Overall, last week was a quieter week in the unfolding impeachment saga.
Earlier last week, Trump administration officials continued the ongoing habit of defying House Democrats’ impeachment-related subpoenas. As Fox News <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W66Yc9M66hdk3W3XxYpT2NH8vQ0/5/f18dQhb0SfHn9c-h9gW80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5Vj1Qt2G2VLDpF18CSvhfW8CZrMG8m7vgGW8B-9dc8yVPQ_N3HtdkMVbDp_W3Htl0P3N0TRKW67jVlh5wL6c-VTH5T364Qd0yW8zvHql5_Vt-mF8m81QV25l2W55fLnq8WmgDpW5n6V1k8VCv8JW2MznrN5nbq6BVGXpVf3ZQWFgW5nyN8z2z95WfW2yscgj7nlhG4W5ZpycS57-ZBTW83C5JP6rY-3sW2KQ2YY1Gk5dXN2Hj7tS8JHM_W8c3wwh3X0g0yN6bp1cMbq5fxW4TKc2l5vJbBHN7fdQ4vP_8XWW5kNW6S8LkXJBW9jJxZh8d9s4gW50XBc38Sh4LLW4F2q0N7lCx_cW1pgv5Z8L1RcHW7YGRT28rg-P2W51m0wR3ghHDsW4Vyr8l8qCrzkW9jBRnz3zJsY2W7d0nLw5bW-L4W1bBvW33_5XgcW6hz0s82bzNQYW5ZS0xn6yzFt5W4cyCw230Pjz7W1CV8c97G7bpYN4QDgwJWW9M5W5RRkPs6zX_YLW5_5dnz7SJ7wCW4zBVJp2-BmhdVTr0CC1yf53YvVL6QTbLkf68sTPS02" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W66Yc9M66hdk3W3XxYpT2NH8vQ0/5/f18dQhb0SfHn9c-h9gW80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5Vj1Qt2G2VLDpF18CSvhfW8CZrMG8m7vgGW8B-9dc8yVPQ_N3HtdkMVbDp_W3Htl0P3N0TRKW67jVlh5wL6c-VTH5T364Qd0yW8zvHql5_Vt-mF8m81QV25l2W55fLnq8WmgDpW5n6V1k8VCv8JW2MznrN5nbq6BVGXpVf3ZQWFgW5nyN8z2z95WfW2yscgj7nlhG4W5ZpycS57-ZBTW83C5JP6rY-3sW2KQ2YY1Gk5dXN2Hj7tS8JHM_W8c3wwh3X0g0yN6bp1cMbq5fxW4TKc2l5vJbBHN7fdQ4vP_8XWW5kNW6S8LkXJBW9jJxZh8d9s4gW50XBc38Sh4LLW4F2q0N7lCx_cW1pgv5Z8L1RcHW7YGRT28rg-P2W51m0wR3ghHDsW4Vyr8l8qCrzkW9jBRnz3zJsY2W7d0nLw5bW-L4W1bBvW33_5XgcW6hz0s82bzNQYW5ZS0xn6yzFt5W4cyCw230Pjz7W1CV8c97G7bpYN4QDgwJWW9M5W5RRkPs6zX_YLW5_5dnz7SJ7wCW4zBVJp2-BmhdVTr0CC1yf53YvVL6QTbLkf68sTPS02&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322538000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHfzSxml8H1uB5yNuwuigeuqaTJEQ">reported</a>, a lead National Security Council attorney, a top aide to Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and an additional Office of Management and Budget aide all failed to show up for their scheduled depositions on Capitol Hill. Otherwise, U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W4tGyMg8VHFFjW65NlCc5Kwsbs0/5/f18dQhb0Sq5G8Y9-RWW80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5Tq1Vq7GqVLDpF18CSvhfW8DrSws3J4F4KW8B-9dc8yX6RjW3knCMv8yXl2gW5x625k8mFVfxW3GCvtS3Q020dW1pgMhv65jGWdN5v6x90SbM5KW8mFFZS5wL96LW1sL3M03MybvyW6RNDcs5xKvMBW69GbGF3NpJSjW4KQJk12N33B5W3_t0gL32Gf2QW4dnWJc69NG1wW6PqSg98mQMWvW5Vb2cd5w8WykMMNBCZMMQxXW80gSRf97rB1bW8xqZLV24H1v5W2756LD93S-6cW8tdfY73N8_sZW3PgfgR4p3W3cW653Nh163tMgzW2xrxt664Ls7qW66YDzg6SLQd9W6Rbygg6QhWvKN3lll5mVxnMPN5J1scwhMG-KW23y2NH5C2CLWVSRWT_27s9J8W7wV0lj1xfQR4W3ygvH88c3fNTVJ5v6n7v4WNLW49vfHg6sFhDKMN-wDG42c_8W3nh5k98qNPfnW3FXFhk4BKzChW6QJtpH81-l8QW11PGlS1BzGN8W5YZ_DT73yKD2W70RWLy5bkc53111" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W4tGyMg8VHFFjW65NlCc5Kwsbs0/5/f18dQhb0Sq5G8Y9-RWW80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5Tq1Vq7GqVLDpF18CSvhfW8DrSws3J4F4KW8B-9dc8yX6RjW3knCMv8yXl2gW5x625k8mFVfxW3GCvtS3Q020dW1pgMhv65jGWdN5v6x90SbM5KW8mFFZS5wL96LW1sL3M03MybvyW6RNDcs5xKvMBW69GbGF3NpJSjW4KQJk12N33B5W3_t0gL32Gf2QW4dnWJc69NG1wW6PqSg98mQMWvW5Vb2cd5w8WykMMNBCZMMQxXW80gSRf97rB1bW8xqZLV24H1v5W2756LD93S-6cW8tdfY73N8_sZW3PgfgR4p3W3cW653Nh163tMgzW2xrxt664Ls7qW66YDzg6SLQd9W6Rbygg6QhWvKN3lll5mVxnMPN5J1scwhMG-KW23y2NH5C2CLWVSRWT_27s9J8W7wV0lj1xfQR4W3ygvH88c3fNTVJ5v6n7v4WNLW49vfHg6sFhDKMN-wDG42c_8W3nh5k98qNPfnW3FXFhk4BKzChW6QJtpH81-l8QW11PGlS1BzGN8W5YZ_DT73yKD2W70RWLy5bkc53111&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322538000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG2N_u7lof0SETcF-Mvxtr0JqxbtQ">updated</a> his recent testimony in a way that could further hurt the Trump team’s efforts to rebut Democrats’ charge that Trump engaged in a nefarious “quid pro quo” in last summer’s now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump has been <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W3qSM5D31MlCFW4FjM1117Mbmx0/5/f18dQhb0Sq5z8Y9YsWW80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5R21Nvw7TVLDpF18CSv07W5w5R8T8x14cSW8yVJcM8rdDcDN1nPcdCMDj_jW8tYz--5w5BNDV_tKSx5C3LsHN5F294hXy7VSVY0M9Y5y5jh-W1rfXlz1kRpb7W7ZClNK1q7NGsW8t4BPX4Sf1kGW6dqF0Z8W2c9WW32CQ2l8jxMNSW1Vx27W6Pkt_VN62_rT82FpQ3W9dH8_66V4mcJW86KnNH7P1-wWN33FK-yqPkxDVnjZC81Hfvb0W59lgPN1y_PrlW1gtmV585y-CwW9djGw_77c_9bVKJRZ98ksL8qW9d6gxl5n3MwtW2Rw5ft82_d7wW6xcPLZ7ws4HJVJC88f6zyWGlVp-_rh7x3yGJW9g4bml77nXYRW52Ym4r14HD_cW2p8_TT7-cq2QW3d0zvx4p7yDTW2zz89m3M1RxqW8r4Pxt5_BMMVW3fKSXy5Zl4SZVd8y6q1QNZ5kW2gzfh33MP03dW2B62ny6lgqdyW95ccVC5_6SwhW1KSCLB36sLG2w1NsfDKpw5f2Hnn1w02" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W3qSM5D31MlCFW4FjM1117Mbmx0/5/f18dQhb0Sq5z8Y9YsWW80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5R21Nvw7TVLDpF18CSv07W5w5R8T8x14cSW8yVJcM8rdDcDN1nPcdCMDj_jW8tYz--5w5BNDV_tKSx5C3LsHN5F294hXy7VSVY0M9Y5y5jh-W1rfXlz1kRpb7W7ZClNK1q7NGsW8t4BPX4Sf1kGW6dqF0Z8W2c9WW32CQ2l8jxMNSW1Vx27W6Pkt_VN62_rT82FpQ3W9dH8_66V4mcJW86KnNH7P1-wWN33FK-yqPkxDVnjZC81Hfvb0W59lgPN1y_PrlW1gtmV585y-CwW9djGw_77c_9bVKJRZ98ksL8qW9d6gxl5n3MwtW2Rw5ft82_d7wW6xcPLZ7ws4HJVJC88f6zyWGlVp-_rh7x3yGJW9g4bml77nXYRW52Ym4r14HD_cW2p8_TT7-cq2QW3d0zvx4p7yDTW2zz89m3M1RxqW8r4Pxt5_BMMVW3fKSXy5Zl4SZVd8y6q1QNZ5kW2gzfh33MP03dW2B62ny6lgqdyW95ccVC5_6SwhW1KSCLB36sLG2w1NsfDKpw5f2Hnn1w02&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322538000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFOMhLg0w9RtoEqGXB9qMbywrUpsQ">tweeting</a> a lot recently to encourage Americans to actually read the underlying transcript of the Zelensky phone call, which potentially bodes well in terms of the Trump team realizing that it needs to advance a substantive — instead of merely a procedural — argument that expressly argues that the totality of what substantively transpired between Trump and Zelensky does not even come close to meeting the “high crimes and misdemeanors” criterion that the Constitution prescribes as its impeachment standard. As I have explained in previous Election Wires, Alexander Hamilton <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W6jrZP49glTwtVQXTVh83DLRD0/5/f18dQhb0SbTP8YHrXgN8HWm5lHyjJqW8q-jQ-4XyTvPW3hHh8X2P7_nXVcnTGj98kNPXW26n-yd25xxTKW5t2x5c4v13hrN98jppGZbhHpW4r1N_c5tXDYXW1wJ6H251RS_HW61SSZm7mG7sDW51vX4y6HrZgDW7lVtgt4s2-MqW8f6L0f3VpzgTW9dSlS635rgClW94-4T07sLptqW41TlcR3TwTqCW4KbJZx2kGg8MW6sCkcN4YFc44W57-WqM3H_PtyW2DzCtR1yBNY7W1kBBQz2Gm3GzVqYwFH8FCZrbW7nGzDf8Gd1wNVkDZvr7FhCnlW5SSSCD6qSd4CW82-KL08jhTv1W4b5wR-2r7NVtW2G-ftt4nmPn4V7r66n4GtrHrN8gGSMWBnDH8W1sl9sW9kFWZfW32k78t6Pc2NRN7PwBwrVzQv-VVn7DD12G_sLW1RP_SX32Sff8N4JWF2MhL_4cW24Zwh22nRzM3W5701m62WqWb0W3gtYvZ2_yD7XW8DnzGX2hj86VW1vhHFD54NZMCMNDyx-rTzpYV10v2z2KMnWW103" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W6jrZP49glTwtVQXTVh83DLRD0/5/f18dQhb0SbTP8YHrXgN8HWm5lHyjJqW8q-jQ-4XyTvPW3hHh8X2P7_nXVcnTGj98kNPXW26n-yd25xxTKW5t2x5c4v13hrN98jppGZbhHpW4r1N_c5tXDYXW1wJ6H251RS_HW61SSZm7mG7sDW51vX4y6HrZgDW7lVtgt4s2-MqW8f6L0f3VpzgTW9dSlS635rgClW94-4T07sLptqW41TlcR3TwTqCW4KbJZx2kGg8MW6sCkcN4YFc44W57-WqM3H_PtyW2DzCtR1yBNY7W1kBBQz2Gm3GzVqYwFH8FCZrbW7nGzDf8Gd1wNVkDZvr7FhCnlW5SSSCD6qSd4CW82-KL08jhTv1W4b5wR-2r7NVtW2G-ftt4nmPn4V7r66n4GtrHrN8gGSMWBnDH8W1sl9sW9kFWZfW32k78t6Pc2NRN7PwBwrVzQv-VVn7DD12G_sLW1RP_SX32Sff8N4JWF2MhL_4cW24Zwh22nRzM3W5701m62WqWb0W3gtYvZ2_yD7XW8DnzGX2hj86VW1vhHFD54NZMCMNDyx-rTzpYV10v2z2KMnWW103&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322538000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE1AffeFK5cSCOpT2MgXlzcjpLYCw">explained</a> in The Federalist No. 65 that the impeachment of a president may be properly considered for all “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Accordingly, Trump’s impeachment defense must be centered around substantively arguing that the Zelensky phone call did not “abuse or