53percenter's Blog

When a federal district judge issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Trump administration from blocking funds for sanctuary cities, conservatives protested and liberals cheered.

Liberals were similarly thrilled by a district court ruling that halted the president’s order blocking travel to the U.S. from certain Middle Eastern nations.

Yet when several red states sued to block Obamacare, law
professors writing in The Atlantic asked, “Can one judge really impose his
ruling from one coast to the other?”

District courts—whose reach should be limited to the area
within their geographic jurisdictions except in certain narrowly-defined
circumstances—have inappropriately claimed authority to block presidential and
congressional actions throughout the entire nation.

In particular, these courts issuing nationwide injunctions against several constitutional border security solutions has greatly worsened the ongoing humanitarian disaster. 

It’s time for Congress and the higher courts to push back on
these illegitimate overreaches. Doing so would move the nation closer to a
lasting solution on the border and restore a proper understanding of the role of
district courts. 

Nationwide injunctions are a fairly new development. Activists
who cannot accomplish their goals through legislation have increasingly turned
to a court system composed of a small group of unelected judges.

But in the same way that the Texas state legislature cannot make laws for Oklahoma, district courts only have authority over a single district—a limited area. By issuing a nationwide injunction, these courts are inappropriately claiming authority over other courts’ districts. 

>>> What We Need in Our Federal Judges

This leads activists and interest groups to go “forum
shopping,” gaming the system to make sure their case is heard by a court (or
even a specific judge) whom they expect will rule favorably. If they can find
the right court, they can hijack the legal process to, in essence, create laws
that bind the entire country. 

This is not only a threat to our republican form of
government, but a threat to the legitimacy of the judicial branch. When the
public perceives that a small group of judges, chosen specifically for their
partisan viewpoints, are shaping national policy, they lose confidence in the
objectivity of the entire legal system.

For example, this year, anti-border security activists pushed for catch-and-release requirements for illegal immigrants at a notoriously liberal California-based court. A single Obama-appointed judge obliged, reinterpreting a decades-old legal agreement known as the Flores settlement to require the release of detained migrant children—and their parents—within 20 days of their detention. 

This ruling set the stage for the current border crisis, as migrants began to realize that our border agencies’ hands were tied when it came to detaining migrants who cross illegally with children. 

Migrants discovered that simply arriving with a child would
swiftly secure their release, incentivizing them to bring children along for
the dangerous journey across Mexico, during which one in three females is
sexually assaulted.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have arrived already this year, stretching our Border Patrol’s resources to the breaking point and enriching the criminal cartels that traffic migrants into the United States.

>>> After Seeing the Border, What Rep. Michael Cloud Thinks Should Be Done

So the president’s announcement in August that he would be
terminating the Flores settlement came as welcome news. The president should
not be bound by a court that lacks nationwide jurisdiction. 

In another recent example, a U.S. district judge in Manhattan
struck down a Trump administration rule that would protect the consciences of
health care workers. The rule would have ensured doctors and nurses who do not
want to actively participate in abortion procedures, assisted suicide, or
sterilizations don’t have to. It bolstered laws already in place that protect religious
freedom.

There are countless other examples of federal judges
overreaching their proper bounds. Congress should exercise its constitutional
authority to set limits on “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish” in order to prevent federal courts—besides the
Supreme Court—from blocking policies outside that particular court’s geographic
area of authority. 

As long as activists can find sympathetic district courts to block the other side’s policies across the entire nation, our constitutional form of government is at risk. This is not how our government was meant to function, and Congress should end this illegitimate exercise of judicial power.

The post 1 Minor Judge Shouldn’t Be Able to Block Trump’s Agenda 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/

The Justice Department’s in-house watchdog released a 476-page report Monday that criticizes some of the FBI’s actions in beginning an investigation of the Trump campaign’s connection with Russian election meddling, but does not concludes that political bias drove the agency’s probe.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report does answer many questions and verifies some suspicions about the initial FBI investigation, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane.  

Attorney General William Barr, Horowitz’s boss, issued a statement Monday saying that the report shows the FBI’s “clear abuse” of the process for obtaining warrants to spy on Americans. 

Horowitz is scheduled to take questions Wednesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee on his report, which arrives as the House Judiciary Committee drafts articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. 

Here are six key takeaways from Horowitz’s report. 

1. Surveillance Broader Than Initially Thought

Americans already knew the FBI used surveillance to keep tabs on two Trump campaign advisers. Initially, news reports made it clear that foreign policy advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were under surveillance. 

