Flynn Justice Truth

Dems Ramp Up Impeachment II As Flynn Gets Justice

By Cathi Chamberlain 

It’s taken three painful years for truth to emerge. But we now know that the head of the Democratic Party’s House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, lied to the American people to justify the Mueller Special Counsel investigation into so-called Trump-Russia collusion. He was hardly the only one. Condoning that behavior, or allowing it to go unpunished, will mean the death of America as we know it.

According to Breitbart more than a year ago, Schiff lied to the American people no fewer than fourteen times. He is still lying today.

He no longer has cover for his lies now that the classified information he was privy to has been un-redacted and released by Attorney General Bill Barr’s office. Trey Gowdy recently told FOX News that Congressmen have total immunity for anything said in office. That’s insane. And it allows the lowest of characters, like Schiff, to rise to power.

We know that the Democrats, the DOJ, the FBI, and Mueller, along with his entire team, were aware that there was no evidence to back up the Trump-Russia collusion charges well before the midterm election in 2018. The Washington Examiner reported that “Special counsel prosecutors mostly knew by the end of 2017, and certainly by a few months later, that the evidence would not establish that conspiracy or coordination had taken place.” Think about that.

As President Trump was being falsely accused, the American people were led to believe he and many supporters were guilty of some of the worst crimes against our country. We were put through an agonizing array of confusing messages that now appear almost certainly to have been intentionally planted. If ever there was true election interference, this was it and the evidence is out.

We see waves of evidence today as the DOJ finally dropped the relentless prosecution of decorated war hero, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. Incredibly, some Democrats quickly took to the airwaves to condemn the move and call for a re-do. They argue that the Mueller investigation was justified because convictions were ultimately attained. No matter that those convictions came by “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Or that FBI 302 forms had been changed. Too bad if the DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence. It doesn’t matter to them that Flynn only testified that he lied after losing his home, filing bankruptcy in his defense, and having the FBI target his son. Who among us wouldn’t say just about anything having gone through the same — particularly targeting family members?

That is exactly how the left plays the game. Target the man, then fashion the crime. Eventually you’ll find something that will stick. It’s disgraceful.

Chapter 3 of my book, Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism (RFD), explores this in Saul Alinsky’s tactic #3, “whenever possible go outside the experience of your enemy.” Democrats and the left created a scenario against Trump that was so unbelievably convoluted that the average American could barely follow. That was intentional. All thirteen of Alinsky’s tactics are being used against America today in an effort to transform our country to socialism. If we don’t get this right, our grandchildren won’t know the meaning of freedom.

“‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.’ So said Lavrentiy Beria, the ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragging that he ‘could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent’….

“…Beria targeted ‘the man’ first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence….

You wouldn’t know that if you followed the Trump-Russia collusion special counsel investigation or with the confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. 

“When Saul Alinsky discusses Tactic #3, he claims its intent is to cause confusion, chaos, fear and retreat on the part of one’s opponent.” (RFD,pp. 59-60)

That’s exactly what Adam Schiff intended with his purposely misleading statements throughout the Mueller investigation. He’s the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after all. Those in his party should be outraged, if they are honest. Likewise, any American who blindly followed their favorite mainstream media source only to now learn they had been lied to for years, should feel betrayed — if they have learned the truth now.

It should be no secret to common sense Americans that the “fake news” media has been infiltrated by puppets who follow the leftist agenda. As more evidence comes out about the phony Trump-Russia collusion witch-hunt (and it will), the survival of the Democratic Party may well depend on how it responds to this new reality.

According to U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, who has been sounding the alarm about the attempted coup against this President since the beginning, “53 House Intel Committee transcripts will expose more lies made to Congress by the deep state and Radical Dems.” Schiff inexcusably withheld the documents for over two years. America should be grateful to Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell for finally having the courage to make them public. Now that they’ve been un-redacted and released, we’re seeing the extent to which the past administration tried to damage Trump and company. 

Obama’s top guns, e.g. James Comey, James Clapper, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Evelyn Farkas et al, giddily cast suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion to complicit news anchors from the start. The newly released transcripts reveal that every one of them, during testimony under threat of perjury, denied having any evidence whatsoever to back up claims they made on TV. All was done in an attempt to impeach Trump. That is truly treasonous. 

Many Americans will feign surprise at these new revelations. They shouldn’t. Nearly everything being exposed today has been known for years to those paying attention. Much of it was revealed in Chapter 3 of my book, written in the fall of 2018. Every word has since held true. In fact, some revelations have not yet hit the mainstream. Isn’t it time to start asking, where has the media been?

How the collusion suspicions began is really quite a spy novel. And, for the sake of our country’s survival, it’s time we all learn the facts because it’s about to happen all over again.

As early “as late 2015 through the summer of 2016, the British spy agency GCHQ (equivalent to our NSA), along with other foreign allied agencies known as the ‘Five Eyes’, began passing highly sensitive information [about Trump et al] to their U.S. counterparts.

“GCHQ supposedly became aware of ‘suspicious interactions’ between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to U.K. intelligence said. Or, did they?

“GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to CIA chief, John Brennan (his long-time buddy.) Brennan used that information to ‘launch a major interagency investigation. … Both U.S. and U.K. intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kick-starting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.’ But, why?

“Joe DiGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, reported on a Lou Dobbs Tonight episode of FOX News Business (October 16, 2018), that they did so because it was illegal for American agencies to spy on American citizens. The Obama administration, via his FBI and DOJ asked the U.K. for assistance, and GCHQ complied.” (RFD, pp. 61-62) 

And, so it began.

But, Brennan didn’t stop there. And, what follows is key to understanding how the left has gotten away with this and so many other attacks against our Constitutional principles since Obama left the White House. It’s something we ought all be worried about.

Kimberly Strassel, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, laid out John Brennan’s involvement better than I ever could: “‘In a late August [2016] briefing, [Brennan] told the [Democratic] Senate minority leader [Harry Reid] Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. [Do you see how they give each other cover?]

“‘…Within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which…immediately became public…[i.e., was leaked.] “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,’ wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s the-Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use ‘every resource available to investigate this matter.’

