‘An Incredible Economic Boom’: The Effects of the 2017 Tax Cuts

Monica Crowley, Treasury Department assistant secretary of public affairs, joins the podcast to talk about the “incredible economic boom” that followed the tax reform passed in 2017. Read the lightly edited transcript, posted below, or listen on the podcast:

Rachel del Guidice: The Daily Signal Podcast is coming to you from the U.S. Treasury Department today, and we’re joined by Monica Crowley, who is the agency’s assistant secretary of public affairs. Monica, thank you so much for being with us today.

Monica Crowley: Such a pleasure, thank you for having me.

del Guidice: We’re coming up on the two-year anniversary of the tax cuts, and given everything that’s happened in these two years, what is your message to the American people about tax reform?

Crowley: That economic freedom works. So, President Trump ran on, and he’s certainly run his presidency on, a platform of economic freedom.

The opposite of socialism isn’t capitalism, it’s freedom, and the president understood this coming in and created an economic policy agenda based on four core pillars. Tax reform being first and foremost, of course, but deregulation, unleashing the energy sector, and realigning international trade, trade reform.

We’re seeing all of these elements coming into play certainly over the last two years, and the results have been astounding, particularly on tax cuts. The TCJA, or Tax cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed by the president into law in December of 2017, has generated an incredible economic boom.

What we have seen is a record number of Americans who are working, we are seeing unemployment at a 50-year low, with certain groups of Americans seeing at or near historic lows for unemployment. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and women—all-time lows for those groups.

Let’s talk about wage growth because that is an astounding and direct result of the TCJA. The average American has now experienced 3.1% increase year over year in wage growth. And when we talk about the bottom two quintiles of wage earners, those in essentially traditional blue-collar jobs, they have seen the greatest and fastest wage growth, 3.7% year over year. What we’re witnessing is a true blue-collar boom, but all Americans are benefiting as a direct result of the TCJA.

Rob Bluey: Monica, I’m sure that you’ve heard many stories of people who are benefiting directly as a result of this. Do you have any favorites that you’d like to share with our listeners that … come to mind? People who maybe have had a bonus that they never received before from their employer, have been able to do something with this extra money?

Crowley: Absolutely. Thanks to the TCJA, the average family of four making $75,000 a year has seen a tax cut of over $2,000 on average. That’s real money, despite the fact that the Democrats have tried to talk it down and minimize the effects, that’s real money. For anybody, but certainly for the average wage earner, that is huge.

By the way, it’s their money. So, this tax cut has really empowered the American people [to] keep more of their own hard-earned money, which they are putting back into the economy and providing for their families and their children, their education. It frees them up to start their own business and live their version of the American dream.

You asked about particular stories. We hear all the time from small business owners who have said, “The combination of tax reform and deregulation, getting big government off of our backs, have really allowed us to live our dream and do our business in the way that we originally envisioned, and really haven’t been able to do because of all of these restrictions on us. All these burdens of taxes and regulation.”

So, my heart gets warmed when I hear stories of small business owners who have launched their dream, because that’s what this country is all about. It’s aspirational and it’s about allowing people freedom, economic freedom, to do what they want and provide for themselves and their families in a way that brings them reward and joy.

del Guidice: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act included a bunch of reforms. Some of them were lowering the corporate rate, full and immediate expensing for businesses. Can you talk about some of the policies included in tax reform, and maybe highlight one that you think has been most beneficial for Americans today?

Crowley: Sure. … The tax package as a whole, the president wanted to make sure that middle-class Americans got most of the benefits of this, and that’s why … in addition to the blue-collar boom, you’re seeing a middle-class boom as well. So, the bulk of the tax reform was targeted to the middle class, which I know as a historian and political scientist, is also incredibly important for stability of any society. So, that in particular is something that I think has generated most of the economic growth.

The left has attacked the TCJA as only benefiting the wealthy, and that in fact is not true. The middle class has benefited and as we have seen, because of the record-low unemployment across the board, that groups that traditionally have not seen economic growth or the benefits of a growing economy—African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, Asian Americans—that they are almost disproportionately benefiting from this economy because those tax cuts have been in place, and have benefited all Americans.

Bluey: You talk about the success and the benefits to all those Americans, of course, President Trump is somebody who has not been shy in his criticism of the media and their failure to tell the full story about the tax cuts.

Crowley: He’s not shy about much.

Bluey: Right. But on this day as Democrats seem intent on impeachment and doing other things to stymie the agenda, what has it been like to work with him and see his passion for these issues?

