESTIONER: As a presidential candidate, what are your thoughts on the Electoral College? 
WARREN: I want to get rid of it. So here&#8217;s my goal: My goal is to get elected, and then to be the last American president elected by the Electoral College. &#8230; I want the second term to be that I got elected by direct vote, I’m ready … popular vote. I just think this is how our democracy should work. &#8230; Call me old-fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win. </blockquote>
That doesn&#8217;t make a lot of sense for a number of reasons. First of all, call me old-fashioned, but I think that we should overturn over 200 years of American precedent in electing our president? That doesn&#8217;t make any sense. If you were old-fashioned, you would support this institution, the Electoral College, which has served our country very, very well since its Founding. But she won&#8217;t do that. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TFJUwlWR-qo?start=625" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
It&#8217;s amazing, they talk about how Donald Trump is overturning norms and traditions in our country. &#8220;It&#8217;s totally, totally unprecedented! He&#8217;s a radical! He&#8217;s overturning norms!” These people are trying to overturn all of the basic norms of our country. They&#8217;re trying to overturn the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Electoral College, trying to overturn all of these things, and yet they attack Trump for it. 
This point she&#8217;s making, though, doesn&#8217;t make a lot of sense for another reason. She says the electoral college is totally corrupt, it&#8217;s terrible, it’s an awful thing, it&#8217;s undemocratic. So she&#8217;s saying, [paraphrasing] “I want to when I get elected, I promise to abolish that corrupt, terrible, undemocratic, untrustworthy institution that elected me president.” That doesn&#8217;t have a whole lot of ring to it, doesn&#8217;t make sense. 
The argument, at least from the Left or the only people making this argument — the argument to get rid of the Electoral College — is that there&#8217;s no way Democrats can win with the Electoral College, because we&#8217;ve now twice had a situation in the last 30 years —  or last 20 years, I guess — where a president got elected, even though he lost the popular vote. 
We don&#8217;t elect presidents on the popular vote. We are the United States of America, not the United People of America. We have a federal system here, and the vote for president is more complicated than just some guy going to the polls so that New York, and L.A., and San Francisco [don’t] dominate every presidential election. But, if the argument is that Democrats can&#8217;t win with the Electoral College, and then a Democrat wins with the Electoral College, then the argument for getting rid of the Electoral College sort of goes away. It&#8217;s radical. 
She just needs to say it to get more press because she&#8217;s lost a little bit of her momentum. Again, polls keep showing that people don&#8217;t want this kind of radicalism. The problem for these candidates is they require the radicalism to stay in the news. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Holds A Town Hall In South Carolina

KNOWLES: Liz Warren Needs Radical Proposals To Stay Relevant

Democratic Socialism

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has been &#8220;highly critical&#8221; of President Trump and has consistently voted for Democratic presidents, but he has a strong warning for the House Judiciary Committee on the first day of its impeachment hearings: While President Trump&#8217;s July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart was &#8220;anything but perfect,&#8221; the Democrats have simply failed to obtain the adequate evidence to make a case for such a serious action as removing the sitting president of the United States. To push this impeachment forward, Turley warns, is &#8220;dangerous.&#8221;
The four impeachment witnesses for the Judiciary Committee-led hearing Wednesday are all law professors, and three of them, selected by Democrats, are expected to heartily endorse the Democrats&#8217; impeachment effort.
Only the lone Republican-selected witness allowed by the Democrats to testify Wednesday, Turley — a self-described Trump critic and Democratic voter — will push back agains the Democrats&#8217; impeachment campaign.
The impeachment &#8220;is not wrong because President Trump is right,&#8221; says Turley in his 53-page <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-d0e8-dc46-a9ff-ffeb787a0000&amp;nname=huddle&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b4be0000&amp;nrid=0000014c-2414-d9dd-a5ec-34bc52a40001&amp;nlid=630309">opening statement</a>. While Trump&#8217;s famous call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was &#8220;anything but perfect,&#8221; Turley argues, and a case for impeachment &#8220;could be made,&#8221; &#8220;it cannot be made on this record,&#8221; as all of the evidence has been second-hand at best.
After explaining that he&#8217;s been &#8220;highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns,&#8221; and voted against him in the 2016 election — and for both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama before that — Turley makes the case that what the Democrats are doing by pushing forward with the partisan impeachment of Trump is actually &#8220;dangerous&#8221;:
<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<blockquote>I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.
To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.7 That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Of course, Turley&#8217;s fellow expert witnesses called to testify by Democrats Wednesday disagree. In fact, University of North Carolina&#8217;s Michael Gerhardt believes that not only are Trump&#8217;s actions impeachable, they&#8217;re &#8220;worse than the misconduct of any prior president.&#8221;
&#8220;The president’s serious misconduct, including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power, and obstructing justice and Congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president,&#8221; the law professor asserts in his prepared remarks, as reported by <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/trump-impeachment-next-phase-removal-075013">Politico</a>.
<div class="teads-inread xs-screen">
&#8220;If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning,&#8221; Gerhardt declares.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nadler-drops-rare-cuss-word-while-prepping-fellow-democrats-for-impeachment-hearing">Nadler Drops ‘Rare Cuss Word’ While Prepping Fellow Democrats For Impeachment Hearing</a>
<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Jonathan Turley