“‘The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.”…Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.’” (RFD, pp. 66-67)

What makes this information so relevant today is that the same Michael Isikoff is still doing the left’s bidding. And, most probably, Americans are again only paying attention to the headlines. His latest article is entitled “Exclusive: Obama says in private call that ‘rule of law is at risk’ in Michael Flynn case.” It could translate as a direct shout-out, via Isikoff, by the former president to his entrenched, well-coordinated army of agitators. It exemplifies a pattern repeated by the left critical for Americans to recognize. Let’s see how Isikoff’s 2016 article of half-truths played out.

“The Guardian concurs with Strassel’s account, adding further insight: ‘In late August and September 2016, Brennan gave a series of classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. He told them the agency had evidence the Kremlin might be trying to help Trump to win the presidency….’ At the time, Brennan did not tell the committee who his sources were [hard to believe nobody asked], only that they came from America’s allies. Much later, however, Trump learned that the source was the GCHQ. In fact, Trump blamed them later in his infamous wiretap tweet for secretly surveilling him in Trump Tower. He’s not looking so crazy anymore, is he?

“In mid-2016 (two and a half months after ‘Crossfire’ was launched and just weeks before the election), a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was approved to spy on an American for supposed criminal activities with Russia. A large part of the evidence supporting that warrant was based on the “Steele dossier” and the Yahoo article by Michael Isikoff.” (RFD, pp. 66-68)

We now know from the Mueller Report that the complete Steele dossier was based on false, unverified information. Recall that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted under oath that the investigation would never have launched had it not been for the dossier. We also know that the FISA warrants were based on lies. But, it no longer matters. The damage has been done. According to John Solomon, a highly-respected investigative reporter, “circular” investigating is a pattern the left uses often to further its goals. Indeed, we’ve seen it repeated again and again against Trump.

Think about it. First, a crisis is created to which some well-placed, left-wing agents of the Intel Community or Congress respond. Their involvement lends credibility. Someone leaks it to the press. The press reports it as though it’s gospel. Fifty-percent of Americans will believe wherever the headline leads them. The new witch-hunt begins. Now, apparently, it’s being leveled against DOJ Director Bill Barr for ordering the criminal charges against Flynn dropped. 

Circular investigations occurred with the attacks against Kavanaugh. And again in the Ukraine whistleblower case leading to Trump’s impeachment trial. The crisis in both cases was manufactured. Congress/Intel responded by feigning outrage. They leaked word to the press. The press reported ad nauseum. Americans believed the headlines. A new hoax was born.

This coming attack by the Dempcrats against our President, by way of Barr, is about to be unleashed. Get ready, America. Using Alinsky tactic #3, they will again make this crisis as confusing and chaotic as possible in hopes that you’ll lose interest. But, if we don’t stand up for the rule of law now, what’s left of it will be worthless within a few short years. The Dems constant accusations against the Trump administration are merely deflections from exactly what they are guilty of doing. Isikoff’s recent headline proves it.

Note the newest whistleblower that has recently come forward. Pay attention as this may become another fake “Ukraine phone call” Trump set-up meant to throw us off. According to The Deplorable Report, the Director of BARDA, Dr. Rick Bright, was reassigned on April 21 for reasons unknown. 

“In protest, Bright hit back hard by hiring the same law firm that defended Christine Blasey Ford. That’s no accident. 

“Days prior an April 16th Press Release on the Gates-funded Moderna’s website announced ‘a commitment of up to $483 million from BARDA … to accelerate development of the Company’s mRNA vaccine candidate against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).’ They also note that no commercial product using mRNA technology has been approved before and ‘the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established.’”

Could it be that Dr. Bright was doing the bidding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s race for a universal COVID-19 vaccine at taxpayer expense? Did Bright approve the large loan against the wishes of the Trump Administration? Could that be why he was reassigned? We simply don’t know. It is awfully coincidental. Yet, the press wants us to believe Trump messed up by relieving a qualified doctor of a powerful position at a desperate time of need. Is that really what happened?

The President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has seemingly been working tirelessly for our country, along with others on the Coronavirus Task Force. Yet, like so many other Trump devotees, he’s been subjected to non-stop insults from the left, and even from some Conservatives. Most recently because Kushner put together a volunteer team of professionals who wanted nothing more than to help our country through this difficult time.

The New York Times ran a story headlined, “How Kushner’s Volunteer Force Led a Fumbling Hunt for Medical Supplies.” Pretty deflating if you happen to be one of the volunteers. In contrast, “[s]enior administration officials defended the efforts of the group of volunteers from consulting and private equity firms in obtaining N95 respirator masks, gloves and other protective equipment, ventilators and testing supplies and questioned the legitimacy of a whistleblower complaint filed last month to the House Oversight Committee.” That those on the front lines were distracted by such gossip is pathetic, especially while Americans are still dying. 

If you are still a believer in mainstream media reportage even after what we’ve witnessed over the past three years, consider how the “fake news” media is continuing, even now, to lie. “CBS News has deleted footage from a Grand Rapids, Mich., health clinic for a report on coronavirus testing after Project Veritas revealed that the clinic packed a line of patients waiting for tests.”

Project Veritas films their investigations using undercover reporters. This story is especially troubling. Actual patients were intentionally subjected to longer lines because of the “fake” patients CBS planted in cars waiting to be “tested.” Apparently, this was to give the impression there are a lot more infected people than actually exist, scaring us further into staying home. Is the Democrat’s universal income for all agenda really their goal? We are nearly there, after all.

The Dems are doubling down and digging in. Representative Jerry Nadler said he would investigate the DOJ’s decision to drop charges against Flynn. Schiff is already setting the stage for another Trump impeachment trial over the administration’s supposed mishandling of the pandemic. This should leave no doubt in the minds of the American people that these criminal shenanigans are far from over. It will not end until we stand up and say, enough!

The left is on a mad dash to transform America to socialism. Obama told us as much while campaigning for President in 2007. He very nearly succeeded. Is that what we want?

If not, we need to pay closer attention to where our facts are coming from. It’s no longer enough to read headlines. Not only is the content important but the author’s motives should matter, too. When we’re misled by any one reporter or organization, it’s time to boycott and put them out of business. Support the many independent up-and-comers who are working hard to fill the vacuum with well-sourced reporting. This may mean changing long-held habits, but our country’s survival depends on truth.

As Abraham Lincoln stated on May 19, 1856: ‘Be not deceived. Revolutions do not go backward.’ We would all be wise to keep that in mind with the precious little time we may have left. There will be no second chance. The 2020 election may well be framed between Trump and Socialism and an out-of-control bureaucracy.

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected].