The IG report states that two others also were subject to FBI spying: retired Army Lt. General Michael Flynn, a high-level campaign adviser who would serve less than a month as Trump’s first White House national security adviser, and onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The IG report concludes that “the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open the individual investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort in August 2016 was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by the [Justice] Department and the FBI.” 

In May 2017, about four months after Trump became president, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to complete the investigation. 

Mueller determined in his final report released in April 2019 that there was no evidence either Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russian government or Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election. 

2. FBI ‘Far Short’ on Facts in Applying for Warrant

On one key matter, the IG report scolds the FBI for “falling far short” on standards. 

The report identifies 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” by the FBI, which it subsequently refers to as “errors,” in obtaining a warrant to surveil Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. 

“Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate,’” the report says. “We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed.”

The inspector general also “determined that the inaccuracies and omissions we identified in the applications resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to Department attorneys and failing to identify important issues for discussion.”

The report continues: 

Moreover, we concluded that case agents and SSAs [supervisory special agents] did not give appropriate attention to facts that cut against probable cause, and that as the investigation progressed and more information tended to undermine or weaken the assertions in the FISA applications, the agents and SSAs did not reassess the information supporting probable cause.

Further, the report notes that “among the most serious” errors committed by the FBI on FISA was the “failure to advise OI [the Office of Intelligence] or the court of the inconsistencies.”

The Office of Intelligence is part of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

3. No ‘Documentary or Testimonial Evidence’ of Political Bias, but …

On the question of political bias by FBI agents and officials, Horowtiz’s report appears to throw a bone to both sides by making a scathing assessment but asserting on each evaluation that his investigators didn’t find “documentary or testimonial evidence” of impropriety. 

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations,” the IG report says. 

Later, when describing the process of obtaining a surveillance warrant under FISA, the report uses the same phrase:

Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted NSD’s Office of Intelligence … we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information. We found that the offered explanations for these serious errors did not excuse them, or the repeated failures to ensure the accuracy of information presented to the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court].

The report says a protocol known as the Woods Procedures, adopted in 2001, requires the FBI to verify facts presented in a FISA application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose proceedings are secret.

“As described above, given that certain factual misstatements were repeated in all four applications, across three different investigative teams, we also concluded that agents and supervisors failed to appropriately perform the Woods Procedures on the renewal applications by not giving much, if any, attention to re-verifying ‘old facts.’” 

This section of the IG report is mostly consistent with a memo released in early 2018 by then-House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., which said the FBI did not comply with the Woods Procedures. 

4. Why the FBI Says It Didn’t Notify Trump

Horowitz’s report says that an FBI counterintelligence official, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, told investigators that the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers created an obligation to investigate members of the Trump campaign who had potential ties to Russia. 

Priestap had an explanation for why the FBI never notified the Trump campaign that it was looking into potential wrongdoing, the report says:

Priestap stated that he considered whether the FBI should conduct defensive briefings for the Trump campaign but ultimately decided that providing such briefings created the risk that ‘if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.’

5. Comey, McCabe, and the Steele Dossier

The IG report says that top FBI leadership approved use of unverified information in a so-called dossier assembled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to apply for the warrants.

However, a lower-level FBI official raised red flags that Steele’s document was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

“We further determined that FBI officials at every level concurred with this judgment, [including] then-General Counsel James Baker, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and then-Director James Comey,” the report says, referring to basing the warrant application on the unverified information: 

FBI leadership supported relying on Steele’s reporting to seek a FISA order on Page after being advised of, and giving consideration to concerns expressed by Stuart Evans, then [the National Security Division’s] Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight responsibility over [the Office of Intelligence], that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the DNC, and that the foreign intelligence to be collected through the FISA order would probably not be worth the ‘risk’ of being criticized later for collecting communications of someone (Carter Page) who was ‘politically sensitive.’

According to McCabe, the FBI ‘felt strongly’ that the FISA application should move forward because the team believed they had to get to the bottom of what they considered to be a potentially serious threat to national security, even if the FBI would later be criticized for taking such action.

6. Next Step in John Durham’s Criminal Probe

In a statement also released Monday, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is conducting a criminal investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, disagreed with some of the IG report’s findings. 

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.”

Durham continued:  

Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.

Indeed, questions about what the FBI predicated its case on include actions by officials with the CIA, the National Security Council, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 

The IG report, however, says that nearly all of its information came from sources within the FBI, as it is not authorized to investigate matters outside the Justice Department:

The question we considered was not whether a particular investigative decision was ideal or could have been handled more effectively, but rather whether the [Justice] Department and the FBI complied with applicable legal requirements, policies, and procedures in taking the actions we reviewed or, alternatively, whether the circumstances surrounding the decision indicated that it was based on inaccurate or incomplete information, or considerations other than the merits of the investigation.