Crowley: Well, I am famously one of the very first, if not the first person, to go on national television a couple of days after he came down the escalator and went on national radio, and told the folks who were laughing up a storm about the idea of Donald Trump as a candidate, never mind as president, to stop laughing. Do not underestimate him. And I predicted he was going to pull the whole thing off.

So for me, it’s a source of wonderment for me and incredibly energizing for me to watch him in action and now be part of the Trump revolution, which is really all about economic freedom, protecting the hardworking American taxpayer, protecting the American worker, protecting American businesses so that they’re all free to do what they do best, which is compete, innovate, and succeed.

So for me, it is a great honor and a blessing to be part of this, and every day that I come into the White House campus and enter the Treasury Building and I see the White House there and the American flag, this American patriot, it still gets misty seven months into this job. I still get misty-eyed. It’s such an honor.

Bluey: Monica, you mentioned the Trump revolution, and part of that has been tax reform. However, we’ve seen some of the left say that they would repeal the tax cuts if they were given the chance. How would you say American businesses and even the overall economy would be affected if that actually happened?

Crowley: That would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. For a long time, we have heard from Democrats, the left, [the] president’s opponents talking about how they would roll back taxes and for a long time they’ve been talking in general terms about, “This is the new normal, globalization, stagnant wage growth, if little to any wage growth.” They’ve been talking about how we need to accept all of this because it’s the new normal and there was nothing we could do to reverse it.

President Trump’s economic freedom agenda has put the lie to that, and now people can see it with their own eyes. They’re living this Trump economy on the ground every day, benefiting from it. So when they hear from the president’s opponents that they’re going to roll back all of these things that have made their lives so much richer in every way, I just don’t see that as a political or economic message that would be resonating.

They now understand that what we as conservatives have been talking about for a long time, that when you have these pillars in place that work—tax reform, lower tax burden, tax cuts, deregulation, unleashing the energy sector and trade reform—when you have all of those pillars in place and they are working, that means that you are going to see an economic boom. We’ve been talking about this for a long time.

We’ve been stymied by even presidents who have been Republicans, we’ve been stymied in really effecting this kind of agenda. President Trump has put it into place and it is generating exactly what we always knew it was going to generate, which is a thriving economy that’s benefiting everyone.

Bluey: Let’s talk specifically about one of those other policies that you just mentioned, and that is trade. Of course, big news both on the China front with phase one of the trade deal there, USMCA [the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement], coming to a vote in congress. What will that mean to Americans? What’s your message to them about these trade deals?

Crowley: So, President Trump, when he was candidate Trump, he really built his campaign on this idea of economic freedom and an important part of that was the idea that if he became president, he was going to negotiate fair trade deals for the American people because he believes in the American worker, he believes in the American dream.

And he said, “For far too long the United States has been taken advantage of by countries like China, European Union, this NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] deal is horrible and it’s putting our workers at a severe disadvantage, and if I become president, we’re going to be done with all of that.” He meant it.

So when he became president, he really from Day One put his attention to renegotiating these trade deals and trying to make sure that the American worker and American companies were protected.

So, you mentioned USMCA. Let’s deal with that first because that was first on the trade agenda. To have any American president get two foreign countries to agree to anything is quite the achievement.

Mexico and Canada have agreed to this new NAFTA deal, USCMA, which is a complete overhaul and modernization of the NAFTA agreement. It’s got tremendous protections in there for American workers.

Part of the negotiation with the Democrats back and forth too has been over environmental protections. They’re now in this deal as well. This is going to generate an incredible number of jobs and opportunities for the American people. The ITC [International Trade Commission] estimates hundreds of thousands of jobs created as a result of USMCA. So, he has taken NAFTA and brought it into the 21st century in a whole new framework that’s going to serve the United States.

In terms of China, China is probably the sexier deal, which is why everybody is fascinated by it, but USMCA is actually a bigger size deal than China, but going into the future because China has its sights set on economic domination, it is the sexier set of negotiations.

Phase one essentially focuses on intellectual property protection and a number of other things. It’s been a long and hard fought negotiation led by Ambassador [Robert] Lighthizer at USTR [the Office of the United States Trade Representative] and my boss, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who are superb negotiators.

The interesting thing to me as someone who worked with President [Richard] Nixon during the last years of his life, is watching the Chinese economy develop over the last 25 years.

So when I worked with President Nixon, who, as we all know, opened the door to China in 1972, I was with him in the early to mid 1990s, and I went with him on his last trip to China in 1993. Nixon is still considered a rock star, but when he was alive, it was like God from heaven had come down when he stepped out of his car in Beijing, and Shanghai, and all these cities.