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Democrats Justice Trump Truth

Mueller Upshot: Legal Rights Denied To Trump Family

Rod Thomson

Today’s hearings revealed again how two bedrock American legal principles have been terribly abused in the Mueller investigation’s final report on Russian election interference. The first principle is innocent until proven guilty, known in the legal profession as the presumption of innocence. 

After being essentially cleared in the first half of the report on colluding with Russia (Democrats won’t let go of the dead horse, but Mueller did) the special counsel jumped tracks in the second half and took away Trump’s presumption of innocence. 

Prosecutor Mueller and his team laid out in 200-plus pages of detailed evidence the supposed obstruction of justice. Yet Mueller declined to recommend charges, but then made the shockingly unprofessional statement that he could not “exonerate” Trump, and that if he could he would. That was just prosecutorial malfeasance of a very high order, and certainly gives the appearance of a political setup for Democrats to launch impeachment.

Now, some of you will say, but he’s the president! It’s different! That brings me to the second bedrock American legal principle under assault: equality under the law.

If everyone is equal under the law, which I should hope everyone on the left and right agrees with, then why is this President and his family members not presumed innocent? Why is this President and his family members left with the pall of “not exonerated” when in every other single instance of American prosecution, it is simply and rightly “not sufficient evidence” for prosecution? 

If your answer is, he’s the president! Or, this is too important! Then you don’t believe everyone is equal under the law. You believe Trump and his family are *less* equal under the law.

Remember, in this special counsel arrangement (I still contend a bad law), there is no other side presented. This is just a prosecutor’s report. In a normal courtroom, a full defense team would be breaking down the prosecution’s case and, very importantly, would be cross-examining witnesses. None of that has happened or is allowed to happen.

But Trump did obstruct justice, you may say, because Mueller couldn’t exonerate him! As previously noted, a prosecutor does not have the authority in the American legal system to “exonerate” anyone specifically because everyone is presumed innocent until *proven* guilty. 

But further, Mueller admitted during his testimony that he had not been in any way obstructed. Congressman John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point. Mueller answered, “No.” Not even hindered? So, there was no obstruction.

Ratcliff also asked Mueller on my main point: “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”

Mueller’s bone-chilling answer: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

No, it’s not if we’re all equal under the law. Trump has not been provided a presumption of innocence, nor has he had his “day in court” to go after the prosecutors and cross-examine their witnesses, which means he has not been treated equally under the law. I realize this means nothing to the Trump-haters. But it should matter to regular Americans.

As bad as foreign interference is in our elections (and Russia alone has been doing it since the 1930s, and aggressively since the 1950s) undermining our own jurisprudence for political gain is worse.

In the realm of stating what is un-American, that could hardly fit better.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Justice Russia Truth

How An Honest Media Would Have Covered Mueller’s Press Conference

Rod Thomson

As a former long-time journalist, I like to sometimes write a straight news story based on the actual news and not leftist agitprop. If straightforward, honest, non-pack journalists were covering last week’s surprise press conference by Robert Mueller, this is how a news story might read.

Surprise Mueller Statement Questions Universal Presumption Of Innocence

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III broke from long-standing judicial tradition in the United States Wednesday when he laid out two tiers of jurisprudence when it comes to a basic presumption of innocence.

In a hastily called press conference announced just 90 minutes before it began, Mueller read an eight-minute prepared statement, in which he reiterated what was in his 448-page report he delivered to Attorney General William Barr earlier this month. He decline to answer any questions from the media and announced he would close the Special Counsel’s office and return to the private sector.

In the statement, Mueller reiterated his final report that a grand jury indicted Russian intelligence officers for using cyber techniques to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election, and that a private Russian entity ran a social media operation to further interfere with the election.

“These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty,” Mueller said, which aligns with long-standing American jurisprudence.

He also reiterated that his two-year investigation did not find that either President Trump or the Trump campaign conspired or colluded with Russia in these attempts, essentially clearing the President again on the point for which he was appointed Special Counsel.

The second part of the press conference, which restated the second part of his report, covered the obstruction of justice investigation that was launched during the Russian investigation. In this portion, Mueller appeared to apply a different standard in referring to President Trump, than when discussing the Russian operatives.

Mueller said: “…after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

This statement was seen by some to be a break from the presumption of innocence standard and the general practices of prosecutors who do not share negative information from an investigation if there are no charges.

Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor and constitutional scholar, said he was deeply disturbed by Mueller’s statement and his apparent dismissiveness of the presumption of innocence standard.

“That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say. It was worse than anything that (former FBI Director James) Comey said when he exonerated Hillary Clinton and then said, but she engaged in extremely careless conduct,” Dershowitz said.

Comey was widely condemned by both Democrats and Republicans for laying out a criminal case publicly, but then not charging Clinton. That also seemed to be a step away from legal norms in the United States, but was not impacting the presumption of innocence standard.

“Everybody condemned that. This is much, much worse,” Dershowitz said.

Everything in this story is factually true, including Dershowitz’s quotes. There is, of course, much more that could be written on it. But you get the gist. There are so many news stories which could be written and covered entirely differently, without the leftist bias.

But the mainstream media would not even recognize this as a news story because their own biases are so ingrained in journalism itself that they are institutionally blind to them.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Climate Change Conservatism Economy Judges Justice Supreme Court Truth

Breakdown: The World Is Measurably Better Since January 2017

Rod Thomson

The largely unreported and to some ironic reality of the past two years is that the world overall is a better, safer, more prosperous place since the swearing in of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016. Better than it was under Barack Obama and better than it was under George W. Bush.

Despite the nonstop onslaught of negative reporting on Trump — 90 percent according to the Media Research Center (there’s been 10 percent positive?) — and the breathless reporting on the government shutdown, the latest Robert Mueller leak or arrest, the Kavanaugh hearing fiasco, fake news such as BuzzFeed’s flat wrong non-story on Trump telling Michael Cohen to lie, the disgusting anti-Christian bigotry associated with the MAG-hat Covington Catholic High School students and so on ad infinitum — Trump’s approval ratings remain right in the range they were when he took office, and ticking upward.

That suggests that the relentlessly anti-Trump, Democratic partisan media is washed out by what his actual policies have so clearly accomplished.

But it also suggests that a lot of Americans — probably more than are reflected in polls, and at least some who support Trump — simply do not feel safe saying to anyone that they realize how much better off the country and the world are. It wasn’t supposed to happen. But the media not reporting something does not mean it didn’t happen.