Trump-Critic Impeachment Witness To Democrats: Sorry, You Just Don’t Have The Evidence To Impeach

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-kamala-harris-drops-out-of-presidential-race">dropped out</a> of the 2020 presidential race on Tuesday despite being once having exceedingly high hopes to reach the White House.
Those dreams have been dashed now, and some identity politics pushers on the Left have already lamented that the 2020 race is now headed by a bunch of white people.
&#8220;Kamala Harris officially ended her campaign today, which means that all of the candidates who currently qualify for the December Democratic debate are white (Sanders, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer). White supremacy is not just a Fox News problem, folks,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/1201930900445057024?s=20">tweeted journalist</a> Lauren Duca.
&#8220;Obviously I’m no centrist but it’s downright effed up that smart, compelling, *very* experienced, centrist Democratic candidates of color are floundering while a smart but wildly inexperienced, centrist white mayor of teeny tiny city is surging. Bad look, Democrats,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/sallykohn/status/1201930298482741248?s=20">tweeted LGBT activist</a> Sally Kohn.
&#8220;Kamala Harris’ campaign was historic — a black and South Asian female candidate whose potential seemed sky high early on. Her dropping out means that every candidate that’s qualified so far for the next debate is white: Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer, and Warren,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/1201935814197940225?s=20">tweeted CNN correspondent</a> MJ Lee. 
&#8220;Kamala Harris dropping out of the race while only white candidates qualify for the next presidential debate shows that white privilege and white supremacy cut across party lines. It’s not just Trump. We have a racism problem in all of the United States of America, and it sucks,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1201939626199379968?s=20">tweeted SJW activist</a> Dr. Eugene Gu. 
&#8220;I’m not a Kamala Harris fan (Bernie 2020), but it’s quite telling that the only Black woman has dropped out while a host of mediocre white men are still in, wasting our time with their inflated egos,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/RebeccaforWA/status/1201941070776397824?s=20">tweeted congressional candidate</a> Rebecca Parsons. 
Upon announcing her withdrawal from the 2020 race, Harris said the lack of &#8220;financial resources&#8221; motivated the decision.
“I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life,” Harris wrote on <a href="https://medium.com/@KamalaHarris/i-am-suspending-my-campaign-today-6dca8cefb252">Medium</a>. “My campaign for the presidency simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue.”
“I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign,” continued Harris. “As the campaign has gone, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.”
Indeed, the senator&#8217;s use of the word &#8220;billionaire&#8221; has induced some leftists into blaming her eventual dropout on the Democratic Party donor class, rather than her low polling numbers.
&#8220;The fact that [Gillibrand] and [Harris] both dropped out of the race before the billionaire white guys who bought their way in and are funding their continued stay tells you every damn thing you need to know about our f***ed up political system,&#8221; tweeted <a href="https://twitter.com/DCampoamor/status/1201926161770659841?s=20">Danielle Campoamor of The New York Times</a>. 
&#8220;Two SITTING WOMEN SENATORS, Gillibrand and Harris, were forced out of this race while non-office-holders Bloomberg and Steyer bought their way in. And it&#8217;s not just because they can, but because our broken system continues to allows white, male billionaires like them to do it,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=billionaire&amp;src=typed_query">tweeted</a> Lauren Rankin.
A civil war seems to be brewing within the Democratic Party ranks.

US-VOTE-2020-DEMOCRATS-DEBATE-POLITICS

Democrats Freak After Kamala Harris Drops Out: 2020 Race Now Dominated By Old White Men

Bernie Sanders

Joe Biden

Michael Bloomberg

Tom Steyer

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced on Tuesday that she is suspending her presidential campaign. 
“I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life,” Harris wrote on <a href="https://medium.com/@KamalaHarris/i-am-suspending-my-campaign-today-6dca8cefb252">Medium</a>. “My campaign for presidency simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue.”
“I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign,” continues Harris. “As the campaign has gone, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.”
Before the announcement, Harris had pulled out of a high-profile donor event early Tuesday morning, according to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-cancels-new-york-fundraiser-as-2020-campaign-in-turmoil.html">CNBC</a>. Shortly after, she began informing her campaign staff that she would be withdrawing from the race for financial reasons, according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/784443227/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-presidential-race">NPR</a>.
The decision to withdraw from the race comes amidst reports of poor leadership and discipline at the Harris campaign. As <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105">Politico</a> reported last month, the power dynamic between two senior staffers — Juan Rodridguez, the campaign manager, and Maya Harris, the campaign chairwoman and younger sister to Kamala Harris — was especially problematic.
The turmoil resulted in Kelly Mehlenbacher, the Iowa operations director for Harris, opting to resign shortly after the campaign decided to focus all of its efforts on Iowa, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unacceptable-top-harris-aide-writes-scathing-resignation-letter">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported. 
Although Harris implies in her announcement that she may have been a more viable candidate with more financial support, many people first noticed that Harris was a flawed candidate after she failed to adequately respond to attacks on her record by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) at the July presidential debate, despite having prepared for the topic to arise, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html">The New York Times</a>. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-most-searched-name-google-once-again-paul-bois">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Gabbard took a sledgehammer to Harris: 
<blockquote>GABBARD: But I’m deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.
She blocked evidence — she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.</blockquote>
The exchange helped make Gabbard the most-searched candidate of the night on Google. After the debate, Harris fired back at Gabbard by calling herself a “top-tier candidate.&#8221;
“This is going to sound immodest, but I’m obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next debate,” Gabbard told CNN’s Anderson Cooper after the debate, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455691-harris-responds-to-gabbard-criticism-im-obviously-a-top-tier-candidate-so-i">The Hill</a>. “Especially when people are at zero or 1 percent or whatever she might be at, and so I did expect that I might take hits tonight.”
The next Democratic debate will be held in Los Angeles in mid-December, and will thus far feature six candidates: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/tom-steyer-qualifies-for-december-debate-074874">Politico</a>. The news agency also notes that Gabbard and Andrew Yang are on the “precipice” of making it, and both only require one additional qualifying poll.