violat[e] … some public trust.” This should not be particularly difficult, and the White House should consider hiring a <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W4Fc5RG6l41mxW3_0SfX5CPqKQ0/5/f18dQhb0S2C728_sBBVMvn3M1b7DcSN2xHp4pDHJ4kW1q92vL54Rt0YW2wjy_W47QqJ6W4lbFp33MvbCdW2CYkfh1KTHDsW4VJy_Z19zfMlW1gMDxd1v2NSTW1qM8X183Y1KQW22rH4F9g6_SwW5zQJWQ3JR16lW52zsJc51CmnTW6PNRz95jffL2W6gP_kl1p6wj_Mr6nn9-nDwzW8s13Dv6HDfN2W2KFwBv4vJQwPW8c8qlR826XdzVVCy5B155FnWVs5ySm8_nzKFW4Xs1Gv2YvvGqW8-pqRl4P47H0W6CPTrn2zBQTHVFWlfK4W7pFVV622bD93_c68N40ZDz6tT08JW435ZY65jY-YHW68BbGd4qRRHvW3DqYXW1fPFpGVXY-vN3-tmwkW2Vwy9x86TCbgW8n-ZzZ2RDT7pW40B3Pk3gsnxDW1mDSY91J8w2jW6xyVCF3M7Y9BW8m6g-k2HHttGW6MQQqS3gcvNJW3Kr-Fn7b8kx3W7rn_rY5GJ7sgW33-3gL7HTkg0Vr85Hc5D0l0gW4LCWXN3FmmKJW6HCFvV7cjdDFW5F2PS24F1QhjW6WGKZx6mBz8LW7rD5qB7hvX58W1SC1Xh4Fzzd3W761s0r23_rQTf5N2-BB11" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W4Fc5RG6l41mxW3_0SfX5CPqKQ0/5/f18dQhb0S2C728_sBBVMvn3M1b7DcSN2xHp4pDHJ4kW1q92vL54Rt0YW2wjy_W47QqJ6W4lbFp33MvbCdW2CYkfh1KTHDsW4VJy_Z19zfMlW1gMDxd1v2NSTW1qM8X183Y1KQW22rH4F9g6_SwW5zQJWQ3JR16lW52zsJc51CmnTW6PNRz95jffL2W6gP_kl1p6wj_Mr6nn9-nDwzW8s13Dv6HDfN2W2KFwBv4vJQwPW8c8qlR826XdzVVCy5B155FnWVs5ySm8_nzKFW4Xs1Gv2YvvGqW8-pqRl4P47H0W6CPTrn2zBQTHVFWlfK4W7pFVV622bD93_c68N40ZDz6tT08JW435ZY65jY-YHW68BbGd4qRRHvW3DqYXW1fPFpGVXY-vN3-tmwkW2Vwy9x86TCbgW8n-ZzZ2RDT7pW40B3Pk3gsnxDW1mDSY91J8w2jW6xyVCF3M7Y9BW8m6g-k2HHttGW6MQQqS3gcvNJW3Kr-Fn7b8kx3W7rn_rY5GJ7sgW33-3gL7HTkg0Vr85Hc5D0l0gW4LCWXN3FmmKJW6HCFvV7cjdDFW5F2PS24F1QhjW6WGKZx6mBz8LW7rD5qB7hvX58W1SC1Xh4Fzzd3W761s0r23_rQTf5N2-BB11&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322539000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFaoX3W5izx0HAP-yge7DG7VQV-sA">chief strategist</a> to lead the effort — one possible name that comes to mind is <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W25ysKm8yt6j7N2N7qC0QXDx30/5/f18dQhb0Sjvm6BHC8SW62tQd64T_wDdW5w02yj5w05lbVscWqS1VbPj2W53DQ4N33FVCTW1W0s6730rr3SW8_gQtC8ZCH4KN7X_pnlRbnvcW1lQNDF5w5C_HW5y5jh-1rfXlzW1kRpb77ZClNKW1q7NGs8t4BPXW4Sf1kG6dqF0ZW8W2c9W32CQ2lW8jxMNS1VwV0kW3HbhT65tNvm-W52mV-88tzC3FW8q-1tC6H4mrRW55T8N87w3wPSW1NC3Kc1F6KTtW8Y0h_b2T-f0qW2GttMf7v5xChVzZmCx2266yKW92pY_C4dZGZtW1KT2mr7MctF-Vy90MB1wgXPmN7Tzp61wZk9_W92rRtX1Xv_n0W7nZfGg58677kW20S-qb7CkfkRW2MVMJp2VPGKHW8XRjSq7ZjRCNW1BxxJm819pLQW73R1h2224kXkW1WYmHy20ZdMCW1c8vq-7ps3S_N8Yztwfb2_nMW6PxM7x7vs64-W7fTjHB97sBJnW4jfDlp6KRQscW25yrLf397kxjW2vSzV74Q-5SVW4HzlZ64mb2rj111" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*W25ysKm8yt6j7N2N7qC0QXDx30/5/f18dQhb0Sjvm6BHC8SW62tQd64T_wDdW5w02yj5w05lbVscWqS1VbPj2W53DQ4N33FVCTW1W0s6730rr3SW8_gQtC8ZCH4KN7X_pnlRbnvcW1lQNDF5w5C_HW5y5jh-1rfXlzW1kRpb77ZClNKW1q7NGs8t4BPXW4Sf1kG6dqF0ZW8W2c9W32CQ2lW8jxMNS1VwV0kW3HbhT65tNvm-W52mV-88tzC3FW8q-1tC6H4mrRW55T8N87w3wPSW1NC3Kc1F6KTtW8Y0h_b2T-f0qW2GttMf7v5xChVzZmCx2266yKW92pY_C4dZGZtW1KT2mr7MctF-Vy90MB1wgXPmN7Tzp61wZk9_W92rRtX1Xv_n0W7nZfGg58677kW20S-qb7CkfkRW2MVMJp2VPGKHW8XRjSq7ZjRCNW1BxxJm819pLQW73R1h2224kXkW1WYmHy20ZdMCW1c8vq-7ps3S_N8Yztwfb2_nMW6PxM7x7vs64-W7fTjHB97sBJnW4jfDlp6KRQscW25yrLf397kxjW2vSzV74Q-5SVW4HzlZ64mb2rj111&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322539000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEkHYtQGNJnUgVekOAXvHBD3KQ8eQ">Mark Paoletta</a>. The Trump team should stop focusing on loudly denying that a “quid pro quo” transpired and instead defend the notion that quid pro quos and the process of attaching strings to foreign aid recipients is <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*N3c1jhC4ZhWgN6rBZ-4YF-cd0/5/f18dQhb0S1Xm7w2QxfSmM12K3Q-HW68S6q64L28KfW3cdmVv2Jn1FXW18qSz31J8h02W8LnY5s7x1q7mW6STH7-1bp9m9W8wpfBS8XtdxFN8wq4xmF1bLxW9lTT6l9cDS-QW6pNSgD4mFYXjW2HSGbL7mGP1-W3zVgJT3yL6j-N8NwdnyHWJZyMB7fMXJGYFfN75Nwr-zsQ-BW7j1dg516K1vjW5gV2yf5gQxCcW1_hG_C5nXjzNTh4fP4zR4TSN7PJ6y79bxwLW77nMT856H4GwW95ZhXW17lqjXW1FbWlF75SM7MW5BQQDK3RcXGVW6CsNd55bs4Y6W7XYbBK8ynYp2VXqQhY47C4vDW5y8VSl6NMk7NW6FV12Y41T4sqW6l0q6b1nKfB7W7JZPgs15Cc9xN5Qcq2T-_c4XW1nd44N4M0l8FW4czpW7330DHvW5GrLjj3VjQcCW6tctB76kzZLxW4Y74pp1thsyMW1LjKTn4rGl2xVp_zGp8lhY4-W3Xkt3827BFppVYJm-q1qgt-rW77Tm9c5ym3_xW9bpbdl6-lsLTW4syWxg7bgtSJN8DC3d8j8RbyW27Yv1r2G8ZN-111" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*N3c1jhC4ZhWgN6rBZ-4YF-cd0/5/f18dQhb0S1Xm7w2QxfSmM12K3Q-HW68S6q64L28KfW3cdmVv2Jn1FXW18qSz31J8h02W8LnY5s7x1q7mW6STH7-1bp9m9W8wpfBS8XtdxFN8wq4xmF1bLxW9lTT6l9cDS-QW6pNSgD4mFYXjW2HSGbL7mGP1-W3zVgJT3yL6j-N8NwdnyHWJZyMB7fMXJGYFfN75Nwr-zsQ-BW7j1dg516K1vjW5gV2yf5gQxCcW1_hG_C5nXjzNTh4fP4zR4TSN7PJ6y79bxwLW77nMT856H4GwW95ZhXW17lqjXW1FbWlF75SM7MW5BQQDK3RcXGVW6CsNd55bs4Y6W7XYbBK8ynYp2VXqQhY47C4vDW5y8VSl6NMk7NW6FV12Y41T4sqW6l0q6b1nKfB7W7JZPgs15Cc9xN5Qcq2T-_c4XW1nd44N4M0l8FW4czpW7330DHvW5GrLjj3VjQcCW6tctB76kzZLxW4Y74pp1thsyMW1LjKTn4rGl2xVp_zGp8lhY4-W3Xkt3827BFppVYJm-q1qgt-rW77Tm9c5ym3_xW9bpbdl6-lsLTW4syWxg7bgtSJN8DC3d8j8RbyW27Yv1r2G8ZN-111&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322539000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHEw9E7rY4Yf2KZyP460NghspYTSg">inherent in the very foreign aid enterprise</a> itself. Think about it logically: Why shouldn’t Americans want more conditions imposed on foreign countries in order to receive the beneficence of our U.S. taxpayer dollars? There is ample room here for Trump to tap into widespread, populist-infused opposition to mass foreign aid itself.
National polling remains narrowly in favor of impeachment. As of November 7, 2019, <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*N9g4SqVFBFCcW95frjl3yBbvc0/5/f18dQhb0SbTX8Y9Wm6W80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5Rq5Cgxh0VnQ9Qq8ZvGN0W6yR8-3549KcjW7r98KK1SLhGnW328XxL2LWcZ_N4dPVJtql99tW1Vws8c2KWLmnW4cPwbS8HbRxPN8k1dMQpSBF3W8WhTQ14JftKGW8W5ZBz759s5xW7PNfvy96zRPSW6bT6L38RRjRDW5CktzD83KHrFN7J39rl1g4hYW4Dk-X22PGBDHW7lRZ4W8gjY6LW8WBKbV56sy_8W2NhXFJ6Y23ZhW5njKYK5lqJMTW6zzJtZ774x7FW59BDvc2dDPmkW5MhB-77ryzGvN4gl57p6Qr93W2L52jd4jqztHW4Pz5934zXcZfVwm8sc6wjgmDW1k0MNr7wyGhBW4cntCV310tMKW33KGSm6XvYPyN4lBZ6Fnpt4xW6GTq088Ph58-W594SN87x2btgW7w46LW2F435_W6wrhgQ5h-8njW61lQ4C23WHzLN4gFC2zPT2nMV9-MvN86_DdBN7LCVy2GCyWsW24nf__4L1MmrN4JXQH_1nvT7f5zJXvM03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W4n-ptk20ymJxW8JtsBr1WvdDc0/*N9g4SqVFBFCcW95frjl3yBbvc0/5/f18dQhb0SbTX8Y9Wm6W80JfVF1k63-nN7sTcfmt_T69W6Dk5Rq5Cgxh0VnQ9Qq8ZvGN0W6yR8-3549KcjW7r98KK1SLhGnW328XxL2LWcZ_N4dPVJtql99tW1Vws8c2KWLmnW4cPwbS8HbRxPN8k1dMQpSBF3W8WhTQ14JftKGW8W5ZBz759s5xW7PNfvy96zRPSW6bT6L38RRjRDW5CktzD83KHrFN7J39rl1g4hYW4Dk-X22PGBDHW7lRZ4W8gjY6LW8WBKbV56sy_8W2NhXFJ6Y23ZhW5njKYK5lqJMTW6zzJtZ774x7FW59BDvc2dDPmkW5MhB-77ryzGvN4gl57p6Qr93W2L52jd4jqztHW4Pz5934zXcZfVwm8sc6wjgmDW1k0MNr7wyGhBW4cntCV310tMKW33KGSm6XvYPyN4lBZ6Fnpt4xW6GTq088Ph58-W594SN87x2btgW7w46LW2F435_W6wrhgQ5h-8njW61lQ4C23WHzLN4gFC2zPT2nMV9-MvN86_DdBN7LCVy2GCyWsW24nf__4L1MmrN4JXQH_1nvT7f5zJXvM03&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573279322539000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHjohA6iENayXNCIer4Ab-w5ydxzA">FiveThirtyEight</a> indicates that Americans now support impeachment by a 3.6% margin. This margin has been generally narrowing of late, however, which could indicate that congressional Democrats are over-playing their current hand.
Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) actually holds a formal House-wide vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry. As readers will recall from previous Impeachment Wire updates, the much-ballyhooed vote that Pelosi led two weeks ago seems to only lay out the procedural rules for impeachment — as opposed to authorizing impeachment itself. The big impeachment-related news this week will come on Wednesday, when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has stated he will finally open up the initial impeachment hearings to the public.
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