So here are some of the major areas where the world is demonstrably better off since January 2016:

→ First, the economy, duh! 304,000 jobs in January, blowing out all of the predictions. Manufacturing has burst back in the U.S. when President Obama said those jobs would never return. (Man, that guy was wrong a lot.) GDP growth 50 percent higher than it had been under Obama, even though the recovery is now long in the tooth. This has led to a growing consensus among non-political economists that what has driven the economic renaissance has been tax cuts, massive deregulation, stronger trade policy, tax breaks to lure back offshore capital, and a dramatic rise in oil and natural gas production.

→ The entire federal court system will be far more conservative and constitutional for a generation as Trump’s judicial nominees have been uniformly originalists and conservative…and young. This means that there should be fewer overtly political rulings in which the law and constitution are bent to judges’ political views like a reed in the wind, and more solid rules for governing and living.

→ The dishonest and duplicitous media has been unmasked for the partisans they are. This was unintended, of course, but Americans are better off knowing this (something I have known for many, many years as a former member of the mainstream media.) The media’s vicious partisanship has been widely self-exposed for Americans to see, although many members of the media themselves seem to remain in denial. The vast majority of Americans do not.

China’s systemic cheating on trade agreements and thieving of intellectual properties has been called out and responded to forcefully. Since Trump’s inauguration, an accepted consensus has emerged that China’s actions pose a commercial threat to world trade, to its geographic neighbors and to the security of the United States. Ultimately, we will end up with better, more fair trade that will absolutely benefit American companies and workers, but also will benefit most of the rest of the world, which will be more empowered to demand better, more fair agreements for their companies and workers.

→ Pulling out of the terrorist-enabling Iran nuclear agreement did not result in the end of the world, In fact, the world basically yawned past the regular hyperbolic media coverage. Further, most of the sanctions have been reinstated, including by our European friends, when the media Democrats assured us they could not be. Iran is feeling the pinch. Leashing up the murderous Mullah’s financially makes the world that much safer.

→Similarly, when the U.S. walked away from the essentially worthless, symbolic Paris Climate Accords, the world did not warm and seas did not rise. Actually, the U.S. continues to be a leader in reduction of carbon emissions, largely through the voluntary, innovative private sector.

→ The U.S. showed its promise-keeping resolve for the first time when Trump directed the U.S. embassy in Israel to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — just like Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton had promised to do before him, but never did. The hyperventilating over lighting the Middle East tinderbox never materialized. The normal amount of Muslim terrorism and Israeli military response ensued afterwards as before.

Black Americans are enjoying an employment resurgence like that not seen since before the disastrous implementing of the Great Society. While overall U.S. unemployment hit a 50-year low in Trump’s second year, joblessness among black Americans has set a modern record as well. Black employment has risen about 1.3 million under Trump to hit a record 19.3 million in October. Now this clearly started before Trump, but that it accelerated this long into a recovery is fairly remarkable.

Russian aggression against Ukraine and other small neighbors has been held in check as the U.S. has sent arms and supplies to the Ukraine and stiffened the response to Russian belligerence. The tough talk had already been backed by missile attacks against Russian mercenaries in Syria and Russian-backed Syrian allies. Using the big stick once or twice means carrying it around becomes a deterrent — not a joke as with the previous president. The crossing of any red line is obviously not going to be acceptable and Russia knows that.

→ Trump’s forceful efforts to denuclearize North Korea resulted in a one-one-one summit with President Kim, and second one coming up. It started with tough talk, followed by the movement of U.S. naval and air power off the coast. It’s ended so far with the self-destruction of some of North Korea’s nuclear facilities and no more of the missile tests that had become common under Obama.

→ Most of our European allies in NATO have been weak and sometimes duplicitous on defense, refusing to live up to their promise on minimal military expenditures to help defend themselves from Russia. Trump again talked tough. Considering he had pulled out of the Paris climate accords and the Iran agreement, European leaders worry he could follow through on NATO threats. They have accordingly increased their defense spending by a combined $100 billion now so far — strengthening free countries against tyranny.

ISIS decapitated.

There are plenty more. But this hits the highlights. By all the evidence, it is unarguable, even by the Orange Man Bad crowd, that the world is better off now than two years ago.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Judges Justice Truth

Judge Sullivan Must Recuse Himself From Flynn Case

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

When I was in sixth grade, I was chosen to be the defense attorney for a classmate. Evelyn was accused of passing an answer to a test question to a fellow student during an exam. She was accused of cheating.

Evelyn was a great student, and she had never been accused of cheating before, but her accuser was none other than the principal of the school, Dr. Gil Beltrán.

As it were, Dr. Beltrán had seen Evelyn pass the note to her friend when, while performing his routine rounds, he glanced through one of the door windows behind the class and saw the allegedly illegal act take place. Upon seeing the exchange of information, Dr. Beltrán opened the back door of the class, signaled to the receiving student to hand over whatever paper Evelyn had just handed him, and opened it.

You could hear a pin drop as Dr. Beltrán stared down at Evelyn and signaled for her to go to his office. Evelyn cried for hours after that prompting the rest of us to protest about the unfairness of the treatment to which Evelyn was being subjected.

At some point, and I am foggy on the details, Dr. Beltrán offered us our class a compromise. We would have a trial, one with witnesses, lawyers, and a judge; the whole deal. I think Dr. Beltrán (may he rest in peace) concluded this would be a great opportunity for us kids to engage in experiential learning. Of course, Evelyn was the defendant, and I was chosen by the principal himself to be her attorney. And to serve as my co-counsel, the principal chose Dagoberto, my best friend in the world.

But the principal also picked himself to serve as the judge, and the trial would take place in his office; in a week.

Dago and I zealously worked to get Evelyn off. First, we learned that what Evelyn had handed to her friend, was not an answer to the test, but a question about what they were going to do after school. Unfortunately, the principal, Dr. Beltrán, had since thrown away the piece of paper.

And in a great development for the defense, we were also able to procure the teacher as a witness who was willing to testify that not only did she not see Evelyn pass any piece of paper that day, but that Evelyn was a young lady of impeccable character and would be the last student the teacher would have expected to engage in cheating.

Help us keep fighting!

Overall, Dago and I were feeling pretty good about our case. At best, we might be able to get Evelyn off altogether. At worst, she would be found guilty of a lesser offense such as disruptive class behavior.