Kamala Harris Drops Out Of Presidential Race

Former Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s once-solid double-digit lead over the rest of the field of 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominees shrunk, over the latter parts of the summer, before dramatically re-expanding over the past two months. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Biden currently stands 11.0% above second-place Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)</a> in the average of recent national polling. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg round out the top five in most recent national polling. Buttigieg, in particular, has been dramatically surging in the crucial early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Biden&#8217;s once-formidable lead has faltered over the dog days of summer, but it has since grown back substantially from a recent nadir of less than 1%. Warren generally emerged over the latter parts of the summer as a frontrunner, although her national polling has dropped off considerably over the past couple of months. Biden&#8217;s consistent polling has remained relatively unaffected by the Ukraine/impeachment scandal — perhaps to the surprise of many pundits who thought he would ultimately have to be dumped by Democrats as a sacrificial lamb of sorts. Right now, it seems that all the momentum in the race is actually with Buttigieg — with Warren being a remnant of the summer. Bloomberg is also a candidate to keep a close eye upon.
Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> now finally has Biden as its frontrunner, after months of showing Warren as the frontrunner. Buttigieg, Warren, and Sanders all follow fairly closely after Biden — with Bloomberg not terribly far behind.
The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average for 11/21/19 – 12/01/19 shows Biden with an average national polling lead of 11.0%.
A recent <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/472629-bloomberg-overtakes-harris-in-new-poll">Hill/HarrisX</a> national poll conducted from 11/30/19 – 12/01/19 showed Biden, at 31%, with a 16-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up five points on Warren and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/">Politico/Morning Consult</a> national poll conducted from 11/25/19 – 12/01/19 showed Biden, at 29%, with a nine-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up five points on Warren and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a10nw9wbas/econTabReport.pdf">Economist/YouGov</a> national poll conducted from 11/24/19 – 11/26/19 showed Biden, at 23%, with a six-point lead over Warren. Warren was up two points on Sanders, and Sanders was up three points on Buttigieg.
A recent <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3650">Quinnipiac</a> national poll conducted from 11/21/19 – 11/25/19 showed Biden, at 24%, with an eight-point lead over Buttigieg. Buttigieg was up two points on Warren, and Warren was up one point on Sanders.
A recent <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/cnn-2020-poll-data-doc/index.html">CNN</a> national poll conducted from 11/21/19 – 11/24/19 showed Biden, at 28%, with an 11-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up three points on Warren, and Warren was up three points on Buttigieg.
A recent <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=1a56d146-5d59-4e5f-a9fa-78219f1ff42f">SurveyUSA</a> national poll conducted from 11/20/19 – 11/21/19 showed Biden at 30%, with a 13-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up two points on Warren, and Warren was up four points on Buttigieg.
A recent <a href="https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary">Emerson</a> national poll conducted from 11/17/19 – 11/20/19 showed Biden and Sanders tied at 27% apiece. Warren was seven points behind and no one else polled in double digits.
Will Warren and Biden remain the two frontrunners? Will Buttigieg&#8217;s remarkable Iowa surge continue to hold? Stay tuned.
Latest Aggregate Early State-By-State Polling Data
Iowa: Buttigieg 24.0%, Sanders 18.3%, Warren 17.7%, Biden 16.3%, Klobuchar 5.3%
New Hampshire: Buttigieg 20.0%, Sanders 17.0%, Warren 14.3%, Biden 13.7%, Gabbard 5.0%
Nevada: Biden 29.0%, Warren 20.0%, Sanders 19.8%, Buttigieg 7.3%, Harris 4.0%
South Carolina: Biden 35.3%, Warren 16.3%, Sanders 12.8%, Buttigieg 6.5%, Harris 6.3%
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Detroit Over Two Nights