I remember being in Shanghai and Beijing, a number of other places in China, with him in 1993 and seeing a country that was just beginning to make the decision to develop their economy.

So, I remember being in Shanghai, for example, and seeing a million cranes reaching into the sky in a million different directions, and there was some work being done. They were trying to throw up buildings really fast, but you could see it was just starting.

Well, about two months ago, two and a half months ago, I joined Ambassador Lighthizer and Secretary Mnuchin on their last trip to China as part of the round of trade talks. I remember, we were in Shanghai, I remember opening the drapes in my hotel room and looking across the river in Shanghai where I had seen 25 years ago all of those cranes in the air, and it was just a megalopolis. I don’t know if you guys have been to China recently, but the development is staggering.

You see the river and there’s literally a ship maybe every 100 yards making its way into the South China Sea. And I saw this and I thought, “In the space of one generation, the Chinese have gotten to be an industrial superpower.”

They will never voluntarily give up the theft, and deception, and brute force that they used to get there in the space of one generation. Therefore, you needed a blunt force instrument to get their attention and bring them to the table, and that’s what the president’s tariffs regime has been all about.

We can debate whether tariffs are good or bad as an academic exercise, but the only thing that got the Chinese talking were the tariffs, and the president reserves the right to reimpose tariffs at any given moment should the Chinese not live up to their promises and obligations held in the phase one agreement.

del Guidice: Monica, you had mentioned that the USMCA is going to generate an incredible number of jobs for the American people, and are there any other pieces of this trade deal that you want to highlight for everyday Americans that they might not be aware of as something that will be beneficial to them as this goes through?

Crowley: Sure. There’s one particular part of USMCA, which I don’t think has gotten a lot of love, but I think deserves some attention. So, thank you for giving me the question to highlight it. That’s the automotive sector in the United States.

Under USMCA, the car industry in Detroit and elsewhere in the U.S. will have access to these markets, which will be huge, which really was somewhat stymied by NAFTA. The automotive industry as estimated will generate 100,000 jobs, maybe more, which would be huge for our rust belt. So, thank you for saying that.

I wanted to highlight that, but also beyond the automotive sector, we have farmers [that] will benefit, ranchers [that] will benefit, our fishermen will benefit. American businesses of all sizes will benefit as a result of greater market access and greater worker protections for us here in the United States.

Bluey: Monica, we created The Daily Signal five years ago to tell the stories that were just not getting out to the American people, some of these wins that you’ve highlighted on the interview today, those stories that don’t get the coverage that they probably deserve, rightfully deserve, by the national news media. So, thank you for spending the time talking with us today.

Crowley: Well, it’s my great pleasure. Thank you so much for having me, and Merry Christmas.

Bluey: Merry Christmas.

del Guidice: Thank you, Monica, for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast.

Crowley: You bet.

The post ‘An Incredible Economic Boom’: The Effects of the 2017 Tax Cuts appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

An Agenda That Corrupts Our Social Norms

Here are several questions for biologists and medical professionals:

At all levels, governments ignore biology and permit people to make their sex optional on a birth certificate, Social Security card, or driver’s license.

If a person is found to have XY chromosomes (heterogametic sex), does a designation as female on his birth certificate, driver’s license, or Social Security card override the chromosomal evidence?

Similarly, if a person is found to have XX chromosomes (homogametic), does a designation as male on her birth certificate, driver’s license, or Social Security card override the chromosomal evidence?

If you were a medical professional, would you consider it malpractice for an obstetrics/gynecology medical specialist not to order routine Pap smears to screen for cervical cancer for a patient who identifies as a female but has XY chromosomes?

If you were a judge, would you sentence a criminal, who identifies as a female but has XY chromosomes, to a women’s prison? One judge just might do so.

Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit focused on a Florida school district ruling that a transgender “boy,” a person with XX chromosomes, could not be barred from the boys’ restroom. Pryor suggested students shouldn’t be separated by gender at all.

Fear may explain why biologists in academia do not speak out to say that one’s sex is not optional. Since the LGBTQ community is a political force on many college campuses, biologists probably fear retaliation from diversity-blinded administrators.

It’s not just academics and judges who now see sex as optional.

Federal, state, and local governments are ignoring biology and permitting people to make their sex optional on a birth certificate, passport, Social Security card, and driver’s license. In New York City, intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title is a violation of the city’s human rights law.

If I said that my preferred title was “Your Majesty,” I wonder whether the New York City Commission on Human Rights would prosecute people who repeatedly refused to use my preferred title.