Despite our success at building the case: the accuser was also the judge. I remember Dago and I worried that we would not be able to bring Dr. Beltrán to the stand because a) he was the principal; and b) he was the judge. How do you get the judge to serve as a witness? Dago and I asked ourselves. For the answer to this question, Dago and I would need a classmate friend’s parent who was also an attorney! But try as we did, we couldn’t find one.

Our school, La Lúz School, was a small private, Cuban immigrant school where the Cuban National Anthem was played immediately following the American National Anthem every morning while we stood in ranks with our hands on our hearts and where the Cuban flag proudly waived next to the Stars and Stripes.

At that time, most Cubans had not had the time in country to become members of the learned professions.

So, into trial at the principal’s office we went with the whole class as our audience.

I’ll never forget it! I thought our team performed marvelously. We laid out the facts of the case by calling our witnesses to the stand and having each tell his or her story. We were able to ascertain that the note was not an answer to a test question, that Evelyn had impeccable character, and that no one, except the accuser, ever saw her even pass the paper; a paper no one could produce!

Still, we lost.

Like Us

Why? Because the judge, who was also the accuser and who was not called to the stand said he knew what he saw, and that Evelyn was guilty.

It wouldn’t be until years later, during a high school civics class, that I learned that the judge could not be a witness or a party to the case!! I needed to move that the judge recuse himself because he was the witness AND the accuser! 

The reason I’m sharing this story with you is because it was the first thing that came to mind when I heard of the shenanigans that took place yesterday at General Michael Flynn’s sentencing hearing.

Let me be clear. I believe that General Flynn lied to the FBI and in so doing broke the law. I also believe he was set up to lie by a manipulative, vindictive, and agenda-driven FBI bent on entrapping the General. What’s more, I believe the investigators in this case were the primary reason General Flynn was without an attorney at their meeting of Jan. 24, 2017, and to allow the FBI to get away with that level of disrespect to a defendant’s rights is repulsive.

But yesterday, a new offense arose. Yesterday, we learned for the first time, that Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge assigned to the Flynn case, is horribly and irreparably biased against Flynn, and we know this from the judge’s very words.

During the hearing, Judge Sullivan is quoted as saying to Flynn, “I am not hiding my disgust, my disdain for your criminal offense.” At one point, the judge went on to state that Flynn, a 33-year Army veteran of war and peace, had betrayed his country and asked whether General Flynn could be accused of treason. Treason!

That is the only crime so egregious, so vile, and so disgusting to the Framers that it stands as the only one mentioned by name in the Constitution of the United States and punishable by hanging. The same crime for which Jane Fonda was not accused when she pranced around in her short shorts in front of the Viet Cong and sat on an anti-aircraft battery for a photo op.

This is what Judge Sullivan thinks of General Flynn! I notice that Judge Sullivan never served in our nation’s military. Never saw bullets flying nearby while wearing a helmet and shrapnel vest, and never spent months overseas away from his family not knowing if he would ever get back home because he might say hello to an enemy bullet first.

With all due respect to the judge, I will put one year of General Flynn’s service to this great country against the judge’s whole career any day and easily come out winning.

Admittedly, the judge corrected himself and apologized for his remarks, to which I will respond in kind. I apologize for those last two paragraphs and strike them from the record.

But regardless of how I feel about this case, we still have a very significant problem. We still have a judge who is disgusted by the defendant and holds disdain for him to the point where he would consider employing the word treason around this American hero.

It’s like having Dr. Belrtrán try a case all over again, except this time, although I am not Flynn’s attorney, I know better.

Judge Sullivan, recuse yourself from this case!

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Justice Trump Truth

Presidential Pardon Designed Precisely For U.S. Green Beret Golsteyn Case

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

All too predictably, The New York Times is hyperbolically criticizing President Donald Trump for saying that he would review the case of Major Mathew L. Golsteyn, a Green Beret accused of killing an Afghan man in 2010. Consumed with its biased vitriol, The New York Times called the President “impulsive” and accused him of exercising “undue command influence.” But in point of fact, Golsteyn’s case is exactly the situation for which the presidential pardon must be considered.

Golsteyn was serving in Afghanistan in 2010. His service took him to the battle for Marja in which more than 15,000 coalition troops fought. Dozens of Americans were killed during that battle including two members of the Green Beret who were working with Golsteyn; the victims of an Afghan roadside bomb.

While clearing homes around Marja, Golsteyn and his team captured a suspected Taliban bomb-maker. To identify the prisoner, he was taken to an Afghan tribal leader secretly working for the United States. The tribal leader identified the man as a member of the Taliban and expressed his fear of being killed by them if the suspected bomb-maker ever revealed the tribal leader’s cooperation with the Americans.

After completing their investigation of the bomb maker’s identity, the American forces concluded they were not authorized to kill this particular individual. As best we know, the bomb-maker was to be released.

Afraid of the suspected bomb-maker’s ability to kill more Americans after his release and of identifying the local informant, Golsteyn and another soldier took the Afghan bomb-maker off base and killed him seemingly without authorization to do so.

Golsteyn’s involvement in the man’s murder first came to light when he interviewed for a job at the CIA. As part of his application, he was asked to identify any illegal acts or indiscretions in which he may have participated. His confession led to an investigation resulting in the withholding of Golsteyn’s employment with the CIA, but without charges being brought against him.

Golsteyn’s story may well have ended here if it weren’t for a 2016 interview with Bret Baier where he admitted to having killed the suspected Afghan bomb-maker on television. His admission led to the reopening of the case and with the presentation of formal charges against him for first-degree murder.

This case brings up an interesting set of moral questions. First, we are once again reminded that war sucks, with many being placed in situations they would never encounter under any other circumstances.

Help Us Keep Fighting

Second, it is understandable for Golsteyn to conclude that he had to kill the bomb maker. If he let him go, the man was likely to continue his task of creating explosives aimed at killing American soldiers, and in that environment, he would have likely succeeded. As such, more Americans would have never come home. More families would have been left without their dads and husbands, and more parents would have never seen their kids again.

Additionally, the Afghan bomb-maker now knew the identity of an American informant in Afghanistan. He would have, most assuredly, turned the informant  over to the Taliban and had him killed.

Unquestionably, if this bomb-maker were indefinitely detained or killed, the world would be that much safer and suffering would have been that much less.