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

Pete Buttigieg

There are, at last count, 1,487 people running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Actually, there are 16. More than half of them barely register on surveys of voters. Take the latest <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/cnn-2020-poll-data-doc/index.html">CNN</a> poll: Only four candidates reach double figures, with all the rest in single digits — and a few at zero.
Enter two guys you didn&#8217;t even know were running who have now announced that they&#8217;re dropping out.
One is Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who announced on Monday that he is ending his campaign, saying &#8220;it’s become clear that he won’t have a shot at being his party’s nominee,&#8221; the <a href="https://apnews.com/95053a997d7c4cadae475736d10dd71c">Associated Press</a> reports.
&#8220;The two-term governor and former state attorney general tried to make the case that he was the best bet to beat President Donald Trump because he was the only Democratic candidate to win in a state that Trump won in 2016. But he got a late start, announcing his candidacy in May and joining nearly two dozen other Democratic candidates competing for attention and campaign donations,&#8221; said the AP.
In that CNN poll, Bullock registered at 0% in a June poll, then skyrocketed to 1% in a August poll, but then dropped back to 0% for the next three months.
That led Bullock to an epiphany.
“While there were many obstacles we could not have anticipated when entering this race, it has become clear that in this moment, I won’t be able to break through to the top tier of this still-crowded field of candidates,” Bullock said in a statement. &#8220;I entered this race as a voice to win back the places we lost, bridge divides and rid our system of the corrupting influence of dark money. While the concerns that propelled me to enter in the first place have not changed, I leave this race filled with gratitude and optimism, inspired and energized by the good people I&#8217;ve had the privilege of meeting over the course of the campaign.&#8221;
Then there&#8217;s Joe Sestak. He polled at 0% throughout the CNN surveys. He blamed the media.
&#8220;Without the privilege of national press, it is unfair to ask others to husband their resolve and to sacrifice resources any longer,&#8221; Sestak told supporters by email, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/joe-sestak-drops-out-democratic-presidential-campaign-n1093811">NBC News</a> reported.
&#8220;I want to thank you for the honor of running for President of the United States of America,&#8221; said the retired three-star U.S. Navy admiral who served for two terms as congressman from Pennsylvania. &#8220;It has been an endeavor filled with immeasurable wisdom, passions, humor and insights to, and from, the people of America.&#8221;
&#8220;A moral compass for our great ship of state is the beacon most needed today. And it is for the Captain of State who offers it that all Americans will provide the fair winds and following seas to advance us,&#8221; Sestak added. &#8220;That is necessary for us both at home and abroad, to convene the world to advance our policies and commitment to democratic values for our collective good.&#8221;
In his campaign, Sestak hauled in less than $500,000.
There are now 12 Democrats who have dropped out, including two other guys you&#8217;ve never heard of, Wayne Messam, the mayor of Miramar, Fla., and Richard Ojeda, a former West Virginia state senator.

Steve Bullock

These Two Guys You Didn’t Even Know Were Running Just Dropped Out Of 2020 Race

The only thing bipartisan about the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump has been the opposition. While not a single House Republican voted to move forward with the official inquiry, the same can&#8217;t be said for the other side of the aisle in voting against the move. Two Democratic representatives opposed the inquiry, and now, with Republicans still apparently unified against impeachment, one of those Democratic dissenters is explaining why he continues to oppose impeaching the president after the public hearings.
With the hearings having failed to move the needle with the public — in fact more polls show support for impeachment slipping than holding steady after the public testimony — <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/01/democratic-lawmaker-trump-unsavory-not-impeachable/2567848001/">USA Today</a> published an interview Sunday with one of the two Democratic inquiry opposers, New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew.
In the interview, the congressman expressed a sentiment that will only make his fellow Democrats even more nervous as public support for impeachment wains: Trump&#8217;s actions involving Ukraine and a potential investigation into the corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden are &#8220;unsavory&#8221; but not impeachable.
Of all the Democratic members of Congress, only Van Drew and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson voted against the impeachment inquiry. After his fellow Democrats&#8217; best efforts to make the case for impeachment to the American public, Van Drew revealed in the interview Sunday that his position hasn&#8217;t changed.
&#8220;While he considers the president&#8217;s actions on Ukraine &#8216;unsavory,&#8217; the congressman said he has yet to learn of anything that would persuade him Trump did something to warrant removal from office,&#8221; USA Today&#8217;s Ledyard King reports. &#8220;No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a &#8216;small, elite group&#8217; of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.&#8221;
“To some folks, that’s reminiscent of what was done to kings and queens many years ago,&#8221; Van Drew said. &#8220;Everything our country doesn’t stand for.&#8221;
While he dislikes Trump&#8217;s &#8220;rudeness,&#8221; Van Drew said, his &#8220;job isn’t really to like or dislike him.&#8221;
&#8220;My job is to exact as much goodwill and help for my district and for this nation and for this world that I possibly can while he’s president,&#8221; he explained.
Van Drew&#8217;s opposition to the impeachment inquiry has not gone unnoticed by President Trump, who tweeted out his past comments about the time and money his party had already wasted on their investigation.
&#8220;We’ve spent millions of dollars, in my opinion, tons of money, tons of time, tons of hurt, fracturing the nation apart. I haven’t seen this to be a good thing,&#8221; said the congressman in a quote tweeted out by Trump on Nov. 19.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Congressman Van Drew (D-NJ): We’ve spent millions of Dollars, in my opinion, tons of money, tons of time, tons of hurt, fracturing the Nation apart. I haven’t seen this to be a good thing.”
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1196977794183499776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Van Drew&#8217;s &#8220;unsavory but not impeachable&#8221; stance is what Democrats have feared will be the takeaway from the widely panned hearings, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/another-poll-shows-strong-non-white-support-for-trump">polls show</a> have encouraged more people to oppose impeachment than support it.
Democrats have also been unsuccessful in winning over any Republicans, as King underscores in his report on the interview with Van Drew. &#8220;Potential GOP defectors, such as Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, have shown no inclination to support impeachment,&#8221; writes King, who quotes Hurd taking aim at the Democrats&#8217; key allegations.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion,&#8221; said Rep. Hurd, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/another-poll-shows-strong-non-white-support-for-trump">ANOTHER Poll Shows Strong Non-White Support For Trump</a>