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Impeachment

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Sean Parnell

Decorated War Hero Launches GOP Congressional Bid, Reveals Goals For Congress

Congress

Yesterday, Jim McGovern (D-MA) claimed that &#8220;we are here because the facts compel us to be here.&#8221;
What idiots does he imagine us to be? I mean this in all seriousness. Anyone who believes we arrived at impeachment due to facts has been hiding in a cave or is insane, regardless of political leanings. If this were about facts, impeachment would be nowhere on the horizon.
In late 1973, the House Judiciary Committee opened an impeachment process after President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of the independent special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in, Archibald Cox. Cox had issued a subpoena demanding copies of taped conversations in the Oval Office, which, he believed, might reveal Nixon’s involvement in Watergate and the subsequent cover-up. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general both refused the order to fire Cox and resigned in protest. U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork was then sworn in as attorney general and obeyed the order, but said he did so only in order to avoid a long succession of resignations which would leave the Justice Department “crippled” and in chaos.
It was obvious that a crime had taken place, and it was equally obvious that the president was trying to cover up his involvement. Indeed, Cox’s suspicion was borne out — the tapes revealed that the president had tried to halt the Watergate investigation on frivolous national security grounds. The House resolution to authorize the impeachment inquiry passed 410-4, obviously including overwhelming Republican support.
Bill Clinton went through impeachment in 1998–1999 because the independent counsel appointed at the time, Ken Starr, produced a report to the House Judiciary Committee detailing that Clinton had committed both perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton’s law license was suspended for five years due to the conclusions of the Starr Report. So once again, it was obvious that the president had committed a crime. The House vote was 258-176, with 31 Democrats voting in favor.
In neither case was anyone willing to state that he “was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” as Tim Morrison, the departing Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council, told the House Intelligence Committee yesterday.
We are here because partisans have wanted to reverse the 2016 election since the day Trump was elected, and the House takeover in 2018 was driven by leftists who demanded we &#8220;impeach the mother******&#8221; regardless of any justification. They believed the Mueller investigation would deliver the needed grounds, but — quite unlike the efforts of Cox and Starr — Mueller’s report exonerated the president. Dissatisfied House Democrats ran to hold hearings in any case, trying to pull a guilty verdict from the innocence found in the report.
It is no coincidence that those tremendously important, momentous hearings suddenly came to an end after the Ukraine phone call came to light — as no special counsel has officially ruled the Ukraine call similarly devoid of criminal conduct, the call offers a better pretense for the same pitchforks and torches.
And this is why the Democrats never demanded a special counsel or any independent, nonpartisan legal investigation regarding the Ukraine phone call and any hint of quid pro quo that might have been behind it. There is simply no time left if Democrats are to use the call to either remove Trump from office or destroy his re-election prospects before the 2020 election. That is why Democrats have bypassed all semblance of fairness, instead rushing to hold closed-door hearings and launch an impeachment proceeding far too early in the process.
Make no mistake: Were it not Ukraine, Democrats would have found another excuse to impeach. They had to, as impeachment was the goal. And we all already know this — no matter your political preferences or voting patterns, this much should be obvious to all.
This sort of move — to come up with the verdict first, and then find the purported crime to justify it — has ample historical precedent. The Salem Witch Trials are certainly an apt model, but Stalin’s Show Trials have a greater written record. It was Stalin’s head of secret police, Lavrentiy Beria, who bragged that he could make any innocent man into a convicted criminal: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
That is why we are here. Despite McGovern’s protestations to the contrary, we are not so stupid as to believe this is about justice.
&nbsp;
Rabbi Yaakov Menken is the Managing Director of the <a href="https://coalitionforjewishvalues.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coalitionforjewishvalues.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572711800204000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH11EKLvI-K343cUV437YwCbens2g">Coalition for Jewish Values</a>.

House impeachment vote

MENKEN: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

Richard Nixon

Impeachment of the president is a two-step process. First, the House votes to impeach, which, in a criminal court, would be analogous to handing down an indictment. Then the Senate holds what amounts to a trial. If convicted, the president is removed from office and the vice president takes over. If acquitted, he would return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as if nothing had ever happened.
To hear the mainstream media tell it, President Trump is on the verge of being impeached and removed from office. But while Democrats control the House — which will almost certainly vote to impeach — Republicans control the Senate, which almost certainly will not vote to convict.
There have been reports in MSM outlets that a dozen or more Republicans could vote to convict. &#8220;The Senate is likelier to remove Trump after impeachment than you think,&#8221; read a Washington Post headline this month. But even that report said &#8220;getting 20 out of 53 Republican senators to agree to boot him from office won’t be easy under any circumstances.&#8221;
Therein lies the rub. In the Senate, a chamber-wide vote to convict requires a two-third majority — or 67 of the 100 members. The current makeup of the chamber is 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents who almost always vote with the Democrats. That means Democrats need 20 Republicans to cross the aisle.
But, problem. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says not only do the Democrats not have 20, they don&#8217;t have a single vote.
“You have to accept that President Trump is president,” Graham said Tuesday on Fox News’ “Hannity” show.
“That’s the problem. They don’t accept that President Trump won the election, and America hates a sore loser as much as any country on the planet. This is an unfair process being driven by sore losers and there is not one vote in the United States Senate to impeach President Trump based on this phone call because he did nothing wrong,” the South Carolina Republican said.
The senator quickly corrected himself, saying there is not one vote “among Republicans” in the Senate.
Hannity asked Graham if the Senate could call former Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to testify.
“The president’s denied right to counsel and Republicans can’t call witnesses without Schiff agreeing, so this whole thing is a sham,” Graham said.
House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled legislation to authorize the next phase of the impeachment inquiry against Trump. The eight-page resolution calls for public hearings and requires the House Intelligence Committee, which Schiff heads as chairman, to file a report detailing its findings and recommendations. The report would also come with a final recommendation on impeachment to be left to the House Judiciary Committee.
On the other side, Republicans would be authorized to request subpoenas, but every request would require a full committee vote. Because Democrats control the House, they&#8217;ll be able to deny any subpoena they choose.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the resolution simply “confirms that House Democrats’ impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorization by a House vote.”
The resolution “does nothing to change the fundamental fact that House Democrats refuse to provide basic due process rights to the administration,” she said.
<iframe title="Lindsey Graham: &#039;Not One Vote&#039; Among Senate Republicans To Remove Trump" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DgnHEnOg7No?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford And Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Testify To Senate Judiciary Committee