One transgender LGBTQ activist filed a total of 16 complaints against female estheticians with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after they refused to wax his male genitals. He sought financial restitution totaling at least $32,500. One woman was forced to close her shop.

Fortunately, the activist’s case was thrown out by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and he was instructed to pay $2,000 each to three of the women he attacked. The LGBTQ activist is not giving up. He is now threatening to sue gynecologists who will not accept him as a patient.

In 2012, an evangelical Christian baker in Colorado was threatened with jail time for refusing to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. When Christian bakery owner Jack Phillips won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case with a 7-2 decision in June 2018 over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious convictions, he thought his legal battles with the state of Colorado were over.

But now Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, faces a new court fight. This fight involves a lawyer who asked him to bake a cake to celebrate the anniversary of her gender transition. There are probably many bakery shops in and around Lakewood, Colorado, that would be happy to bake a cake for homosexuals; they are simply targeting Phillips.

For those in the LGBTQ community, and elsewhere, who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide catering services for a neo-Nazi affair.

Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads and neo-Nazis? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?

If you’re a liberty-minded American, your answers should be no.

 COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post An Agenda That Corrupts Our Social Norms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Watch: Trump Supporters Camp Out Overnight for Michigan ‘Christmas’ Rally

Supporters of President Donald Trump camped out overnight to secure prime sitting for Wednesday evening’s “Merry Christmas Rally” in Battle Creek, Michigan, as House Democrats are in the final stages of completing their partisan impeachment proceedings.

Both President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are scheduled to speak at the rally scheduled to kick off at 7:00 p.m. local time at Kellogg Arena. Footage shared by Fox 17 shows hundreds of Trump supporters bearing frosty temperatures in heavy snow gear through Tuesday evening into the morning. One supporter flashed a homemade “Trump 2020” sign as the camera showed off the long line to get into the venue. 

“I want to hear him beat the Democrats, aka, the Dumbo-crats,” one supporter wearing a “Trump 2020” winter hat told Fox 17 when asked what he expects the president to discuss during the rally.

“It’s going to be a great night,” said another supporter. “President Trump isn’t worried [about anything].”

He then urged the House not to impeach the president, adding that the Senate will “figure it out” with respect to how to handle the impeachment trial.

“I’ve seen a lot of rock concerts at Kellogg Area. This is going to be the best show I’ve ever seen,” predicted another Trump fan.

As the day went on, the line-up of Trump supporters waiting to enter continued to grow. 

More than 10,000 people are expected to attend the event, said the White House. 

The full House began debating two articles of impeachment against President Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — on Wednesday morning. The debate is slated to take up most of the day, setting the stage for the formal vote to coincide with the president’s rally.

Earlier in the day, President Trump urged Americans to pray for him and declared proceedings such as these should “never happen to another President again.”

“Can you believe that I will be impeached today by the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG! A terrible Thing. Read the Transcripts. This should never happen to another President again. Say a PRAYER!” he tweeted.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Dem Rep Who Helped Set Impeachment Rules Was Previously Impeached for Bribery, Perjury and More

Democratic Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings is the vice chairman of the House Committee on Rules, the folks who set the guidelines for Wednesday’s impeachment vote. Unsurprisingly, they did so along a 9-4 party-line vote, refusing to allow any amendments on the floor and limiting debate time to six hours.

As for impeachment, Hastings knows a thing or two about the process. In 1989, as a Florida federal district court judge, he was impeached and removed from office for bribery, perjury and falsifying evidence.

On Tuesday, the Rules Committee set the parameters for debate on impeachment, in what CBS News called a “contentious but comparatively collegial” session.

I’m not quite sure what that even means anymore in the context of Washington, considering these were some of the comments from Hastings that passed as “comparatively collegial”:

“The president’s actions, in your words, were so wrong,” Hastings said, according to the Palm Beach Post, referring to remarks made by committee chairman Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, the previous day.

TRENDING: As San Fran Streets Fill with Human Waste, Grocery Store Aisle Turns Into Toilet

“It’s hard for me to believe that all of us here do not all understand that. But the die is pretty much cast.”

As for Republicans who didn’t see what Trump did as trying to induce a foreign leader to influence an American election: “I just can’t believe you people,” Hastings said.

He probably wasn’t the guy who should have been talking.

In the later years of the Carter administration, Hastings was appointed as a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He was commissioned in 1979. It took him a grand total of two years to find himself enmeshed in bribery charges.

Do you think Donald Trump will be impeached and removed from office?

0% (0 Votes)

100% (4 Votes)

In 1981, Hastings was indicted on charges he took $150,000 from mob-connected defendants to reduce their sentences. His alleged co-conspirator, William A. Borders, was convicted. Hastings, however, was acquitted in 1983 and returned to being a federal judge.