Jeff Van Drew

Democrat Explains Why He’s Voting Against Impeaching Trump

&#8220;We must face the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis,&#8221; House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in January in her opening address to Congress. &#8220;The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.&#8221;
But that&#8217;s for you people. See, there are different rules for Pelosi and her Democrats than there are for you, the hoi polloi.
After spending all their time trying to impeach President Trump, the Democrats in the House headed out on a two-week vacation. And what Pelosi likes to do when the House is in recess is travel the world on the taxpayers&#8217; dime.
They&#8217;re called congressional delegations, or CoDels for short. Wiktionary gives a handy definition: &#8220;Government-paid trips abroad, designed to give lawmakers first-hand knowledge of matters relevant to their legislation.&#8221;
And perhaps they once were that. But nowadays, an awful lot of CoDels end up in Venice or Paris or Rome. Of course, CoDel participants travel first class, often in government planes, and they don&#8217;t stay at the Days Inn.
So, with the fate of America hanging in the balance, Pelosi and more than a dozen Democrats find it absolutely imperative to jet off to Madrid, Spain, to talk about &#8230; climate change.
That&#8217;s right. Pelosi was set to fly out on Sunday with a 13 other Democrats on a smoke-spewing jet or three, burning that evil fossil fuel, heading 3,781 miles across the Atlantic to the United Nations COP25 climate change conference in Madrid.
The conference, which will draw 25,000 people and 1,500 journalists, will &#8220;seek to place financial penalties on global commercial aviation to stop people flying and making &#8216;unnecessary contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution,'&#8221; <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/01/pelosi-flying-out-with-democracts-to-u-n-climate-meeting-in-spain/">Breitbart</a> reports.
The members of the taxpayer-funded Pelosi Democrat delegation include:
<ul>
<li>Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)</li>
<li>Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)</li>
<li>Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Committee on Energy and Commerce</li>
<li>Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Committee on Science, Space, Technology</li>
<li>Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Committee on Natural Resources</li>
<li>Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-FL), Select Committee on the Climate Crisis</li>
<li>Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN)</li>
<li>Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)</li>
<li>Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA)</li>
<li>Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA)</li>
<li>Congressman Scott Peters (D-CA)</li>
<li>Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI)</li>
<li>Congressman Mike Levin (D-CA)</li>
<li>Congressman Sean Casten (D-IL)</li>
<li>Congressman Joe Neguse (D-CO)</li>
</ul>
&#8220;On behalf of the United States Congress, I extend my gratitude to the Spanish government for hosting this critical meeting, and for elevating the priority of the climate crisis to the forefront of the international conversation,&#8221; Pelosi said Saturday in a statement.
“Taking action to protect our planet is a public health decision for clean air and clean water for our children, an economic decision for creating the green, good-paying jobs of the future, a national security decision to address resource competition and climate migration and also a moral decision to be good stewards of God’s creation and pass a sustainable, healthy planet to the next generation,” Pelosi said in a statement.

US-POLITICS-PELOSI

HYPOCRISY: Pelosi, 13 Democrats To Fly To U.N. Climate Meeting In Spain

Climate Change

Is it just me, or has it also occurred to you that Democrats, in this all-important year leading up to the 2020 election, rarely talk about policy issues? They are exclusively focused on removing President Donald Trump, and they only discuss policy during their somniferous debates.
In the Democrats&#8217; defense, their mainstream media bosses cover nothing but Trump and Trump crucified. Also, some Democratic Party leaders probably realize that their ideas don&#8217;t fully resonate with the people and so it is in their interests to keep the focus on Trump.
But to their surprise, it seems they have made a grave tactical error in putting all their rotten eggs in the impeachment basket. Polls indicate their strategy has backfired, especially among independents and particularly in the swing states.
Perhaps people are sensing that the Democrats are focused more on Trump than on solving the nation&#8217;s problems. Only if you believe — as do the Democrats&#8217; leftist base and Republican never-Trumpers — that Trump is the nation&#8217;s major problem will this myopic approach likely appeal to you. Most people, however, aren&#8217;t neurotically obsessed with Trump and still care about the economy, the border, abortion, guns, foreign policy and other issues.
But let&#8217;s step back a minute. Is the Democrats&#8217; decision to fixate on alleged Trump corruption just a matter of strategy, or could it be just as much an organic development flowing from the same extreme mindset that drives their policy agenda? Could it also be that they are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas that they think they don&#8217;t have to spend as much time selling them? Even though some Democratic Party leaders are nervous, they are prisoners of their base and their media masters.
I believe the radical leftist ideology thus dominating the Democratic Party leads to the left&#8217;s malice toward Trump, which actually has far less to do with his so-called coarseness than with his steadfast and mostly successful opposition to the party&#8217;s policy agenda.
Leftists aren&#8217;t used to losing these days. Everywhere they look, their ideas appear to be dominating. People with contrary opinions are being muzzled and shamed throughout our culture. Anyone remotely within their orbit who strays from their orthodoxy is forced to repent and apologize for their heresy.
The left has been further emboldened by former President Barack Obama&#8217;s success at cramming many of his ideas down America&#8217;s throat in his quest to fundamentally transform this nation away from its founding ideas — from identity politics to Obamacare to abortion to same-sex marriage to his war on domestic energy to an explosion of the administrative state.
It is interesting that leftists and many never-Trumpers believe that Trump supporters are a cult, robotically following their leader and mindlessly absorbing ideas of their group, when, in fact, leftists are the ones obsessed over Trump, intellectually imprisoned by their own groupthink and seeing everything through their Trump-colored lenses. They are the ones mired in their own echo chamber, largely oblivious to what makes the rest of us tick.
Proof of leftists&#8217; ideological isolation is their cluelessness about the pitfalls in pressuring Democratic Party leaders to move so far left so fast. They obviously have no idea that there are tens of millions of us out here in flyover country — and many more than you think in purple and even blue states — who haven&#8217;t given up on the ideas that make this country great and exceptional.
For all their smugness about Trump&#8217;s imminent demise and the superiority of their &#8220;enlightened&#8221; policy positions, they have an uphill battle going into 2020, which is partly attributable to their arrogant dismissal of the rest of the nation and partly to Trump&#8217;s policy successes.
As much as they&#8217;ve succeeded in indoctrinating many young Americans and others, they still have a long way to go in making their case for abortion on demand up to the point of birth and beyond; open borders; free health care, education and sanctuary for illegal aliens; socialism; single-payer health care; identity politics; gender anarchy; radical environmentalism; confiscatory taxes; and the selective suppression of speech and religious liberties.
In an open and honest airing of these ideas, Democrats still cannot win national elections. Some of the party&#8217;s old guard leaders realize this, which is why they concentrate on Trump, conceal their party&#8217;s radicalism and have recently been trying to moderate their ideas.
But they are caught between a rock and reinforced concrete. Concentrating on Trump alone isn&#8217;t working, but pivoting to their radical agenda might be even riskier, however much they try to soften it. Look for them to become even more desperate to impeach Trump, or for a bitter intramural struggle between the radical elements dominating their party and the few remaining leaders who realize that this extremism won&#8217;t yet sell nationally.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is &#8220;Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win.&#8221; Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Dem Donkey.