But then there’s the rule of law, an article above which none of us can be placed. Golsteyn was given specific orders. He is part of the greatest fighting force in the world, a fighting force whose greatness proceeds from its soldiers’ discipline, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for the chain of command. It is not up to Golsteyn to decide who lives and who dies. No man should have that kind of unfettered authority. He is a soldier, and his job is to follow orders, to carry out his mission faithfully, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and by extension, its laws.

With the information given, Golsteyn broke the law and then made the unforced error of brazenly bringing attention to that fact through a national television broadcast. There is much more evidence to be uncovered, some of it potentially exculpatory, but if the facts stand as they are, if there is nothing more of substance to consider, Golsteyn’s stood outside of the boundaries of the law, and he must be held to account.

But there are times when the law is too harsh; times when society’s punishment is either illogical or inappropriate for the circumstances. Under these conditions, an escape clause must be configured.

Like Us

Alexander Hamilton said it best, as he so often does, in The Federalist Number 74, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

And such is the case with Golsteyn.

It frequently astounds me how often the writers and editors of The New York Times display their ignorance of the Constitution and the manner in which it is supposed to function. Here we have yet another example. The New York Times worries about the perception of the American justice system in the eyes of Afghans. It ruminates over the effects a presidential comment about considering an action and whether such consideration will impede the wheels of justice.

Once again, The New York Times is off in its assessment.

Let the wheels turn as they may. Let the Army investigate the case, and let it, if it finds probable cause to do so, bring charges against our heroic Major Golsteyn. And let the President, as he is charged to do under the Constitution consider whether the outcome in this case is one where “justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

And if so, let the President access his exception for this man’s unfortunate guilt and pardon Major Mathew Golsteyn, just as the Framers would have intended.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Judges Justice Russia Truth

Today’s Chaos Over Flynn Sentencing Is Result Of FBI Entrapment

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D., and Rod Thomson

Every once in a while, you come across a set of circumstances that brings you great sadness about our country’s state of affairs. (Yes, it may be happening more frequently.)  The events surrounding the prosecution of General Michael Flynn and his treatment by the FBI and Special Counselor Robert Mueller is such a situation — and the reason that Judge Emmet Sullivan has been having a difficult time with the plea and sentencing that was scheduled for today and has now been delayed.

By now, most of you are aware of the circumstances of clear entrapment behind the charges against Flynn, but they nevertheless require elucidation, because they loom large beyond Flynn’s case. First, General Michael Flynn is a 33-year veteran of the United States Army with an impeccable history of patriotic service to his country. His service specialized on counter-intelligence, and he is likely responsible for the identification, capture, and destruction of more anti-American terrorists than anyone in the history of the United States. In other words, a true hero.

On Jan. 20, 2017, Flynn assumed the office of National Security Advisor to the President Trump. Just prior to taking on that role, on Dec. 29, 2016, Flynn had contact with Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak. The details of this contact are somewhat sketchy, but suffice it to say that the contact took place.

During this time, the Obama Administration, still reeling from the Democrats’ unexpected loss to Donald Trump in the presidential elections, was bent on blaming Russian interference for the defeat of the anointed Democrat darling, Hillary Clinton. The shock associated with the defeat led to a zealous effort to identify and understand the extent and machinations of this interference and to discover whether the Trump campaign was in any way involved.

The agency tasked with the investigation of potential Russian meddling was the Federal Bureau of Investigation headed at the time by James Comey. The FBI was very interested in the specifics behind the interactions between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador because it wanted to know whether there was any evidence of promised benefits to the Russians under the new administration in exchange for Russian assistance in tilting the election in Trump’s favor. To be clear, the mere fact that the Russian Ambassador had made contact with Flynn was not illegal, or even unusual during a transition.

For the sake of our discussion, I am going to assume that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s version of the details regarding the contact between these two men is correct. I am going to grant the Mueller team’s assertion that Flynn had not forgotten about the contact he had with the Kislyak (even though both FBI agents who conducted the interview did not believe Flynn was lying.)  I am going to assume, as Mueller reports, that by the time the FBI agents contacted him, Flynn was already relating a false narrative regarding his conversation with the Ambassador. I am also going to assume that, as Mueller says, Flynn was given more than ample opportunities to correct the falsehoods he delivered to the inquiring agents on Jan. 24, 2017. I am also going to acknowledge, for the sake of argument, that Flynn was not coerced into admitting that he had lied when he struck a plea deal with the FBI and that he was actually being accurate when he admitted his illegality to them.

But even if those assertions are true, Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge responsible for sentencing Flynn on Tuesday and the one who has asked to review any exculpatory evidence in the case, must still throw out the case against Flynn.

The principal question is whether the FBI induced Flynn into lying during its interview of Jan. 24, 2017. More directly, did the FBI conduct its interview in such a manner as to induce the general to lie. After reviewing the Mueller memo to the court, my conclusion is that it absolutely, positively did.

In arriving at this conclusion, I first take note that prosecutorial entrapment is clearly illegal and fatal to the prosecution of a suspect. Entrapment, the act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit, is a vile and vicious technique that if allowed to run unabated represents a fundamental threat to our liberties and to our abilities to live our lives in peace and free of government persecution.

Help Us Keep Fighting

Entrapment cannot be tolerated.

Consequently, if the FBI induced the general into committing the crime of lying to the FBI, it would nullify its prosecution of him and force the case to be dismissed.

According to the memo produced by Robert Mueller in defense of his prosecution of Flynn, Mueller admits that the FBI knew prior to its interview that Flynn had made contact with Ambassador Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, “the same day the US announced sanctions against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. ” Moreover, Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, the man who contacted Flynn about a potential meeting with FBI investigators, believed Flynn had already lied to others regarding his contacts with the ambassador and that he was already “committed to that false story.” Even so, those deceitful acts of delivering a false narrative on the part of Flynn, whether excusable or not, were not illegal. Despite this, McCabe, in coordination with James Comey, made the decision to bypass protocol in seeking the interview with Flynn in the hopes that he would repeat those lies to investigators. In other words, McCabe and Comey built a trap for Flynn.

Additionally, we know from comments made by Comey that when McCabe set up the interview with Flynn, he knowingly bypassed protocol. We also know that Flynn inquired as to whether he should have his attorney present and was dissuaded from doing so by McCabe.