Status quo ante, right? Well, not exactly.

“Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal,” a synopsis of the case on the U.S. Senate’s website reads.

“A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case. The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference, which, in turn, informed the House of Representatives on March 17, 1987, that Judge Alcee Hastings should be impeached and removed from office.”

Also, it wasn’t quite a party-line vote in the House. According to National Public Radio, the House voted by a margin of 413-3 to pass on 17 articles of impeachment to the Senate — “the greatest number of articles in any impeachment proceeding to date,” according to the Senate case synopsis.

RELATED: Old Documents Show George Washington & Trump Would Have Agreed on Executive Privilege

The Senate sent the matter to a special committee, which found there was convincing evidence to the effect that Bowers and Hastings had conspired to receive the bribe. Hastings tried to get the matter dismissed and argued a Senate trial constituted double jeopardy. Both motions were denied.

“The trial committee presented its report on October 2, 1989. Sixteen days later, the trial began in the U.S. Senate, with prosecution and defense given two hours to summarize their cases. The Senate deliberated in closed session on October 19, 1989,” the synopsis read.

“The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.”

On that last part: whoops.

Hastings sued to get the case tossed out but was unsuccessful. After an unsuccessful bid to become the secretary of state of Florida, he finally made his comeback by winning a seat in the House in 1992.

To be fair, Hastings hasn’t faced any allegations of corruption during his two-and-a-half decades in the lower house, although it hasn’t been blemish-free. In the wake of the John Conyers scandal, it was revealed Congress had paid out $220,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit against Hastings in which the complainant alleged the Florida Democrat invited a woman to his hotel room, asked her questions about the undergarments she was wearing and made other gestures toward her you can probably take a guess at.

Another controversy arose in the months before the 2008 presidential election when he gave a collegial assessment of the GOP’s vice presidential candidate to the National Jewish Democratic Council: “If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Hastings said. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

He would quickly apologize, as you might expect.

So, has this given Hastings any self-awareness about the part he’s playing at the moment? Does he realize that if this were about integrity, Hastings would be out of politics and we’d have had an impeachment inquiry that was something more than a vulgarized, streamlined, made-for-TV extravaganza? Does he realize that, at the very least, he shouldn’t be the one setting the rules for impeachment when he’s been impeached and removed himself?

At least judging by his remarks Tuesday, no. However, there was an interesting bit in an interview he did with the Palm Beach Post earlier this year.

“Impeachment is as partisan as hell,” Hastings said. “I know it because I’ve lived it.”

Of course, Hastings’ impeachment was profoundly bipartisan. You don’t get a 413-3 vote in the House of Representatives on a party-line basis. Trump’s has been, and will continue to be, “partisan as hell.” Thanks for admitting that much, I guess.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Levin: How impeachment is really about blocking another Trump SCOTUS pick

Monday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin gave credit to his neighbor for making a very good point about the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump. Levin said his neighbor believes that the Democrats want to impeach Trump to have an excuse not to let him appoint another justice to the Supreme Court — whether he wins re-election or not.

“I’ll bet he’s right. I’ll bet that’s part of the calculation,” Levin said. “That they want to claim that they’ve crippled this lawless president, that the Republicans wouldn’t remove him from office, and there is no way that the Democrats will ever agree to him making another Supreme Court appointment, either in the next eleven months or, as I say, should he get re-elected and in the four years subsequent to his first term.”

Listen:


Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up now!

The post Levin: How impeachment is really about blocking another Trump SCOTUS pick appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Pollak: House Democrats Violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in Impeachment Inquiry

House Democrats violated the Bill of Rights in pursuing their impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Republicans have pointed out that Democrats’ articles of impeachment, especially the second article charging “obstruction of Congress,” punish the president for obeying the Constitution’s checks-and-balances.

Yet Democrats have also violated the basic liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, in the following four ways:

First Amendment: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), which led the impeachment inquiry, released a 300-page report in which he printed phone logs purportedly belonging to Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and journalist John Solomon. Schiff has never made clear what authority granted him the power to snoop on a journalist (among others) — a violation of freedom of the press.

Fourth Amendment: Schiff’s snooping on phone logs violated the protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” As the Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Strassel has noted, “Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual’s agreement.” There are exceptions for legitimate law enforcement investigations, but there is no exception for lawmakers, and Schiff’s inquiry had no law enforcement purpose; no crime was alleged.