LIMBAUGH: Democrats Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Media Bias

Billionaire founder of BET (Black Entertainment Television) and lifelong Democrat Robert Johnson had some unwelcome comments for his fellow Democrats in a recent interview with CNBC. The current group of Democratic presidential contenders, said Johnson, is incapable of taking down Donald Trump in 2020.
&#8220;If you take a snapshot today, I don&#8217;t think that group is capable of beating Donald Trump, despite what the polls say,&#8221; Johnson told CNBC this week, in comments reported by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/29/robert-johnson-trump/">The Washington Post</a> on Friday.
&#8220;I think the president has always been in a position where it&#8217;s his to lose,&#8221; said Johnson, who the Post notes is &#8220;America&#8217;s first black billionaire.&#8221;
Part of the problem, Johnson suggested, is that the current crop of candidates have gravitated too far left, particularly for most African Americans.
&#8220;I do not see anybody in the Democratic primary race today that is enough in the center where I believe most are the voters are, and particularly where most African Americans are,&#8221; he said.
Trump&#8217;s &#8220;incendiary&#8221; rhetoric, as the Post describes it, has a &#8220;double effect,&#8221; said Johnson: It revs up his base while also prompting Democrats to overreact, which further adds to the president&#8217;s support.
Another problem for Democrats is the historically high employment numbers among African Americans, particularly African American women, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/economy/black-unemployment-rate/index.html">CNN Business</a> detailed in September (formatting adjusted):
<blockquote>Black unemployment fell to a record low in August, helped by a jump in the number of black women on the job. The unemployment rate for black workers fell to 5.5% from 6%, according to the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/economy/jobs-report-august/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Labor Department data</a>. The previous record low of 5.9% was set in May 2018. The unemployment rate for black women fell to a record 4.4% from 5.2% in July. The unemployment rate for black men crept up to 5.9% from 5.8%. But the previous month&#8217;s rate was a record, so the rate is still near its historic low.</blockquote>
And employment statistics aren&#8217;t just looking good for African Americans, Hispanics are also enjoying record numbers, as CNN explained: &#8220;Unemployment among workers who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino also fell in August to 4.2%, which matched a record low set earlier this year.&#8221;
In its report Friday, the Post makes a point of attempting to undermine Johnson&#8217;s credibility as a voice for the black community due to his billionaire status.
Johnson&#8217;s &#8220;wealth has drawn criticism from activists who say Johnson is out of touch with many African Americans when it comes to their access to wealth and opportunity,&#8221; the Post underscores, before providing a couple of disparaging quotes about Johnson from leaders of African American organizations.
&#8220;Bob Johnson is not working class. He does not reflect the issue, nor does he even seem like he has the ability to speak to the issues of the working class,&#8221; Black Voters Matter Co-Founder Tosha Brown told the Post in July.
&#8220;[W]hile Mr. Johnson may share the interests of millionaires and billionaires, he&#8217;s out of step with black voters,&#8221; said Black Pac Executive Director Adrianne Shropshire back in July.
In the interview with CNBC, Johnson also addressed Trump indicating after the 2016 election that he might offer him a cabinet position, which Johnson said he made clear he had no interest in pursuing.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tucker-carlson-real-reason-media-hates-b-s-artist-trump-is-exact-opposite-of-what-they-claim">Tucker Carlson: Real Reason Media Hates ‘B.S. Artist’ Trump Is Exact Opposite Of What They Claim</a>