Lindsey Graham: ‘Not One Vote’ Among Senate Republicans To Oust Trump

Lindsey Graham

Congresswoman Katie Hill is finally <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/23/20928700/katie-hill-congresswoman-resigns-leaked-red-state">resigning</a> from office after admitting to a sexual relationship relationship with a 22-year-old female campaign staffer. She has also been accused of carrying on an affair with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, though she denies the latter charge.
Despite being guilty of blatant sexual misconduct with a very junior subordinate, and potentially even more blatant sexual misconduct with a different subordinate, Hill has made it clear who the victim is in all of this really: Herself. In her self-pitying <a href="https://twitter.com/RepKatieHill/status/1188591520531779584?s=20">resignation letter</a>, Hill laid the blame at the feet of her &#8220;abusive husband&#8221; and &#8220;hateful political operatives.&#8221; She lamented the &#8220;unprecedented brand of cruelty&#8221; that has brought her to this point. But she doesn&#8217;t explain how the allegedly abusive husband, or the hateful operatives, or the unprecedented cruelty, could have forced her to mine her staff for sex partners.
As The Daily Wire has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/media-tries-to-suggest-katie-hill-did-nothing-wrong-even-though-congress-passed-bill-last-year-banning-what-she-did">covered</a>, the media and many on the Left have gone right along with Hill&#8217;s persecution act. On her <a href="https://twitter.com/KatieHill4CA">Twitter page</a>, the disgraced former congresswoman has been furiously retweeting blue-checked leftists proclaiming that Hill is the victim of a sexist conspiracy. &#8220;She was thrown on a pyre for the benefit of men,&#8221; says one. Another blames Hill&#8217;s critics for being &#8220;the reason more women don&#8217;t run for office.&#8221;
Of course, the sexism in this case runs in exactly the opposite direction. There is simply no denying that if a photo leaked of a male congressman, in the nude, brushing the hair of his 22-year-old staffer, and if leaked text messages revealed that that staffer felt like a &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7609835/Katie-Hill-seen-showing-Nazi-era-tattoo-smoking-BONG-NAKED.html">toy</a>&#8221; for said congressman, none of Hill&#8217;s defenders would be standing in that congressman&#8217;s corner. On the contrary, they&#8217;d be the first ones in line for the public stoning. And if we were talking about someone named Kurt Hill instead of Katie Hill, he would not be able to get away with a resignation letter that saves its half-hearted apology until the very end, after a long diatribe explaining why he is the real victim.
It is worth emphasizing this point: The media are asking that we feel sorry for a member of Congress who had three-ways with her subordinates, kept her sex partners on her staff without disclosing it, and put herself in a compromised position by allowing photos to be taken of her while naked and doing drugs. More than that, the media demand that we see Hill as a casualty of patriarchal oppression. This would be hard enough to stomach in its own right, but its downright vomit-inducing when you consider that Hill&#8217;s defenders are the very same people who have spent the last several years insisting that consent is murky, if not impossible, when one of the people involved in the act holds significant power over the other. But of course, these MeToo crusaders only meant for that principle to apply when it is a man who is in the position of power. Which is another way of saying that it&#8217;s not a principle at all.
Indeed, Jessica Valenti took the hypocrisy a step further. In a <a href="https://gen.medium.com/katie-hill-was-brought-down-by-the-same-forces-that-enable-weinstein-e46ea59d7493">post</a> on Medium (shared by Hill), Valenti argued that the people holding Hill accountable for sexual misconduct are the same &#8220;forces that enabled Weinstein.&#8221; You see, when a man exploits his power and uses his subordinates as sex toys, he&#8217;s doing what Weinstein did. But when a woman exploits her power and uses her subordinates as sex toys, the people who object are doing what Weinstein did. This is the kind of logic that can only possibly make sense in the dizzied brains of left-wing feminists.
But despite all of this hypocritical blathering, the fact remains: Katie Hill violated ethics and possibly the law. She did it for the sake of her own sexual pleasure. She is unfit for office and deserves to lose her job. She is not the victim. This was all her doing. And now she is paying the price.

U.S. Representative Katie Hill (D-CA) speaking at the Ignite

WALSH: Katie Hill Claims She Is The Real Victim Of Her Own Sexual Misconduct. She Isn’t.

Katie Hill

MeToo

Sex scandal

Sexual Harassment

Sexuality

The House Ethics Committee announced this week that it has started an investigation into Democratic freshman Delegate Michael F. Q. San Nicolas of Guam, a non-voting member of the House of Representatives, over allegations that he had a sexual relationship with a congressional staff member.
&#8220;The Committee is aware of public allegations that Delegate Michael F. Q. San Nicolas may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on his congressional staff, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted improper or excessive campaign contributions,&#8221; the committee said in a statement. &#8220;The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.&#8221;
John Paul Manuel – the former chief of staff and senior aide campaign official for San Nicolas – accused him in September of &#8220;using funds raised for his congressional campaign as reimbursements for an alleged foreign trip and hotel stays with his alleged mistress,&#8221; according to <a href="https://www.postguam.com/news/local/delegate-s-former-aide-details-allegations/article_16372fa8-cc0f-11e9-ac86-4b9a07e39dfd.html">The Guam Daily Post</a>.
Manuel also alleged that his former boss hired his alleged mistress to be part of his congressional staff.
Manuel also accused San Nicolas of forgery, saying: &#8220;He forged his father&#8217;s signature on all checks. He said he did so that if he was ever caught, it would be his father that got in trouble – not himself.&#8221;
This was the second such announcement this week from the House Ethics Committee that it was having to investigate a freshman Democratic member.
The committee announced on Wednesday that it had <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-democrat-katie-hill-under-investigation-over-sex-scandal">opened an investigation into Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA)</a> after multiple reports surfaced alleging that she had an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of her congressional staffers.
The committee released the following statement on Hill:
<blockquote>The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a).  The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.</blockquote>
Hill denied the allegations in a statement to Politico, but did not deny allegations that she was involved in a sexual relationship with one of her campaign staffers.
The allegations, first reported by RedState, included photos of Hill engaging in physical contact with the young female campaign staffer.
On Thursday, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7609835/Katie-Hill-seen-showing-Nazi-era-tattoo-smoking-BONG-NAKED.html">The Daily Mail</a> published a bombshell report on Hill that allegedly included a nude photograph of her smoking a bong &#8220;with a tattoo of what appears to be a Nazi-era Iron Cross on her bikini line.&#8221;
The Mail added: &#8220;Hill&#8217;s wild lifestyle has been laid bare in a cache of texts and intimate photographs obtained by DailyMail.com, as sources revealed Hill and Heslep also posted her naked photos online under a thread called &#8216;WouldYouF**kMyWife.’”
The sexual relationship that Hill allegedly had with her staffer also includes allegations of mistreatment as the young campaign staffer said that the relationship was &#8220;toxic.&#8221;
The staffer allegedly wrote to Hill, “I am terrified of pushing back against you or upsetting you. I have seen how you treat Kenny and I think that if I cause any issues, even if I am very worried about how you are acting, that very quickly you will decide you don’t want me in your life.”
In a message to Hill&#8217;s estranged husband, who allegedly was a part of the &#8220;throuple&#8221; relationship, the young campaign staffer allegedly wrote: “Idk, I was getting ready and I was thinking about how much Katie liked to watch me [reference to a hobby]…It’s ok, she can’t take [this] from me. She can ruin politics, take all my friends, and isolate me, but she can’t have [this].”

Michael San Nicolas

Another House Democrat Under Investigation For Alleged Sex Scandal

The alleged sex scandal involving Democratic Rep. Katie Hill (CA) worsened on Tuesday after RedState &#8212; which published the initial story documenting the explosive allegations &#8212; released a new report on the scandal which raises questions about possible abuse by Hill toward the young female campaign staffer with whom she was allegedly having a sexual relationship. The new report also raises questions about the staffer&#8217;s ability to give consent in the alleged relationship.
RedState <a href="https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2019/10/22/metoo-concerns-arise-katie-hills-throuple-partner-describes-toxic-relationship-boss/">reports</a>:
<blockquote>In the age of #MeToo, activists contend that when a large power imbalance exists, such as between a CEO and an employee, the employee is incapable of giving consent. Even assuming that true consent existed at the beginning of the relationship, the power imbalance could keep an employee in a bad relationship for fear that they will lose their job or suffer other negative consequences.
In the case of the Hill throuple, text messages between Kenny Heslep [Hill&#8217;s husband] and Hill’s staffer from June 2019 depict an unhealthy, toxic relationship – Heslep even characterizes the way in which he and Hill treated the staffer as “abusive” as he apologizes for hurting her.</blockquote>
RedState&#8217;s Jennifer Van Laar exclusively reported on Friday that Hill was involved in a &#8220;throuple&#8221; relationship involving her then-husband and a young female campaign staffer.
RedState released blurred photos allegedly showing the explicit sexual contact between Hill and the young staffer.
The young female campaign staffer, who described the relationship as being &#8220;toxic,&#8221; reportedly wrote Hill a message in June 2019, saying in part: &#8220;I am terrified of pushing back against you or upsetting you. I have seen how you treat Kenny and I think that if I cause any issues, even if I am very worried about how you are acting, that very quickly you will decide you don&#8217;t want me in your life.&#8221;
In a message to Heslep, the staffer reportedly said: “Idk, I was getting ready and I was thinking about how much Katie liked to watch me [reference to a hobby]…It’s ok, she can’t take [this] from me. She can ruin politics, take all my friends, and isolate me, but she can’t have [this].”
RedState added:
<blockquote>The staffer continued her work on the campaign side despite the awkwardness and emotional distress it caused. Hill, however, seemed tone-deaf, asking her former lover to apply sunscreen on her prior to an event – in front of the rest of the staff. The young woman later texted Hill to express her displeasure.</blockquote>
A Congressional GOP source told The Daily Wire: “The mainstream media has a blackout on this story, which is amusing.&#8221;
&#8220;The press typically loves politicians embroiled in sex scandals,&#8221; the source added. &#8220;But the perpetrator is a Democrat in a swing district, so the press will pretend like there’s nothing to see here.&#8221;
In RedState&#8217;s initial report, the publication reported on allegations that Hill was having an affair with her legislative director, Graham Kelly.
Roll Call reported in February 2018 that the then-Republican House majority passed new rules prohibiting sexual relationships between members of Congress and their congressional offices.
Roll Call <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/house-adopts-rules-curb-sexual-harassment">reported</a>:
<blockquote>In the wake of high-profile resignations over sexual harassment claims, the House on Tuesday approved sweeping changes to its internal rules intended to protect staffers, including a prohibition on sexual relationships between members and their aides.</blockquote>
&#8220;If Congresswoman Hill is engaged in a romantic relationship with one of her paid staffers, that is a clear-cut ethics violation,&#8221; a senior congressional staffer <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/21/kompromat-nude-photos-of-democrat-katie-hill-multiple-affairs-swirling-around-congresswoman-threaten-to-undermine-impeachment/">told</a> Breitbart News. &#8220;These rules are in place to ensure Congress is a workplace free from abuse and sexual misconduct. The reports paint a troubling pattern that deserve a full investigation.&#8221;
Hill&#8217;s only response to this scandal came today in a Politico article where she portrayed herself as being the victim of the entire ordeal.
<div class="container__column container__column--story summary-middle">
<div class="container__row container__row--story story-layout--fixed-fluid">
<div class="container__column container__column--story center-horizontally">
<div class="story-text">
&#8220;The fact is I am going through a divorce from an abusive husband who seems determined to try to humiliate me,&#8221; Hill said. &#8220;I am disgusted that my opponents would seek to exploit such a private matter for political gain. This coordinated effort to try to destroy me and people close to me is despicable and will not succeed. I, like many women who have faced attacks like this before, am stronger than those who want me to be afraid.&#8221;
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="container__column container__column--story hide-under-small">
&#8220;Intimate photos of me and another individual were published by Republican operatives on the internet without my consent,&#8221; Hill continued. &#8220;I have notified Capitol Hill police who are investigating the situation and potential legal violations of those who posted and distributed the photos, and therefore will have no further comment on the digital materials.&#8221;
Hill also claimed that the allegation that she had an affair with Kelly was not true, saying: &#8220;Allegations that I have been involved in a relationship with Mr. Kelly are absolutely false. I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view and the vindictive claims of my ex have now involved the lives and reputations of unrelated parties.&#8221;
RedState noted in a report earlier this month that &#8220;according to the text messages reviewed, after Hill left the throuple, Heslep was told &#8216;by numerous sources&#8217; that Hill had been involved in a <a href="https://www.redstate.com/mirandamorales/2019/10/10/bisexual-rep.-katie-hill-allegedly-left-husband-male-finance-director" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">sexual relationship</a> for a year with her then-finance director, now Legislative Director, Graham Kelly. In a post on his now-deleted Facebook account, Heslep posted a screenshot of a text message between himself and a friend of the couple in which the friend admits that he now knows about the Hill/Kelly affair.&#8221;
In that report, RedState documented the following Facebook post from Heslep:
<blockquote>Out lesbian?!? Then why has she been sleeping with her (male) finance director for the past year at least?
I couldn’t dispute this if she was still holding to being bisexual. But but being with her husband (me) for almost 15 years and then leaving me for another MAN, not woman, whom she is still seeing, is not her being a lesbian. Bisexual yes, as I will back up her claims to this. But not lesbian alone.
Maybe you simply reported incorrectly, in which case you should correct it to bisexual. As she made this a major part of her platform while campaigning.</blockquote>
</div>