Fifth Amendment: President Trump was denied the due process rights guaranteed to his predecessors in prior impeachment inquiries. Unlike Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, for example, he was denied legal representation in the fact-finding stage of the inquiry. He was also told at the outset that any effort to invoke constitutional rights or privileges would itself be considered further evidence of an impeachable offense.

Sixth Amendment: Democrats violated the president’s right to counsel when they snooped on Giuliani’s phone records, even making a public record of his conversations with the White House, potentially violating attorney-client privilege. Moreover, by refusing to allow the so-called “whistleblower” to testify — and silencing questions about the “whistleblower” — Democrats denied Trump the right to confront his accuser before being impeached.

Democrats have argued that at least some of these rights only apply in a criminal trial, not an impeachment inquiry — and that if they were to apply to impeachment, it would only be in the trial phase, in the Senate, not in the House.

But impeachment — as Democrats have themselves argued — is itself a sanction that is meant, in their view, to deter misconduct. It is a penalty in and of itself, and the president is therefore entitled to all constitutional protections.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Faculty Union Rips Conservative Student Group That Was Attacked by the Left

The executive board of the California Faculty Association, Chico Chapter said, deep into a recent dispatch about battles between leftist students and College Republicans at Chico State University, that “the hypocrisy of right-wing political voices crying out that they are being silenced is absurd. No one in authority is silencing them.”

This came at the tail end of a dispatch from the educators union in which:

a) It completely elided the fact that College Republicans had been assaulted by these leftist students.

b) It claimed that the very name of the president “was actually a signal and symbol of insult, derision, and ridicule of specific groups within our society.”

c) It said the College Republicans, much like Donald Trump, were associated “with white supremacist ideas.”

TRENDING: Rep. Gaetz Wins Impeachment Hearing with Biden-Burisma-Hertz Car Rental Slam

d) It created a “context” for the assaults in which “acts of harassment and even physical abuse on the basis of race, gender, and perceived sexual orientation” had been ongoing.

So, if you think there’s any silencing of right-wing political voices on campus, don’t worry. These are the nonpartisan defenders of free speech in academia who will ensure conservatives don’t face discrimination based on their views.

In case you missed it, the whole thing went viral when the College Republicans at Chico State were going to host a #WalkAway event featuring movement founder Brandon Straka.

As organizations are wont to do on college campuses, the College Republicans promoted the event through “tabling” — the old-fashioned campus recruitment method of putting out a table and trying to get people to join the club and come to the event.

Some activists didn’t like this and, according to TheBlaze, harassed them via loud music.

At one point, one of the activists produced a “Black Trans Lives Matter” sign and stood in protest. Michael Curry, president of Chico State’s College Republicans, got up with a sign that said “All Lives Matter” and stood beside her. Hilarity and/or assault transpired.

WARNING: The following videos contain vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.

Even though the conservative wasn’t really that close to her, the liberal shouted, “Get the f— out of my f—ing face!” while ripping the sign out of the conservative’s hand and attempting to hit him.

RELATED: Anti-Trump Film Professor’s Quiz Question Equates President with KKK

Things didn’t get any better when Straka came to campus, either.

Yeah, there’s nothing that’s going to make your point as eloquently and as tolerantly as saying of Straka that “his mom should’ve had a f—ing abortion.”

If you want more of what’s been happening to conservative students at Chico State, you can look at Michael Curry’s Twitter account.

But maybe there’s another side to all this, which is what the California Faculty Association, Chico Chapter wanted to set out to prove in its dispatch.

Or, in the group’s words, it was going to offer “some responses to the white supremacist ideas expressed on our campus in the week before the Thanksgiving Holiday.”

Do you think conservatives are discriminated against on college campuses?

100% (2 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“We are living in strange times when a student organization displaying banners and signs supporting reelection of the sitting president can be experienced as an act of racist provocation, but we must be honest,” the letter, issued Tuesday, read.

“There has not been another president in US history whose very name was actually a signal and symbol of insult, derision, and ridicule of specific groups within our society. It would be disingenuous to deny that Trump has this impact as he is clearly associated, by design, with white supremacist ideas. Further, the recent release of emails from White House Aid Stephen Miller demonstrate that he has promoted white supremacist ideas in his communications.”

Miller, indeed, is at the center of some controversy for alleged emails he sent during his time as communications director for then-Sen. Jeff Sessions. The rest of that is arrant nonsense, liberal puffery and standard-issue guilt by association.

“Some aspects of this situation are simple,” the letter continued. “Student organizations absolutely may reserve space for a booth that displays their candidate’s name. There can be no question that such political speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. But the problem happens when we stop the conversation at this single, obvious point.