More egregiously, McCabe and Comey purposely decided not to warn Flynn that it was illegal to lie to the FBI. This is an important detail because it is distinguishable from the mere omission of the information, which is how the media generally reports this fact. Instead, according to Mueller’s memo to the court, McCabe and Comey made the purposeful decision to conceal the subject’s legal peril. The reason for this purposeful omission was to fool Flynn into being “relaxed,” and because “they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the report.” The implications of this admission are fatal to Flynn’s successful prosecution since they acknowledge that if the FBI had properly performed its job, Mueller would not have committed the crime of lying to them. Once again, the FBI investigators admit to the entrapment of Flynn.

Judge Sullivan is clearly aware of all of these facts as he tries to decide how to rule on the Flynn plea and sentencing.

As the Mueller memo states, the overall effect of the FBI’s efforts was to make Flynn believe that he was dealing with allies in an investigation, not that he was the subject of one.

With these admissions, Mueller has essentially painted a picture whereby the FBI created an environment by which Flynn would be induced into committing a crime he would not otherwise have committed; the very definition of entrapment.

With this information, it is very likely that, should this have gone to trial, it would have been thrown out because of entrapment of the defendant and due to the FBI’s advice to Flynn against obtaining legal counsel. Instead, the case was pleaded out by a defendant who was on the verge of bankruptcy from the mammoth legal defense bills he had incurred and whose son was being threatened with prosecution should he not submit to the FBI’s demands.

This story reveals one of the grossest displays of reckless disregard for prosecutorial restraint and for the rights of the defendant imaginable. With any luck, Judge Sullivan will see the brazen unprofessionalism displayed by McCabe, Comey and Mueller and bring some semblance of justice to the negatively impacted life of a man who is nothing short of a great American hero.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Constitution Justice Kavanaugh Media Truth

Kavanaugh And Thomas Could End Media Protection From Libel

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

On Feb. 29, 1960, Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested in Alabama on two counts of perjury for allegedly filing false state income tax returns. In response, and believing the case to be without merit, two groups, the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and The Struggle For Freedom In The South, were formed with the aim of assisting Dr. King with the funding of his defense.  

On March 29, 1960, these two groups published a 10-paragraph advertisement in The New York Times with the aim of collecting such funds. The advertisement contained a description of multiple grievances that had occurred against the members of the black community in Montgomery.  

A number of the events depicted in the advertisement contained minor errors of fact while others were grossly inaccurate. For example, the advertisement contended that black students had demonstrated before the steps of the State Capitol while singing “My Country, Tis of Thee.”  In actuality the students sang the National Anthem.

In a more egregious reference, the students were said to have been padlocked in the dining hall of the Alabama State College Campus by the Montgomery police when they had not.  

Although the advertisement did not refer to City Public Safety Commissioner L. B. Sullivan by name or title, he contended that he was nevertheless libeled, as any false reference against the Montgomery police essentially referred to him, as its supervisor.  

Sullivan sued The New York Times and others for $500,000, the maximum allowable for libel in state court, and won. The case was appealed to the federal court and eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 1964.

What resulted was a landmark case in American jurisprudence and the principal reason for the state of disrepair of American political discourse.

In New York Times, v. Sullivan, the Court placed great weight on the inherent ability of truth to naturally prevail. Seeing that erroneous statements are “inevitable in free debate,” the Court refused to uphold the libel charge brought forth from the lower court. Instead, it held that the importance of supporting “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate that may include “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” was more important than any protections it could give to public officials.

More American Values Insights On Patreon  

The Supreme Court consequently reversed the lower court’s ruling and imposed a new standard for successful libel actions against public officials. According to the Court, in order for a public official to prevail in a libel action it must show that the defendant acted “with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” a standard known as “actual malice,” or “New York Times malice.”

Although accepted as bedrock in American jurisprudence dealing with public figures and elected officials, this case has been the source of great discussion amongst legal scholars. Is this near-impossible standard too high? Was the Court’s fear of self-censorship justified, or does the press and political opponents need a little self-restraint? Is the OK Corral attitude of the Court the better approach, or does such a cavalier attitude muddy speech and make the situation worse for voters? To this day, consensus on these questions does not exist.  

Fast forward 54 years to 2018 when a judge by the name of Brett Kavanaugh is nominated for a position in the Supreme Court of the United States. The man has an impeccable record as an adult, as a judge, and as a professional. He is one of the most revered and respected persons in his field. But at stake are the philosophical balance of the Court and the future of landmark abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade.

Predictably, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing goes near flawlessly and his confirmation virtually sealed. But all of a sudden, after the conclusion of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a completely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusation regarding his alleged conduct as a 17-year-old high school student (some 36 years prior) is brought against him. The accuser claims that Kavanaugh had engaged in a sexual assault against her at a party when she was 15 years old.

Get More On Facebook 

Within days, other stories were told. Stories alleging that as a college student at Yale University, Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female student while they were both intoxicated at a dorm party. Again, no corroboration existed. And then there was another story of how Kavanaugh had been involved in drugged-out gang raping activities in high school parties in Maryland, but not a single piece of evidence substantiated the charge, either.

After a vile and disgusting display of deceit and political theater that gripped the nation and forever tarnished his reputation, Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed in the closest judicial confirmation vote in American history.

But Kavanaugh was not alone in falling victim to the predatory tactics enabled by the elevated burden of proof inherent to the New York Times malice standard. All over the country, candidates have attacked their opponents with false and misleading accusations. And because the judicial system offers littler refuge or recourse in these cases, unless the victims of these attacks are able to find sufficient funding to successfully ward them off, their reputations are smeared and their races brought to an end.  

And thus begins the endless barrage of negative campaign ads and misleading accusations. I should know; it happened to me; twice!

President Donald Trump has also fallen victim to these vicious attacks, except, in his case, it is the media that has been waging its propaganda war. Frustrated, the President has repeatedly called for an adjustment in the nation’s libel laws, most recently in comments relating to Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. But in reality what needs to happen is an adjustment of “New York Times malice.”

Justice Kavanaugh is now a sitting member of the Supreme Court of the United States and flanked by another victim of kavanaughing, Justice Clarence Thomas. Having both been survivors of horrible and ruthless political denigration tactics, it stands to reason that these two justices would be much more sympathetic to protections against false and malicious speech against public officials than prior justices.  

Suddenly, there’s a new question for legal scholars and political observers alike: with two victims of egregiously false political speech sitting on the bench, a frustrated public, and a disgruntled President, will the Court be willing to take an ax to “New York Times malice” and restore a certain level of self-imposed responsibility upon the deliverers of political speech?  