Katie Hill Sex Scandal Worsens: Staffer Felt Abused In ‘Toxic’ Relationship, Consent Questions Emerge, Report Says

Sexual Abuse

On Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives passed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/77/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22actionDateChamber%3A%5C%22116%7CH%7C2019-10-16%5C%22+AND+%28billIsReserved%3A%5C%22N%5C%22+OR+type%3A%5C%22AMENDMENT%5C%22%29%22%5D%7D&amp;r=43&amp;s=1">H.J. Res. 77</a>, titled: &#8220;Opposing the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria.&#8221;
The resolution, which passed 354 to 60 (129 Republicans voted for the resolution along with 225 Democrats), reads in part:
<blockquote>Whereas thousands of Syrian fighters, including Syrian Kurds, fought courageously with the United States against the brutality of ISIS throughout Syria, liberating nearly one-third of Syrian territory from ISIS’ so-called “caliphate”&#8230;
Whereas Turkey has historically threatened, forcibly displaced, and killed Syrian Kurds, including during military operations in the Afrin District&#8230;
Whereas, during the counter-ISIS campaign in Syria, the SDF captured thousands of ISIS fighters, including foreign terrorist fighters from around the world who pose threats to our allies in the region &#8230; Whereas the SDF has warned the United States and international community that a Turkish incursion into Northeast Syria would significantly decrease the SDF’s ability to combat ISIS and to continue providing security and management for ISIS detainees and their family members&#8230;
Whereas an abrupt withdrawal of United States military personnel from certain parts of Northeast Syria is beneficial to adversaries of the United States government, including Syria, Iran, and Russia: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress—
(1) opposes the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria;
(2) calls on Turkish President Erdogan to immediately cease unilateral military action in Northeast Syria and to respect existing agreements relating to Syria;
(3) calls on the United States to continue supporting Syrian Kurdish communities through humanitarian support, including to those displaced or otherwise affected by ongoing violence in Syria;
(4) calls on the United States to work to ensure that the Turkish military acts with restraint and respects existing agreements relating to Syria; and
(5) calls on the White House to present a clear and specific plan for the enduring defeat of ISIS.</blockquote>
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have condemned President Trump’s decision to pull American troops from northern Syria, allowing Turkish forces to move into the area.
On October 6, the White House released an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-85/">official statement</a>, which noted that following a phone call between Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Trump, &#8220;Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria.&#8221;
The press release went on to state that the U.S. military would &#8220;not support or be involved in the operation.&#8221;
The president defended the move in a tweet: &#8220;As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I&#8217;ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families. The US has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8230;.the captured ISIS fighters and families. The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181232251390042118?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
During a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-orders-u-s-forces-withdraw-further-syria-esper-says-n1065516">recent interview</a>, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper stated that approximately 1,000 American troops will be withdrawn from northern Syria. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-orders-u-s-forces-withdraw-further-syria-esper-says-n1065516">NBC News</a> reports that according to two U.S. military officials, only 300 troops are set to remain at the al-Tanf garrison located near Syria’s southeast border with Lebanon and Iraq.
The Turkish advance has led to death and chaos in the area.
The <a href="http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=144050">Syrian Observatory for Human Rights</a> claims that more than 250,000 civilians have been displaced in the days following the Turkish advance, and as many as 71 civilians have been killed.
<blockquote>The death toll among the Syria Democratic Forces, military councils and internal security forces since the start of the Turkish military operation on Wednesday afternoon have risen to 158, while the number of deaths among Syrian factions loyal to Ankara and the pro-Turkey cells killed in the attacks and clashes with the SDF during the same period reached 128&#8230;</blockquote>
The <a href="https://www.apnews.com/7e90fd08a89e49d9bcae6a85a131a64a">Associated Press</a> reports that &#8220;hundreds of Islamic State families and supporters escaped from a holding camp in Syria amid the fighting between Turkish forces and the Kurds.&#8221; The camp is located in the subdistrict of Ain Issa.
Amidst the chaos of the Turkish advance into Syria, there are fears that Kurdish forces currently guarding thousands of ISIS detainees might have to abandon their posts in order to join the fight, possibly giving the detainees room to flee their cages.
During a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-gen-mattis-says-isis-will-resurge-if-we-dont-keep-the-pressure-on">recent interview</a> with ABC’s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; former Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis appeared to echo such fears, saying that &#8220;if we don’t keep the pressure on, then ISIS will resurge.&#8221;
One of President Trump’s loudest critics on this issue has been Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who, during a Wednesday interview on CBN, said he would become the president’s &#8220;worst nightmare&#8221; if things didn’t change.
&#8220;I am looking to President Trump to change this. I will do anything I can to help him, but I will also become President Trump’s worst nightmare,&#8221; Graham told host Pat Robertson. &#8220;I will not sit along the sidelines and watch a good ally, the Kurds, be slaughtered by Turkey and watch Iran move into Syria and become another nightmare for Israel. This is a defining moment for President Trump. He needs to up his game.&#8221;
Graham added that if the United States pulls out of Syria, the Islamic State (ISIS) will return and Iran will &#8220;take over.&#8221; The Senator then implored Trump to be more like Reagan and less like Obama, and &#8220;stand up to Erdoğan,&#8221; or face losing in 2020.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xi2pHRw71VY" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Also on Wednesday, Trump addressed Graham, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-says-lindsey-graham-would-like-to-stay-in-the-middle-east-for-the-next-thousand-years">saying</a>: &#8220;Lindsey Graham would like to stay in the Middle East for the next thousand years with thousands of soldiers and fighting other people’s wars. I want to get out of the Middle East.&#8221;
But Graham isn’t the only Republican lawmaker questioning the president.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has also condemned Trump’s move, saying that while we cannot stay in &#8220;foreign theaters forever &#8230; we still have major national security interests in Syria.&#8221;
The senator stated that ISIS cannot be allowed to regroup, adding:
<blockquote>It would also be DISGRACEFUL if we sat idly by while Turkey slaughters the Kurds, as public reports suggest that Turkish leader Erdogan explicitly told President Trump he intends to do. Kurds risked their lives—for many years—to fight alongside us.
Our enemies and rivals (Iran, Russia, etc.) don’t abandon their allies; if we want allies to stand with America in the future, we shouldn’t either. Honorable nations stand by their friends.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Our enemies and rivals (Iran, Russia, etc.) don’t abandon their allies; if we want allies to stand with America in the future, we shouldn’t either. Honorable nations stand by their friends.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1181275477815824384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
On Thursday, Sen. Graham and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced <a href="https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/558353c0-2323-4ea1-8545-637af1cbf7e0/graham-van-hollen-turkey-sanctions-bill-outline.pdf">legislation</a> that would severely sanction Turkey as a whole, as well as Turkish leaders specifically.
Graham and Van Holden’s legislation includes sanctions against those who would engage in the sale of military equipment or services with Turkey, and &#8220;prohibits the sale of U.S. defense articles, services, technology, [and] materials to the Turkish Armed Forces &#8230; [as well as] ammunition sales and transfers to the Turkish Armed Forces,&#8221; reads the summary text from Sen. Graham’s website.

Trump and Erdogan.

House Votes Overwhelmingly To Condemn Trump’s Military Pullback In Turkey

Kurds

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Turkey

Pat Cipollone

Trump Admin Shreds Democrats’ Impeachment Attempt In Scathing Legal Letter

President Donald Trump suggested on Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was compelled to move forward with an impeachment inquiry because she is afraid of defying self-proclaimed &#8220;radical&#8221; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (AOC) and her so-called &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">Squad</a>.&#8221;
&#8220;They all vote with AOC and plus three; Nancy Pelosi is petrified of them,&#8221; Trump told reporters outside the White House. &#8220;I mean, she&#8217;s afraid that she is going to lose her position. Nancy Pelosi will lose her speakership right after the election when the Republicans take over the House.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s remarks were in reference to the four progressive House Democrats, dubbed the &#8220;Squad,&#8221; who have been notoriously critical of the president and the Republican Party, as a whole. The Squad, consisting of Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), have been demanding Trump&#8217;s impeachment since any of the quartet were even in Congress.
Pelosi announced that House Democrats would be moving forward with an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower&#8217;s complaint accused Trump of asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for using his position as vice president to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into his son&#8217;s business dealings there.
The reports were not confirmed at the time of Pelosi&#8217;s decision and her announcement failed to expressly articulate a single &#8220;high crime or misdemeanor&#8221; that the impeachment inquiry was based upon. It was not until a day later that the White House released a transcript of Trump&#8217;s exchange with Zelensky. After the transcript was made public, many have argued that it failed to show the direct quid pro quo that was initially alleged.
However, only days prior to kicking off the inquiry, Ocasio-Cortez notably blasted her own Democratic leadership for its refusal to impeach Trump over his &#8220;lawbreaking behavior&#8221; — which she claimed was a &#8220;national scandal.&#8221; At the time, the New York congresswoman did not provide any clarity on what crime Trump allegedly committed.
On Friday, Trump was questioned whether he believes he will ultimately be impeached by the Democrat-led House, but nonetheless felt confident that the Republican-backed Senate would acquit him.
&#8220;Well, I think &#8230; [w]e have a great relationship in the Senate,&#8221; Trump replied. &#8220;I have a 95% approval rating in the Republican Party. I believe the Senate, and I haven’t spoken to that many senators, but I believe the senators look at this as a hoax, it&#8217;s a witch hunt, it&#8217;s a disgrace.&#8221;
&#8220;It should have never happened. Just like Russian collusion delusion should have never happened — that was a witch hunt. And just like that, should have never happened,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;So I think in the Senate, I think they feel that the Republican Party has been treated very very badly. Now, in the House, they have the majority.&#8221;
Democrats have been sidestepping the requirement to bring impeachment proceedings to a full vote on the House floor. More than 30 members of the House Democratic caucus represent congressional districts that voted for Trump during the 2016 election cycle. The Democratic Party largely gained its House majority after a wave of the party’s moderate candidates were elected in those purple districts during the 2018 election cycle.
With the 2020 election on the horizon, many of the more moderate House Democrats have feared that voters&#8217; distaste for impeachment could put the House majority back in the hands of the GOP.