“While the conversations we need to have — on campus and throughout our society — must include the parameters of protected First Amendment speech (and what time/place/manner restrictions are permitted and appropriate under various circumstances), the conversations must not be limited to those principles.

“To fail to acknowledge the context in which the protests on campus in November occurred does a disservice to the members of our campus community who have been targeted by ongoing acts of harassment and even physical abuse on the basis of race, gender, and perceived sexual orientation in the past weeks and months. The context of this targeting and harassment, and the failure to respond effectively to fully acknowledge the harms being done and to fully protect these students, staff, and faculty from hateful comments and actions, adds insult to injury and leaves many in our community frustrated and demoralized.”

Now, at no point are any statistics of these “ongoing acts of harassment and even physical abuse” documented or are examples provided. Unlike the videos on Curry’s Twitter account, there isn’t corroboration here.

However, the CFA assures us that “[t]o many students it appears that discipline has been meted out quickly with unseemly haste against students who object to racism, while consequences for the racist provocateurs has been muted.”

“We must do better at protecting targeted students from the harmful impacts of ignorant racist, sexist, and other oppressive behavior and speech,” the letter said. “We stand with our students. We see the efforts to provoke them. We see the insults. We are here to work with them to create responses that allow them to express their frustration, even their rage, at such insult and threats in a manner that does not set them up to be punished.  Such punishment reinforces the long history this society has of silencing minority voices.

“Finally, the hypocrisy of right-wing political voices crying out that they are being silenced is absurd. No one in authority is silencing them. Rejecting the abusive, insulting, and corrupt president/candidate they support is not punishment. They face no disciplinary sanction for such demonstrations (and have not even been punished for the far more harmful and disgraceful off-campus events they have arranged in which targeted groups and individuals are ridiculed and harassed).

“But just because they have a right to express their views does not in any way mean we have to sit by, silently, and pretend that such views are not offensive and even provoking to many members of our community. Because, make no mistake, they are.”

In short, because ideas are “provoking,” all of what happened is all right. The harassment, up to and including assault, of conservative students, since it didn’t happen in a vacuum, ought to be excused.

Now, the CFA is a union, which means (wonder of wonders) its take on this skews toward the left. But there’s the rub: This is a union comprised of educators at state universities in California. In other words, this is the official opinion of the collective bargaining organ of the men and women who teach these students. The very name “Trump” to them is a white-supremacist insult. If you’re a College Republican, guess what that makes you.

There’s a strange, discomfiting irony in the fact that the CFA set out to prove, in part, “the hypocrisy of right-wing political voices crying out that they are being silenced” on public university campuses in California.

If that’s what they expected the takeaway would be, perhaps they ought to have re-read this one before they clicked send.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Trump Rips Debate Commission, Raising Doubts About Whether He’ll Participate

President Trump on Monday ripped the Commission on Presidential Debates, which will oversee all debates in the 2020 presidential election.

In a trio of posts on Twitter, Trump said he hadn’t yet decided if he would participate in the commission’s debates.

“I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates. My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates,” Trump wrote in his first post.

“The problem is that the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers. 3 years ago they were forced to publicly apologize for modulating my microphone in the first debate against Crooked Hillary. As President, the debates are up … to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!” he wrote in the next two.

Trump’s comments came days after The New York Times reported that the president and his advisers have discussed possibly skipping the general election debates next year because they don’t trust the commission to pick fair moderators.

The Commission has announced debates will take place at the University of Notre Dame on Sept. 29, at 2020 at the University of Michigan on Oct. 15 and at Belmont University on Oct. 22.

The Commission defended itself after Trump’s comments.

“The televised general election debates are an important part of our democratic process,” the commission said. “Since 1988, the Commission on Presidential Debates has conducted 30 general election presidential and vice presidential debates. Our record is one of fairness, balance and non-partisanship.”

The post Trump Rips Debate Commission, Raising Doubts About Whether He’ll Participate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

WATCH: Trump Shares Richard Jewell Testimony Denouncing FBI, Fake News Media: ‘Criminal Organizations,’ ‘Tyrants’

On Monday, President Donald Trump shared a poignant clip of maligned hero Richard Jewell testifying before Congress in 1997 and demanding the FBI issue him a formal apology for falsely fingering him as a suspect in the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games bombing.

The president approvingly quote-tweeted a post from the Twitter user “Steph,” who argued that Richard Jewell’s treatment at the hands of the FBI and the fake news media parallels President Trump’s own treatment. Steph denounced both organizations as “tyrants” and “criminal organizations.”