Robert Johnson

BET Founder: No Current Democratic Contender Can Beat Trump

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about a report that Barack Obama fears a Bernie Sanders presidency, and that some people who voted Democrat in the last two elections may now vote Republican. Video and partial transcript below: 
The Democrats are beginning to realize that they have swung too far to the left. Barack Obama, of all people, is telling Democrats that they&#8217;ve swung too far to the left. Politico had an article yesterday in which Barack Obama&#8217;s aides were quoted as saying that Obama might have stepped in the middle of this presidential race to stop Bernie Sanders if he thought Sanders was going to be the nominee. 
According to Ryan Lizza, his report over at <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/26/barack-obama-2020-democrats-candidates-biden-073025">Politico</a>, back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him. One adviser told Lizza he “can&#8217;t really confirm that,” [and] “he hasn&#8217;t said that directly to me,” said the adviser. “The only reason I&#8217;m hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we&#8217;d all have to say something, but I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s likely. It&#8217;s not happening.”
The Democrats [are] beginning to realize that the full-scale embrace of &#8220;Medicare-for-All&#8221; democratic socialism is not going to be a successful strategy. This is particularly true in the swing states. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hBMZk58XHRI?start=1497" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
[There’s also a] really interesting article by Nate Cohn and Claire Miller over at The New York Times today called “They voted Democratic. Now they support Trump,” talking about how in 2018, a bunch of people who&#8217;d supported Trump in 2016 voted for the Democrats, and now they&#8217;re swinging back to Trump for 2020. 
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html">The New York Times:</a>
<blockquote>Success in the midterms might not mean as much for Democratic presidential candidates as the party might think. Nearly two-thirds of voters in six battleground states who voted for Trump in 2016 — but for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 — say they intend to back the president against each of his top rivals, according to recent polling by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College.
The results suggest that the party&#8217;s winning formula in last year&#8217;s midterm elections may not be so easy to replicate in a presidential election. The Democrats’ relatively moderate House candidates succeeded in large part by flipping a crucial segment of voters who backed the president in 2016. If those voters remain open minded again in 2020, Democrats will have a ready-made blueprint for winning back the crucial Rust Belt battleground.
This group is only a sliver of the electorate — 2% of registered voters — and is not representative of all voters. They are overwhelmingly white, 60% are male, and two-thirds have no college degree. But the president&#8217;s strength among them helps explain why he is highly competitive in states the Democrats carried just one year ago.
Many of the voters who said they voted Democratic but now intended to vote for Mr. Trump offered explanations that reflect long standing theories about why the party out of power tends to excel in midterms.</blockquote>
So, for example, some of these Democrats — people who voted Democrat in 2018 — suggested that congressional Democrats had pledged to bring jobs back. Some of them had sought to balance out Trump by splitting the ticket — they&#8217;re voting Democrat for Congress, but Republican for the presidency. And, it turns out, a lot of these people just believe that the Democrats have lost touch with the generic swing state voter. 
Some voters say they&#8217;re preparing to take the leap to vote for Trump after supporting both Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. In the survey from The New York Times, “7% of people who supported Mrs. Clinton in 2016 said they now approved of the president&#8217;s performance — despite his personality and his Twitter account, many said.”
Juli Anna California, 57, a nurse from Coral Springs, Florida, said “In 2016, I hated both candidates” [and] “I went with Hillary because Trump had no history as a politician.” “He&#8217;s not exactly the person I&#8217;d have as my best friend,” [she said of Trump], “but he&#8217;s a great president. Most politicians just talk about doing things, but Trump does them.” 
People on the Democratic side also liked Trump&#8217;s talk about the unions and trade, so in other words, Trump is running pretty durable in the swing states that he actually needs to win, which is pretty fascinating.
One of the reasons why you&#8217;re seeing Democrats embracing, at an electoral level, Biden and Buttigieg — the support level for those two candidates is far greater than the support level for Warren and Sanders in the latest polling data, which means that the left wing of the party is actually losing. Again. There&#8217;s a reason for that, because the fact is Democrats understand that if Trump runs against the radical left of the party, he&#8217;s likely to win.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes.</a> 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Former President Obama Accepts The Paul H. Douglas Award For Ethics In Government At The University Of Illinois