President Trump Departs White House For Walter Reed

Trump Suggests Pelosi&#8217;s Fear Of The &#8216;Squad&#8217; Compelled The Impeachment Inquiry

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Nancy Pelosi

The closing keynote event at the 2019 Texas Tribune Festival was a one-on-one conversation with Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
During the approximately hour and fifteen minute event on Saturday evening, moderator Evan Smith, CEO and co-founder of The Texas Tribune, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/463527-pelosi-impeachment-worth-losing-house-in-2020">spoke with Pelosi</a> about impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
When Smith asked Pelosi if she was troubled by the idea that an impeachment process might hurt Democrats in the 2020 election, the Speaker replied, &#8220;It doesn’t matter.&#8221;
<blockquote>SMITH: I want to ask you &#8230; heading into the next election cycle, do you have any anxiety at all about any of the stuff we&#8217;re talking about or anything that we’re not talking about impacting your ability to hold control of the House in 2020?
PELOSI: Doesn’t matter.
SMITH: It doesn’t matter?
PELOSI: Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/evanasmith?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@evanasmith</a> asks <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerPelosi</a> if she is worried about losing the U.S. House in 2020.
&#8220;It doesn’t matter,&#8221; she says. &#8220;Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TribFest19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TribFest19</a> <a href="https://t.co/365pEc5z9p">https://t.co/365pEc5z9p</a> <a href="https://t.co/JgO6u5tUIE">pic.twitter.com/JgO6u5tUIE</a>
— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) <a href="https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1178110617712025600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
Pelosi also said: &#8220;People say you have to take a political risk doing that. That doesn&#8217;t matter. That doesn&#8217;t matter because we cannot have a President of the United States undermining his oath of office, his loyalty to his oath of office, undermining our national security, and undermining the integrity of our elections. Our elections are the fundamental point of our democracy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerPelosi</a>: &#8220;I think right now, there’s a cover-up of the cover-up.” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TribFest19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TribFest19</a> <a href="https://t.co/365pEc5z9p">https://t.co/365pEc5z9p</a> <a href="https://t.co/Jsi35ObwIc">pic.twitter.com/Jsi35ObwIc</a>
— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) <a href="https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1178108294294130688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
After quoting Thomas Paine, Pelosi added:
<blockquote>If this activity, this pattern of behavior were to prevail, and the president continued to ignore that Article 2 does not say he can do whatever he wants, then it’s over for the republic. We will have the equivalent of a monarchy. So, the times have found us, and we will take the course of integrity, of deliberation, of fairness, as I think we have done all along&#8230;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerPelosi</a> cites Thomas Paine, who once wrote: “The times have found us.”
She adds: &#8220;If this pattern were to prevail&#8230;then it&#8217;s over for the republic. We will have the equivalent of a monarchy.&#8221;
&#8220;The times have found us.&#8221;<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TribFest19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TribFest19</a> <a href="https://t.co/365pEc5z9p">https://t.co/365pEc5z9p</a> <a href="https://t.co/7LGGIDmKmL">pic.twitter.com/7LGGIDmKmL</a>
— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) <a href="https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1178109369214554112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
In the aftermath of the whistleblower complaint alleging that President Trump pressured Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a matter connected to former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, many Democratic politicians and commentators called for impeachment proceedings.
As the negative coverage from the mainstream media has intensified, more and more lawmakers in the House have joined the ranks of the impeachment squad. As of publication, 223 Democrats and one independent in the House of Representatives have <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html">called for</a> impeachment proceedings or inquiries, reports CNN. That’s a slim 51.4% majority.
Even if the House voted to impeach, the process would then move to the Senate, where a two-thirds majority (67 votes) would be needed to convict. As it stands, the Republican Party holds the Senate with 53 seats to the Democratic Party’s 45 seats. Given the composition of the deliberative body, a conviction would be highly unlikely.
Even if the two independents who typically roll with the Democratic Party voted to convict, over one-third of Senate Republicans would have to side with the Democrats in order to reach a two-thirds majority.
Barring a serious revelation of provable wrongdoing, most Senate Republicans would publicly vote against impeachment.
However, former Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona made an <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeff-flake-35-gop-senators-impeach-trump">astonishing claim</a> on Thursday regarding an alleged secret desire among his former colleagues to impeach Trump.
&#8220;Somebody mentioned yesterday that if there were a private vote, [there] would be 30 Republican votes,&#8221; Flake said at the 2019 Texas Tribune Festival. &#8220;That&#8217;s not true. There’d be at least 35 — or maybe more if it were a private vote, but that’s not possible.&#8221;

Pelosi.

Pelosi On Losing The House In 2020 Over Impeachment: ‘Doesn’t Matter’

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) announced on Monday that he would be stepping down from Congress in late-September, halfway through his fifth term.
“Recently, we’ve learned that our baby, due in late October, will need even more love, time, and attention due to complications, including a heart condition,” Duffy wrote in a statement to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/458828-gop-rep-sean-duffy-resigning-from-congress">The Hill</a>. “With much prayer, I have decided that this is the right time for me to take a break from public service in order to be the support my wife, baby, and family need right now. It is not an easy decision – because I truly love being your Congressman – but it is the right decision for my family, which is my first love and responsibility.”
“On September 23, I will step down and allow others to step forward to begin laying our their own vision and plans for leading this beautiful district and the most honest, hard-working, family-oriented, patriotic, and God-fearing constituents in America,” the statement continued.
Duffy rose to fame as a cast member on MTV’s ‘Real World’ reality television show in the late-1990s. He subsequently continued as a cast member on other shows within the franchise into the early-2000s. He met his now-wife and Fox News personality Rachel Campos-Duffy years later when they both appeared on ‘Road Rules: All Stars.’ Together, the couple has eight children and are expecting a ninth.
Duffy is also a two-time winner of the Lumberjack World Championship’s speed-climbing competition and hosts a weekly podcast, aptly titled the “Plaidcast.” It is not clear whether he plans to continue the beloved podcast.
Prior to joining Congress, Duffy served as a Wisconsin District Attorney after he was appointed by then-Gov. Scott McCallum. He continued to serve in the role for four more terms.
Duffy has represented Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District since he assumed office during the Tea Party wave in 2011. The district is the largest in the state of Wisconsin, covering 20 counties, and has become increasingly red over the past few election cycles.
In 2018, the Wisconsin congressman was re-elected to the seat after winning more than 20 percent of the vote. President Donald Trump also won the district over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton by 21 points during the 2016 presidential election. The district is a Republican stronghold and is not expected to be competitive going into the 2020 election cycle.
Duffy currently sits on the prestigious and powerful House Committee on Financial Services and is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
The announcement of Duffy’s departure comes on the heels of a slew of other Republican members of Congress who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49962/third-house-republican-one-week-announces-they-molly-prince">recently revealed</a> they would be stepping down from their position as well.
In July, Reps. Martha Roby (R-AL), Paul Mitchell (R-MI), and Pete Olson (R-TX) all announced within a week of each other that they would be leaving Congress prior to 2020. Like Duffy’s district, both Roby and Mitchell’s districts are forecast to stay reliably red. Olson’s district, however, is expected to be a top-tier battleground going into the next election cycle.

Sean Duffy

Rep. Sean Duffy Announces His Resignation From Congress

Wisconsin

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) announced on Monday that he is formally voicing his support for opening an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
“I support moving forward with an impeachment inquiry, which will continue to uncover the facts for the American people and hold this president accountable,” Luján wrote <a href="https://lujan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/lujn-statement-on-impeachment-inquiry">in a statement</a>. “This is not a position that I’ve reached lightly.”
Luján serves as the assistant speaker under Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the lower chamber. His recent calls to move forward with impeaching the president makes him the highest-ranking House Democrat to do so.
“The Trump presidency is creating grave national security concerns. Our country’s intelligence agencies have confirmed that the Russian government attacked American during the 2016 elections,” Luján said. “Numerous experts have warned that these attacks are ongoing to this day.”
“And when faced with this evidence from his own government, President Trump has failed to act,” he continued. “Not only has he ignored the warnings that our Democracy is being targeted, but he has also actively encouraged Russian interference.”
Luján, who revealed in April that he would be officially running for New Mexico’s open Senate seat, cited both the findings in the recently released Mueller report and the president’s lack of action on election security as his primary reasons for wanting to proceed with an impeachment probe.
“When Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller released his report, I read it in full,” Luján said. “I was alarmed by the Trump campaign and the Trump White House’s brazen disregard for the rule of law.”
“The report detailed sustained and frequent attempts by the Trump campaign to establish ties to the Russian government and an eagerness to benefit from the hacked information stolen from our fellow Americans,” he continued. “The Special Counsel also detailed ten different attempts by President Trump to obstruct justice during the investigation. This would be unacceptable behavior from any president.”
“President Trump’s lack of action is jeopardizing our elections, national security, and Democracy,” Luján added. “What is evident is that President Trump is abdicating his responsibility to defend our nation from Russian attacks and is putting his own personal and political interests ahead of the American people.”
The New Mexico congressman now joins more than half of the entire House Democratic caucus in urging leadership to move forward with an impeachment investigation. Accordingly, more than 125 of the party’s congressional lawmakers have officially backed the move. One Republican, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), has also called to advance impeachment proceedings.
Pelosi, a close ally of Luján, has been reluctant to embrace her caucus’ demands, even as the calls grow louder. Democrats largely gained the House majority after a wave of moderates were elected to purple districts during the 2018 midterm election cycle. With the 2020 election on the horizon, Pelosi fears that voters’ distaste for impeachment could put the majority back in the hands of Republicans.
The House voted in April to kill a measure seeking to impeach Trump by a vote of 332–95, the first vote on such a measure since Democrats overtook the House.

Impeach Trump Sign

Top-Ranking House Democrat Joins Calls For Trump’s Impeachment

Last week, after an interminable investigation and a special counsel report that showed President Donald Trump neither guilty of collusion with Russia nor of obstruction of justice, Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before two U.S. House of Representative committees regarding his report and investigation. Anyone who watched the hearings understood that Mueller looked uncomfortable, feeble, and reluctant to have to be subject to this Democratic charade.
But nothing is ever enough. No matter what may reveal Trump’s innocence, the Left continues to baselessly insist the president is guilty of being a Russian stooge in the pocket of Vladimir Putin.
However, the question remains as to why the Democratic Party would decide to have Mueller come in to testify and not merely move on — accept the results of the report, admit defeat, and fight on other issues that could benefit them at the ballot box. In fact, the hearing made the Democrats look worse, in the sense that Mueller contradicted himself numerous times and often could not remember what was in his own report.
So why did the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives move along with this sham?
Contrary to what many of us may believe, politicians aren’t stupid. They’re calculating constantly, and unfortunately, can use that for diabolical reasons. These Democratic committee chairmen are no different. And the Left, in particular, is drunk on arrogance.
The entire ideology of progressive leftism is premised upon arrogance. The early progressive thinkers, such as Herbert Crowley, John Dewey, and Woodrow Wilson constantly talked about “the masterminds” controlling the lives of the populace — the heartland yokels who the elitists believed were incapable of governing themselves. We also see this phenomenon today in other contexts: On college campuses, anyone not in lockstep with the Left is shouted down and ostracized. The on-campus Left believes that the only valid opinions are their own.
This is the logical conclusion of progressivism. Its philosophy rests on the notion that the all-powerful, centralized state is the new “god.” It explains why the Left despises authentic religion. However, since God is infallible, that would mean, to the progressive, that the state is infallible. Hence, the Left probably does not recognize its own arrogance, believing that the “group of masterminds” knows more than the lowly, common man.
The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135-1204) was known for looking for the middle ground when assessing character traits. However, he emphatically stated that one should go to the ultimate extreme to avoid certain traits — one of them being arrogance.
As he states in his most famous work, the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot De’ot 2:3):
<blockquote>There are temperaments with regard to which a man is forbidden to follow the middle path. He should move away from one extreme and adopt the other.
Among these is arrogance. If a man is only humble, he is not following a good path. Rather, he must hold himself lowly and his spirit very unassuming. That is why Numbers 12:3 describes our teacher Moses as &#8220;very humble&#8221; and not simply &#8220;humble&#8221;. Therefore, our Sages directed: &#8220;Hold oneself very, very lowly.&#8221; Also, they declared: &#8220;Whoever is arrogant is as if he denied God&#8217;s presence, as implied by Deuteronomy 8:14: &#8216;And your heart will be haughty and you will forget God, your Lord.&#8217; Furthermore, they said: &#8220;Whoever is arrogant should be placed under a ban of ostracism. This applies even if he is only somewhat arrogant.&#8221;</blockquote>
So we see that even a millennium ago, it was obvious that arrogance is a vice to be avoided at all costs — for it will cause man to serve God less or, even worse, to stop serving Him altogether. Arrogance will inevitably convince man that he is akin to God.
Does anything exemplify the progressive movement more than this?
The Left&#8217;s intense desire to warp reality itself is the epitome of arrogance. And sadly for the Left, no matter how hard it keeps trying to ignore objective truth, it will continue to beclown itself.