“This is Richard Jewell. Listen to him. President Trump could read the same statement,” said Steph. “The FBI & their media partners are criminal organizations under the guise of ‘keeping us safe’ They are tyrants and it isn’t new.”

In the two-minute clip, a noticeably shaken and timid Richard Jewell denounces his treatment at the hands of both the media and the FBI, taking specific aim at the government institution for actively seeking to ruin his life in spite of the truth. Here’s the full transcript:

 I come before you today, not as a Republican or a Democrat. I have no political agenda. I come before you simply as an American citizen with rights just like everybody else. One year ago today, the FBI and the media joined together to launch an attack on me of unparalleled proportions in the history of this nation. An attack calculated to portray me to the world as some kind of abnormal person, with a bizarre employment history who was guilty of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. It was all a lie.

Two days ago, the Justice Department issued a written report about its investigation into a few of the unlawful acts committed by the FBI in its investigation of me. While I have not had an opportunity to study the report in detail,  I did read a redacted summary yesterday. I submit to you that the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself because that report is also a lie. It is filled with false statements, half-truths, and gross distortions of the truth. Reading it reminded me of reading the FBI search warrant affidavit against me. Apparently, truth for the Justice Department is simply whatever the Justice Department wants the truth to me. Within a few days, after my name was leaked to the media, the FBI knew it had a public relations disaster on its hands. The organization that prided itself on being the best investigative agency in the world had quickly, and with the word watching, pointed the federal government’s finger of guilt at the wrong man and they knew it within days. Not only did the FBI accuse the wrong man — its agents in Atlanta, and officials in Washington, actively participated in publicly humiliating me.

Richard Jewell became a national hero during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia, when he discovered a bomb planted in Centennial Park. Risking his own life, Jewell successfully helped to evacuate the area, saving countless lives before the bomb detonated. As a result of his heroic feats, only one person died in the blast (a second person later died of a heart attack) while 111 people were injured.

Though first hailed for his triumphant efforts, things quickly turned sour for Jewell the moment the media learned that the FBI was investigating him as a potential suspect, believing he may have planted the bomb himself in order to gain notoriety.

Director Clint Eastwood’s movie chronicling Richard Jewell’s harrowing fight went nationwide last Friday.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Nolte: Michigan Swing Voters ‘Have Virtually Zero Trust In Media’s Coverage’ of Trump

The far-left Axios reports that Michigan swing voters not only hate impeachment, they “have virtually zero trust in the media’s coverage of” President Trump.

Smart people.

Yep, as the national impeachment polling continues to move against the media and Democrats, at the swing state level things look even more dire for America’s Ukraine Hoaxsters.

And these are not just any swing voters in Michigan, this focus group was made up of voters who supported President Obama before moving over to Trump in 2016.

In other words, these are the voters the Democrat Party and fake media are counting on to come back home in 2020, to return to the Democrat fold and defeat Trump’s re-election chances. Well, they are not coming home. They are no longer Obama/Trump voters. They are now just Trump voters.

“Some swing voters here who voted for Barack Obama and then Donald Trump are firmly in Trump’s camp now — and they’re sick of impeachment,” Axios reports, adding, “These voters hate the fact that House Democrats are moving toward impeaching the president. They call it a distraction from the issues that would actually improve their lives.”

Those issues include “preserving Social Security, cracking down on illegal immigration, and keeping jobs in the U.S.”

“They have virtually zero trust in the media’s coverage of” Trump and “credit Trump with making health care more affordable.”

They explained that Trump’s tax cut “saved them more in taxes so they can now reallocate that money to pay for prescription drugs.”

The focus group was taken in Saginaw County, Michigan, a crucially important swing county in a crucially important swing state. Obama won the county by 12 points in 2012; Trump won it by only a single point. Michigan had been part of the Democrats’ Rustbelt firewall, at least until Trump won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in 2016.

According to Axios, only two of the focus group participants said they will “definitely” vote for Trump next year, but none of them are “excited by any of the 2020 Democrats, and no one signaled an interest in supporting a Democratic candidate.”

The best news here, of course, is that these former Obama voters can no longer be fooled by the fake news media. After four years of hoaxes and lies — the Russia Hoax, Brett Kavanaugh: Serial Rapist Hoax, KKKovington KKKids Hoax, endless hate crime hoaxes, and now the Ukraine Hoax — the swing voters have moved from believers to skeptical to non-believers, which is quite a leap for former Obama supporters, and a resounding rejection of the media.

The American people are waking up to the truth about the corrupt and rigged media, and not a moment to soon.

Does anyone honestly believe America’s working class is going to continue to support a political party that can no longer tell the difference between men and women?

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com