SHAPIRO: Dems Sound The Alarm After Swinging Too Far Left

Barack Obama

As far-left Democrats routinely trash her for trying to appeal to moderate voters, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said that the party is essentially &#8220;disrespecting and dismissing&#8221; a huge swath of America by rejecting Fox News.
“This is why, I’ll go on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and I’m delivering the exact same message to people and we’re building and growing support in people who watch those three different channels,” Gabbard said in an appearance on Joe Rogan&#8217;s podcast. “You’re never going to be able to have a dialogue … win support from people who you treat like garbage, who you disrespect, who you call names, who you call deplorables. But how do you expect to lead as the president of every single American in this country when you’ve thrown half of them away?”
During her appearance at the last Democratic Party presidential debates, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) specifically knocked Tulsi Gabbard as some kind of traitor for making appearances on Fox News.
&#8220;It&#8217;s unfortunate that we have someone on this stage … who, during the Obama administration spent four years on Fox News criticizing President Obama,&#8221; <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-rips-tulsi-gabbard-fox-news-assad-2019-11">Harris said</a>. &#8220;What we need on this stage, in November, is someone who has the ability to win.&#8221;
Joe Rogan expressed bafflement over the fact that leftists have such hate for Fox News viewers that they will not even appear on the channel to make their political pitch.
&#8220;What’s wrong with going on camera with someone you oppose? Someone you disagree with and having a dialogue about what you disagree with? That’s the weird thing about this cancel culture, this strange time we’re living in. You’re not even supposed to communicate with people about ideas that you disagree on,” Rogan said, as reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tulsi-gabbard-defends-appearing-fox-news-democrats-dismissing-half-america">Fox News</a>.
Though Gabbard has disagreements with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, she did appreciate they could see eye-to-eye on foreign policy on a platform that speaks to millions.
“On Tucker Carlson, I have a platform to be able to speak to millions of people across the country about the kind of leadership that I bring in the area of foreign policy,” responded Gabbard. “I have the opportunity to deliver that message directly to people’s living rooms.”
“I was attacked on the debate stage for going on Fox News. How do you think you’re going to lead this country, all Americans, if you’re completely, not only shutting out and not willing to talk to half the country that watches Fox News, but you’re in fact disrespecting and dismissing them just because they may disagree with you, or they watch a different news channel,” she continued. “I think that’s the bigger issue here.”
The Democratic Party&#8217;s hatred for Fox News runs so deep that the Democratic National Committee has refused to have the channel moderate a debate for the presidential primary, which followed Sen. Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s (D-MA) earlier pledge to blacklist the network. Even the far-left hosts on &#8220;The View&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/view-slams-elizabeth-warren-not-going-fox-news-ryan-saavedra">expressed dismay</a> over the candidate&#8217;s unwillingness to make her case before the Fox News crowd.
“It may be a minority opinion, but I think that it’s being very dismissive of so many Americans for her not to go on Fox News,” co-host Sunny Hostin said. “I think if you want to be the president of the United States, for everyone, then you need to speak to everyone.”
“If you can’t face the Fox audience, you can’t face the U.S. It’s that simple,&#8221; chimed in Whoopi Goldberg.

Variety&#8217;s 3rd Annual Salute To Service

Tulsi Gabbard: Dems ‘Disrespecting And Dismissing’ Americans By Avoiding Fox News

Fox News

Tulsi Gabbard

The Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee announced on Tuesday that it is moving forward with Democrats&#8217; impeachment hearings and has scheduled hearings for next week.
Chairman Jerry Nadler sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday notifying the Trump administration that his committee had scheduled its first impeachment hearing for next Wednesday, December 4.
&#8220;The Committee intends this hearing to serve as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers&#8217; intent and understanding of terms like &#8216;high crimes and misdemeanors,'&#8221; Nadler wrote. &#8220;We expect to discuss the constitutional framework through which the House may analyze the evidence gathered in the present inquiry. We will also discuss whether your alleged actions warrant the House&#8217;s exercising its authority to adopt articles of impeachment.&#8221;
&#8220;The Committee looks forward to your participation in the impeachment inquiry as the Committee fulfills its constitutional duties,&#8221; Nadler continued. &#8220;While we invite you to this hearing, we remind you that if you continue to refuse to make witnesses and documents available to the committees of jurisdiction, under H. Res. 660, &#8216;the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies.'&#8221;
The move comes after Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee held public impeachment hearings over the last two weeks on President Donald Trump&#8217;s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
During the hearings, multiple witnesses, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEyaUW9UvAY&amp;feature=youtu.be">Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1196955065782800385">Senior NSC official Tim Morrison</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1196955065782800385">Ambassador Kurt Volker</a>, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ambassador-sondland-strikes-at-democrats-impeachment-narrative-trump-told-me-he-wanted-no-quid-pro-quo">Ambassador</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rep-mike-turner-gets-witness-to-admit-bombshell-debunks-cnn-headline-in-real-time">Gordon Sondland</a> all testified that there was no quid pro quo during the phone call.
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Adviser, released a statement last week stating that he was on the call and nothing improper took place.
“I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky,&#8221; Kellogg <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-lt-general-in-white-house-releases-statement-on-trump-ukraine-call">wrote</a>. &#8220;As an exceedingly proud member of President Trump’s Administration and as a 34-year highly experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.”
Kellogg&#8217;s statement came in response to testimony from Pence adviser Jennifer Williams before the Intelligence Committee.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/politics/jennifer-williams.html">reported</a> on Williams’ closed-door testimony last month, noting that she felt that the phone call was ‘unusual and inappropriate.&#8217;”
Democrats&#8217; impeachment momentum appears to have started to gradually slow down as new polling found that interest in impeachment had <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/471945-overall-interest-in-impeachment-inquiry-slips-among-democratic-voters?__twitter_impression=true&amp;__twitter_impression=true">dropped</a> 5-points among Democrat voters.
At the start of the week, Democrat Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI) — who <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/06/us-house-representatives-fourteenth-district-brenda-lawrence-race-results-winner/1826611002/">beat</a> her Republican opponent by 64 points in 2018 — said on a podcast that she saw &#8220;no value&#8221; in impeachment after she had repeatedly supported the effort in the months prior.
“You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tide-turning-on-impeachment-as-democrat-congresswoman-flips-i-dont-see-the-value-of-kicking-him-out-of-office">said</a>. “We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

Menu