FRANKEL: The Mueller Hearing Showcases The Vice Of Arrogance

Leftism

Progressivism

Robert Mueller

Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) revealed on Friday that she will not be seeking reelection when her term expires, making her the third House Republican this week to announce they would be leaving Congress by 2020.
“Riley and I, and our children, Margaret and George, will be forever grateful to the people of Alabama’s Second District for giving us the tremendous privilege and honor serving our state and country,” Roby wrote in a statement. “Throughout my five terms in Congress, I have cast every vote with the guiding principle that Alabama always comes first.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">INBOX: Martha Roby announces she will not seek sixth congressional term. <a href="https://t.co/2TvBW9JYU9">pic.twitter.com/2TvBW9JYU9</a>
— Alabama Politics (@AlabamaPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlabamaPolitics/status/1154827152006746114?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
“Together, we have been able to deliver some incredible results for our military, veterans, agriculture community, and the unborn. We are not finished yet,” the statement continued. “While my name will not be on the ballot in 2020, I remain committed to continuing the fight for Alabama and the people I represent until I cast my last vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.”
Roby was first elected to serve as the representative to Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District in 2010, narrowly edging out incumbent Bobby Bright and flipping the district red. She went on to win reelection for a fifth term in 2018, receiving more than 60% of the vote.
The announcement of Roby’s departure comes on the heels of two other Republican members of Congress who each announced they will be stepping down at the end of their term.
Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI) confirmed on Tuesday that he would be retiring, in part, due to his frustration with the caustic political culture that rewards extremes.
“You look at the rhetoric and vitriol, it overwhelms policy, politics becomes the norm,” Mitchell told <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2019/07/24/how-to-think-about-todays-mueller-extravaganza-461020?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014e-f0fa-dd93-ad7f-f8ffe0400000&amp;nlid=630318">Politico</a>. “Everything’s about politics. Everything’s about an election. And at some point of time, that’s not why I came here.”
Mitchell won his district by roughly 30 points when he first ran in his 2016 congressional election, as well as during his subsequent reelection in 2018. Accordingly, President Donald Trump received 64% of the district’s vote during the presidential election and the seat is not considered to be at risk of flipping Democrat after Mitchell steps down.
However, only two days after Mitchell’s announcement, Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) also revealed that he would be retiring from his congressional seat.
“Protecting our future and preserving our exceptional nation are the reasons I first ran for Congress,” Olson wrote in a press release, obtained by the <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/25/us-rep-pete-olson-retiring/">Texas Tribune</a>. “Now, it’s time for another citizen-legislator to take up this mission, not to make a career out of politics, but to help lead the cause of empowering our people, defending our liberties, and making sure America remains the greatest nation in history.”
Unlike Roby and Mitchell&#8217;s districts, Texas’ 22nd Congressional Districted is expected to be a top-tier battleground going into 2020. Olson easily won his last four reelections, but the race began heating up in 2018 despite Republicans previously viewing the seat as reliably red. Olson’s Democratic challenger took advantage of the district’s changing demographics, which has a greater population of Asians than any other congressional district in Texas.
The Democratic establishment has already begun to seize upon the opportunity to flip the seat as they seek to retain a majority in the House.
&#8220;Republicans across Texas are terrified of losing their seats in 2020,&#8221; said <a href="https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-representative-texas-democrats-2020-elections">Avery Jaffe</a>, a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spokesperson. &#8220;We can’t blame Pete Olson for choosing to retire instead of being thrown out of office next year.&#8221;

Third House Republican In One Week Announces They Will Not Be Seeking Reelection In 2020

Firebrand freshman Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) slammed House Democrats on Thursday for prioritizing a “fishing expedition” into senior White House aides’ communications instead of focusing upon the needs of the American people.
“We’re not doing anything to stop and deal with the problems we got, with cartels managing the border,” Roy said during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing. “We’re sitting here in a fishing expedition for emails, alleging that we’re trying to do that in compliance with the law that’s being complied with.”
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
“In what universe is this what we’re supposed to be doing for the United States of America, for the people in this country who are watching their country racking up mountains of debt — $320 billion over existing spending levels, which would still give us a trillion dollar deficit,” he continued. “Well done, Congress. Well done.”
Roy’s remarks came after the Oversight Committee voted to subpoena officials in the Trump administration to gain access to their private emails and social media messages — including senior advisor Jared Kushner’s communication with foreign officials over WhatsApp and information obtained from Ivanka Trump’s personal email account.
House Democrats argue that senior White House aides may have violated the Presidential Records Act by using the aforementioned platforms to conduct official business, reported <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/white-house-private-communications-subpoena-1435114">Politico</a>.
“Why are we doing this because they’re working with us to comply with the law to turn over information to follow what the chairman was just saying,” Roy said. “In the meantime, while we are doing this, while we are sitting here, as I’ve pointed out before for the hour we’re going to be debating this, another $100 million of debt has been racked up. Another how many thousands of people have poured across our border. How much more control have we yielded to cartels who truly control and run our border? That’s what we’re dealing about.”
Roy read to the Committee a text message that he received from a United States Border Patrol agent explaining that some of the agents who were originally tasked with patrolling the border have been reassigned to security detail at detention facilities.
“All the agencies that are helping us are doing detention security, hospital watch, sandwich making, handing out hygienic items and milk, and transportation,” the Texas congressman read from his phone.
“And you’re going to have that kind of level of spending while we’ve got wide open borders — what are we doing for the people of the United States?” he continued. “I’m going to be told ‘oh, we’re protecting the law,’ [but] the law’s being complied with — when instead it’s a fishing expedition for political purposes.”
Roy noted that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony to two separate House committees on Wednesday was another example of a politically driven fishing expedition wherein Americans “got nothing other than dawdling responses about an incompetent effort.”
“Here we sit, mounting up debt for our children and grandchildren &#8230; it’s extraordinary,” Roy said. “Wide open borders destroying communities, endangering the lives of Americans in south Texas while I get smirks from my Democratic colleagues, while there are people right now facing attacks from cartels.”
“Dealing with it on a daily basis and we get smirks, and we get requests for emails from people in the White House,” he continued. “This is the face of the Democratic Party. This is the face of your Congress today, America.”
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) took offense to Roy’s fiery condemnation of House Democrats.
“Shame on my colleague from Texas,” Connelly said.
“Shame on this body,” Roy replied. “You’ll continue to hear from me in defense of this country.”

WATCH: Chip Roy Unloads On House Democrats In Hearing And Storms Out

Conservatism

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

Republican Party

Southern Border

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was hit with criticism for his bumbling congressional testimony on Wednesday morning. Politicos from across the aisle highlighted Mueller’s slow draw to questioning and constant need for citations of his own report, sparking frustration from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers questioning him. The awkward moments were quickly compiled into a supercut video from <a href="https://news.grabien.com/story-confused-looking-mueller-repeatedly-asks-questions-be-repeat">Grabien Media</a>, which can be viewed below.
Mueller’s lackluster performance prompted Fox News’ Chris Wallace, who can oftentimes be critical of Republicans and President Donald Trump, to question if Mueller was actually fully “in charge” of the report.
&#8220;This has been a disaster for the Democrats, and I think it’s been a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49834/disaster-chris-wallace-rips-democrats-robert-ryan-saavedra">said</a> Wallace.
&#8220;He has been attacked a number of times and you would think that almost anybody else would have defended his own integrity and the integrity of the investigation, and over and over Mueller just sits silent and allows the attacks from the Republicans to sweep over him and says nothing,&#8221; the host continued. &#8220;I think it does raise questions about the degree to which he actually was in charge and in control of this report because he doesn’t seem very much in control or in charge of what the final report was.&#8221;
At another troubling point during the testimony, Mueller said he wasn’t familiar with Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous “Steele Dossier” that helped spark the investigation into alleged Russian &#8220;collusion&#8221; with Trump’s 2016 campaign.
“Robert Mueller literally just said he wasn&#8217;t familiar with Fusion GPS. My Lord. My Lord,” said Mollie Hemingway, author and Fox News contributor.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Robert Mueller literally just said he wasn&#8217;t familiar with Fusion GPS. My Lord. My Lord.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) <a href="https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1154021219970297856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
As noted by The Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow, Mueller was unable to answer why the firm was not mentioned in his report. “Despite the fact that the Steele Dossier was mentioned throughout Mueller’s final report, the origins of that report were not. Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion and a key player in the creating the ‘evidence’ against Trump, was not mentioned once. Fusion’s involvement in the alleged Russia collusion was also not investigated,” she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49836/mueller-cant-explain-why-fusion-gps-and-glenn-ashe-schow">wrote</a>.
Moreover, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/robert-mueller-house-testimony-tracker-july-2019-n1033166">according</a> to NBC News, Mueller “deflected or declined to answer questions” during the hearing at least 106 times.
“Mueller was slow to react to questions,” <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-confused-performance-by-mueller-raises-questions-about-handling-of-investigation">commented</a> The Washington Examiner’s Byron York. “He frequently asked for questions to be repeated. He sometimes appeared confused. He did not appear to be conversant with some issues in the investigation. He did not, or could not, put together detailed answers even to those questions he agreed to address.”
York noted that reporters who’ve covered Mueller “for years” noticed a change, too:
<blockquote>“I haven&#8217;t seen a performance quite like this from Mueller,&#8221; the New York Times&#8217; Noah Weiland said in an online discussion. &#8220;In 12 years as FBI director, he gave plenty of clipped responses. But more often than not he was more rhetorically agile than anyone on the committees that were questioning him. And there was rarely a time when he even paused for a second after a question was asked. There was little searching in his eyes for answers. He rarely looked at notes. … This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years. And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.”</blockquote>
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Montage: Confused-Looking Mueller Repeatedly Asks for Questions To Be Repeated <a href="https://t.co/dx9daSuA0l">https://t.co/dx9daSuA0l</a> <a href="https://t.co/762cCukD1f">pic.twitter.com/762cCukD1f</a>
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1154068013567660032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet"></div>
<div class="embed tweet"></div>

WATCH: ‘Confused Mueller’ Supercut Video Hits Internet After Bumbling Testimony

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller admitted on Wednesday that the determination of his report held President Donald Trump to a different standard than the Department of Justice holds any other individual under investigation.
&#8220;You said in Volume 1, on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,&#8221; Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing. &#8220;Then in volume 2 … the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president.&#8221;
&#8220;The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,&#8221; Ratcliffe continued, reading directly from Mueller’s report. &#8220;Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor brings the heat and shows everyone watching what a disgrace this whole “investigation” was.
Worth the watch. <a href="https://t.co/Rcjrish9mR">pic.twitter.com/Rcjrish9mR</a>
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1154023487700385793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Ratcliffe, a former prosecutor, argued that the findings of the report violated Department of Justice (DOJ) policies and principles by abstaining from exonerating Trump after the Special Counsel failed to conclusively determine that he was innocent of all accusations.
&#8220;Your report, and today, you said that at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles,&#8221; Ratcliffe said. &#8220;So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?&#8221;
After repeating the question multiple times, Mueller failed to provide a clear answer.
&#8220;Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person is not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?&#8221; Ratcliffe asked.
Mueller replied that he could not identify another person who was ever held to the same standard as Trump, but added that &#8220;this is a unique situation.&#8221;
&#8220;You can’t,&#8221; Ratcliffe said. &#8220;Time is short, I’ve got five minutes, let’s just leave it at ‘you can’t find it’ because I’ll tell you why: it doesn’t exist.&#8221;
The Texas congressman slammed Mueller for stepping outside his purview in trying to conclude if Trump was innocent and if he should be exonerated.
&#8220;The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him,&#8221; Ratcliffe said. &#8220;It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the special counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in the justice manual, and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution.&#8221;
&#8220;Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting presidents.&#8221;