I’m predicting we will soon find out.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Justice Kavanaugh Truth

Senate Has Duty To Immediately Investigate Feinstein, McLean

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Now that the Senate, with the aid of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has completed its confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the question is what, if anything, does it have to do next?

In light of the fact that a 36-year-old story was brought to the Senate for its serious consideration regarding a judicial nominee absent any corroborating information or evidence, the question that many ask is: Was this the result of a good faith presentation, or was it a concerted effort to disrupt the nomination process and derail the appointment of a qualified judicial nominee?

If the answer to this question is good faith, then there is no further action to be taken. But, after all the shenanigans, all the posturing, and all the insults, the reality is that absent an investigation, there is no way of knowing.

And the American people need to know. If the allegations were brought forth merely for political expediency or personal gain, then the nomination process will have been placed under great peril for no valid reason, something the Senate cannot allow.

The Senate may begin with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who allegedly came to learn of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations through a letter she received from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in July. According to the Senate testimonies, by the time she met with Judge Kavanaugh, Feinstein was already in possession of this letter and had even assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer. Amazingly, Feinstein did not bring up the allegation with Kavanaugh during their July 20 meeting.  

Also of great interest is the comment Ford made during her testimony indicating that Feinstein and she had agreed to keep her letter confidential until the end of the hearing. It was a comment that Arizona Attorney Rachel Mitchell was in the process of developing when Ford’s attorneys hurriedly interjected.  

If Feinstein withheld material information from the Senate Judiciary Committee for over a month with the specific intent of railroading the confirmation process, then Feinstein’s actions represent the most egregious of ethical breaches. For these reasons, her role in the presentation of Ford’s testimony must be brought to light.

More American Values Insights On Patreon

The other question is the role of Monica McLean. McLean is a life-long friend of Dr. Ford’s and a 24-year FBI operative who quit the agency about six months prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

McLean’s role in the development of Ford’s story is certainly suspect. Bear in mind that McLean lives in Delaware, which is where Ford was when she wrote the letter to Eshoo. Additionally, McLean is the person who was identified by another friend of Ford’s, Leland Keyser, as the person who had tried to pressure her into changing her testimony.

Such a change in testimony would have been very important since, up to that point, Kelly, who had been identified as one of the four people to have witnessed Kavanaugh’s alleged assault on Ford, said she had no recollection of such a gathering nor did she know Judge Kavanagh.  

It was McLean who allegedly received the coaching from Ford on taking polygraphs, a contention McLean denies. If true, the finding would make Ford’s testimony before the Senate even less credible since she told the Committee that she did not know anything about polygraph tests. If it was learned that Ford had so much familiarity with polygraph testing that she was able to coach others on how to take one, Ford’s credibility would seriously suffer as would the validity of the polygraph results.

Get More On Facebook  

Finally, it is worth noting that McLean was one of the few acquaintances of Ford who was present at the Senate hearing.  

Undoubtedly, the Senate must find out the truth regarding the events surrounding the 11th hour accusations of Ford.

If indeed, the events of the last two weeks were the result of a concerted effort to derail the nomination process, then the Senate must punish those nefarious actors supporting it — sitting senators or others — and just as importantly, it must take steps to prevent such a destructive orchestration from ever happening again.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Judges Justice Truth

For Kagan, Only The Illusion Of Impartiality Is Important

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court is no more impartial or neutral a body than Congress itself.

I have heard it said so many times that the Supreme Court’s opinion is the final word on a legal issue. The contention is that because justices are neutral arbiters of the law and draw up their conclusions based on legal tenants equally applicable to all, then the answers they give us must be the “correct” position on a matter.

In reality that supposition is erroneous. If the judicial process is truly driven by such neutrally applicable and neutrally applied principles, then why so many 5-4 opinions on politically charged questions? As a matter of fact, why even have an appellate court?

In school, we were taught that appellate courts existed to see whether a judge made an error in law during a trial. That contention may be true, but in the really important cases, the ones touching our fundamental relationships with government, the appellate judge is not being asked to review whether the trial judge forgot to consider a certain statute or whether he or she was correct in ruling a piece of evidence inadmissible. The question before the appellate court is whether the lower judge was wrong in believing a law or action to be constitutional. This question is not so much a legal one as it is a political one.

In reality, there are no immutable legal principles. They are all subject to the taint of judicial interpretation and application subject to the philosophical slant of the presiding judge or judges.  Think of legal jurisprudence not as black versus white but as containing every shade of color imaginable and then arguing about the particular shade employed in a certain case. That’s politics. That’s the Supreme Court.  

Indeed, the whole reason the nation has been subjected to the traumatic Kavanaugh confirmation process is because liberals know the Court is inherently political. As a matter of fact, if the Court were not political, then what difference does it make who sits on the bench?

The fact is that the inhabitants of the Court and their political views are quintessentially important to those who wish to use the Courts to fashion the laws of the land. And therein lies the motivation for all the nonsense we have recently seen.  

In a women’s conference at Princeton University last week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said, “It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply an extension of a terribly polarizing process.”  

Important to whom?  

Notice that Justice Kagan did not say that it was important for the Court to guard its impartiality or neutrality. Rather, it was the reputation of impartiality about which she worried. Indeed, when it comes to the promise of impartiality and the Court, the only thing there is for liberals to worry about is the illusion of impartiality. That’s because the Court is in fact not impartial.

And why is it so important for liberals to preserve the reputation of impartiality in the Court?  Because as long as the Court is viewed as a pillar of impartiality and neutral legal assessment, it will be able to keep its chokehold over the other branches of government — a chokehold that was never given to it by the Constitution, but rather acquired by fiat through the legal opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall.

In his letter to William Charles Jarvis regarding Jarvis’s book, Thomas Jefferson derailed the idea of the Court being a neutral arbiter of laws. “You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” he said. “A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” (emphasis added)  

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has demonstrated that every judge is tainted with his or her own personal political philosophy and that his or her politics colors every opinion and ruling he or she makes. Now that we can acknowledge this fundamental fact, it is time to enact a correction to the Constitution that places a check on this inherently political body. It’s time to allow the Court’s opinions to come under the scrutiny of those who are actually elected into office. It’s time to fashion a supermajority legislative override of Supreme Court opinions. And Jefferson would agree.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.