WATCH: GOP Lawmaker Presses Mueller Into Admitting He Held Trump To A Different Standard

Judiciary

The House Foreign Affairs committee passed an anti-BDS resolution (H.R. 246) today unanimously. One of its co-sponsors, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) announced the passage via Twitter:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Great News! <a href="https://twitter.com/HouseForeign?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HouseForeign</a> just passed HRes246 opposing the BDS movement, which is a blatantly anti-Israel &amp; anti-Semitic effort that targets Israel &amp; the Jewish people. The full House should pass this reso ASAP &amp; then do something about it by passing S-1/HR336 as well!
— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1151550204241424385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
For the uninitiated, BDS is the anti-Israel movement that calls for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against the State of Israel, Israeli academics, businesses, and more. The movement has been a key catalyst in the meteoric rise in anti-Semitism around the world. Twenty-six states and dozens of cities have passed resolutions condemning the movement and prohibiting government entities from contracting with companies who engage in BDS. Now, the U.S House of Representatives is set to vote and pass a resolution opposing the movement, as well.
On any other week the Jewish community, and the pro-Israel community at large, would be celebrating the House’s condemnation of the BDS movement as bigoted and anti-Semitic. Why is this week different than all other weeks?
This week a U.S. congresswoman introduced a counter-resolution advocating for boycotts of Israel, and even <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49651/hammer-ilhan-omar-wrong-here-why-anti-bds-laws-are-josh-hammer">likening the State of Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa</a>. While the resolution itself only serves as a declaration to affirm Americans’ rights to commercial boycotts “in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad,” the resolution’s author, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), has made clear that the intent of her resolution is to support the BDS movement against Israel. She explained that her resolution is “an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement.” Not surprisingly, the resolution has been celebrated by the National BDS National Committee’s Hind Awwad, who stated to Al Jazeera that this resolution is “ground-breaking” and serves to “inspire human rights defenders everywhere, including BDS activists for Palestinians rights.”
Omar’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions have been well documented. The anti-Israel position of her resolution co-sponsor, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), is also well known. However, the significance of this resolution cannot be understated. That the resolution will certainly fail is largely irrelevant. That the House is approaching an open debate about whether boycotts of Israel and Israeli-owned businesses are appropriate is telling. And, given the House’s inability to clearly and unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism after Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments in March, the prospect of a House debate on the boycott of Israel is worrisome — to say the least.
What’s worse is that despite the political hysteria about Reps. Tlaib and Omar, who have expressed sharp anti-Israel and anti-Semitic beliefs, their positions had previously mostly lived on the sidelines. But, what Tlaib and Omar understand all too well is that while they may not be able to change the U.S.’s staunch support for Israel, they can certainly change the tenor of the national conversation surrounding Israel. And change the conversation they have. Fifty-five years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, we have members of the U.S. Congress advocating for discrimination based on religion or national origin. It seems that Tlaib and Omar do not believe that Israelis and Jews should be protected under the Civil Rights Act. And, their timing is impeccable. Just a few days after President Trump’s incendiary and offensive comments, when he told Reps. Tlaib, Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) that they should “go back” to the “places from which they came,” the national spotlight is on these young congresswomen to see how they respond. With the spotlight shining bright on their faces, and the anti-Trumpers always eager to support them, Reps. Omar and Tlaib are using this moment to advocate against the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
It is imperative for the Jewish community — whether Democrat or Republican — to strongly oppose Omar and Tlaib’s efforts to malign Israel and the Jewish people via this resolution. The Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 presidential primary candidates are watching to see how the Jewish community, and the pro-Israel community at large, will respond to this effort. It is up to the people for them to understand that the U.S. needs to continue to stand steadfast with the one and only Jewish State. All Americans must understand that this resolution is an attack upon the Jewish people. And with anti-Semitism at unbearable levels in the U.S. and abroad alike, this resolution acts to add fuel to the fire, placing the Jewish community in a precarious position. Omar’s resolution must be soundly rejected by all.
Gabriel Groisman is the Mayor of Bal Harbour, Florida and an attorney. Follow him on Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groismangabriel/">@groismangabriel</a> and on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/gabegroisman">@gabegroisman</a>.

GROISMAN: Ilhan Omar’s Pro-Boycott Resolution Must Be Rejected

Ilhan Omar

Israel

Palestinians

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44424/hammer-stark-choice-facing-jewish-democrats-josh-hammer">Jew-hater extraordinaire</a> Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) — she of &#8220;Jews have dual loyalty&#8221; and &#8220;support for Israel is only due to monetary interest&#8221; fame — is at it again. Omar, whose membership in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49515/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">2020 electoral suicide &#8220;Squad&#8221;</a> has launched her, along with her fellow America-hating Marxist zealots, even more firmly into the national spotlight, is opting to use that spotlight to double and triple down on her signature issue: Hating Jews.
Yes, really.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">It&#8217;s a testament to .<a href="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@IlhanMN</a>&#8216;s obsessive hatred of Jews that she is using the moment of her highest celebrity ratings to advance the anti-Jewish BDS movement.
— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) <a href="https://twitter.com/CarolineGlick/status/1151705980750696448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Omar, who, when she wasn&#8217;t <a href="http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/">reportedly defrauding</a> the U.S. government, engaged in a <a href="https://www.jta.org/2018/11/14/politics/post-election-ilhan-omar-says-supports-bds-telling-jewish-audience-isnt-effective">systemic defrauding</a> of Jewish voters in her Minnesota congressional district, decided to use her national platform this week to highlight just how strongly she feels about hurting, penalizing, and undermining the political and economic interests of global Jewry. As The Daily Wire has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49617/watch-omar-compares-bds-movement-boston-tea-party-molly-prince">reported</a>, Omar introduced this week a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text">House resolution</a> that &#8220;affirms&#8221; Americans&#8217; purported &#8220;right&#8221; to engage in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9NfGqUkwk4">facially anti-Semitic</a> Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46068/hammer-yes-united-states-was-right-deny-entry-bds-josh-hammer">seeks the ultimate destruction</a> of the world&#8217;s only Jewish state. Omar, whose <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/49515/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">popularity among swing voters</a> rivals that of the bubonic plague, introduced the resolution by flaunting her vile Jew-hating credentials for the world to see in hitherto unprecedentedly brazen fashion: Comparing the genocidal BDS campaign, which seeks the annihilation of the state of Israel and the tossing of all the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38855/cnn-commentator-who-called-elimination-israel-joseph-curl">Juden into the Mediterranean</a>, to the lineage of proud American boycotting that dates all the way back to the Boston Tea Party itself.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Rep. Ilhan Omar defends the anti-Semitic BDS movement, compares it to the Boston Tea Party. <a href="https://t.co/O5wvhxuJlM">pic.twitter.com/O5wvhxuJlM</a>
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1151560173540007937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Omar&#8217;s <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text">resolution</a>, furthermore, directly compares the free, liberalized, pluralistic state of Israel to genocidal Nazi Germany, the gulag state that was the Soviet Union, and apartheid South Africa alike.
There are truly no words to describe this monstrous level of moral obtuseness — this unfathomable level of sheer stupidity. If I were a voter in Minnesota&#8217;s 5th Congressional District who helped send such a contemptible and benighted ignoramus to the United States Congress, I&#8217;d hide my head in a bag for years.
But Omar&#8217;s resolution, if taken at face value, does not actually offer direct substantive support for BDS. Rather, the resolution amounts to a procedural and legal &#8220;affirmation&#8221; of a purported constitutional &#8220;right&#8221; to engage in BDS. Here is the direct <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text">text</a>:
<blockquote>Resolved, That the House of Representatives —
(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and
(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.</blockquote>
But is the anti-Semitic BDS movement actually constitutionally secured by the First Amendment? The short answer is no, not really. As law professor and constitutional law expert Eugene Kontorovich <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/27/israel-anti-boycott-bill-does-not-violate-free-speech">explained</a> in The Washington Post in 2017, it is the &#8220;distinction between &#8230; expression and &#8230; commercial conduct&#8221; that makes all the constitutional difference in the world. Or as David French <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-anti-semitic-bds-movement-advocates-illegal-discrimination/">helpfully framed it</a> at National Review today, institutional discrimination that is targeted in its bigotry against Israelis due merely to national origin is statutorily illegal under the 1977 Export Administration Act and is no way constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">When is BDS lawful?
When a person acts in their individual capacity to boycott events/companies associated with Israel.
When is it illegal?
When institutions act against Israelis based on their national origin.
When is it bigoted?
Always.
Explainer: <a href="https://t.co/DqNnRjdiCu">https://t.co/DqNnRjdiCu</a>
— David French (@DavidAFrench) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1151968963829653508?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
As Kontorovich explained, &#8220;the anti-boycott provisions of the 1977 Export Administration Act &#8230; [prohibit] U.S. entities from participating in or cooperating with international boycotts organized by foreign countries.&#8221; These provisions were not initially written with Israel in mind, but they are statutorily agnostic as to the target of the boycott. The Export Administration Act was signed into law during the administration of the ultra-leftist, <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/carter-says-hamas-leader-committed-to-peace-netanyahu-not/">Hamas-cozy</a> President Jimmy Carter, and there were no notable First Amendment criticisms of the Act raised at the time of its enactment.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1152.pdf">unanimously held</a> in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that an institutional entity&#8217;s refusal to do business based on national origin is not an inherently expressive activity that is protected under the First Amendment. As Kontorovich aptly phrased it: &#8220;It is only the boycotter’s explanation of the action that sends a message, not the actual business conduct. Those expressions of views are protected, but they do not immunize the underlying economic conduct from regulation.&#8221; Under properly drafted anti-BDS statutes, such as the bill passed earlier this year by the U.S. Senate, individuals remain free to express their opposition to Israel through whichever convenient means they&#8217;d like to channel in order to do so. Instead, it is merely an entity&#8217;s economic discrimination based on national origin that is not covered by the First Amendment. And under <a href="https://reason.com/2019/02/18/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-anti">Rumsfeld and other applicable Supreme Court precedent</a>, institutional boycotts against Israel are legally treated as economic action — and not as First Amendment-protected speech.
Again, properly drafted anti-BDS laws <a href="https://reason.com/2019/02/18/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-anti">do not prohibit</a> individuals from boycotting Israel, in their individual capacities.
Here is how French helpfully <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-anti-semitic-bds-movement-advocates-illegal-discrimination/">puts it</a>:
<blockquote>Legally &#8230; the white-nationalist analogy holds up quite well. Yes, you have a right to join the tiki-torch brigade and march to your heart’s content. You have a right not to watch pro sports because most of the athletes are nonwhite. But the instant you form or join a public accommodation — or the instant you join an arm of the state — your discrimination becomes unlawful.</blockquote>
It is really that simple. To the extent Omar&#8217;s resolution merely seeks to &#8220;affirm&#8221; an individual right to boycott Israel in one&#8217;s personal capacity, she is fighting a non-existent straw man. But to the extent Omar&#8217;s resolution also seeks to &#8220;affirm&#8221; an institutional entity&#8217;s &#8220;right&#8221; to economically discriminate based on national origin, she is dead wrong on the law.

Menu