If the explanations we were given for a particular decision were consistent with legal requirements, policies, procedures, and not unreasonable, we did not conclude that the decision was based on improper considerations in the absence of documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary.

Barr, who as attorney general is the boss of both Horowitz and Durham, issued a statement saying the report reveals “clear abuse” of the FISA process. 

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr said in the statement, adding:

It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation [of Trump campaign ties to Russia] was consistently exculpatory.  Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into Preisident Trump’s administration.

In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.  

The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.  While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.

The post 6 Takeaways From the IG Report on FBI’s Spying on Trump Campaign 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/

Gov. Matt Bevin walked out of his office for the last time Dec. 9, and it’s somewhat fitting that the U.S. Supreme Court picked that same day to uphold one of the most important laws he ever signed—the Kentucky ultrasound bill.

The justices, who watched the ACLU appeal all the way to their doorstep, refused to even hear the case. Instead, they deferred to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which didn’t see the harm in showing moms a picture of their babies before they abort. If it’s just “a clump of cells,” who cares? Liberals, that’s who.

The last thing the abortion industry wants is for moms to come face to face with the personhood of their child. It’s why they’ve poured millions of dollars into fighting heartbeat bills, sonograms, even basic medical disclaimers.

When it comes to abortion, technology is—and always has been—the single biggest enemy of the left. Nothing comes between women and their business more than the truth about these tiny humans in the womb—humans that yawn, smile, suck their thumbs.

The imaging is so advanced these days that doctors can track something as small as a baby’s hiccup. It’s a game-changer. Which is exactly why groups like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are trying to shut down laws like Kentucky’s. It’s hard enough to get moms to destroy their babies. But it’s near impossible once they see and hear how intensely human their children are.

For young moms like Lisa, who never wanted to be pregnant in the first place, it was a revelation.

“I didn’t want to go through with having the baby,” she explained. “I didn’t want to face all of the challenges that a single mom would.” And besides, she said, “My life was just beginning,” and this “makes you feel like your life is over.”

She made three appointments to abort her little girl. But every time, she found a reason not to go. Something just wasn’t right. She went back to the pregnancy care center and they offered her a free sonogram. “I heard the heartbeat,” Lisa remembers, “and it made it all real. There was a real life inside of me.” It made her realize that “no matter what I was feeling or thinking at the time, I had a little one to worry about.”

As hard as it was to tell her parents, Lisa was overcome when they found her note and called her crying. “Through tears they told me they would help—no matter what.”

It hasn’t always been easy, but her daughter, Selah, has been the joy of her life. A few years later, while her daughter played at the park, Lisa struck up a conversation with a woman sitting by her on the bench. Laura was her name. She said she worked at Life Network. Stunned, Lisa pointed to the blonde little girl on the swings. “The pregnancy center saved her life!” she exclaimed.

It’s a miraculous story—one the folks at Planned Parenthood don’t want to see repeated.

In its challenge, the ACLU even argued that giving women these options was somehow a violation of doctors’ free speech. But the Supreme Court didn’t buy it. Just like it hasn’t bought other lies about “informed consent” laws. Under Kentucky’s, all doctors are required to do is describe the ultrasound while moms listen to the heartbeat. If the women choose, they can shut their eyes and cover their ears. Even still, the ACLU calls it “unconstitutional and unethical.”

No, what’s unethical is misleading women about the personhood of their baby and the life-long consequences of aborting her. Even now, Laura says, she’s met other young moms who “couldn’t see past their circumstances—a child they’re not ready for, a relationship they’d rather escape.” But then they see their baby’s “heartbeat, fingers, and toes.” She says they see the impact of their ultrasound machine every day.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, let’s hope Kentucky can say the same thing about its informed consent law.

Originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Supreme Court Gives a Win to Pro-Lifers 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/

New polling shows a very troubling development for those desperate to see Donald Trump go down in 2020. After struggling in three key battleground states against Democratic presidential frontrunners, Trump has seen a surge in support since Democrats formally moved forward with impeachment. The Republican president now leads every potential Democratic opponent in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, three of the Rust Belt states that helped deliver Trump’s electoral victory in 2016.

In a report published Sunday, Firehouse Strategies presented their new quarterly battleground polling results, and they were quite grim for Democrats. In a survey of 1,759 likely 2020 general election voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania conducted last week (12/3 through 12/5), the Firehouse/Optimus pollsters found that Trump was “surging” as an apparent result of the Democrats’ impeachment effort — while Democratic frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden is suffering a “sharp decline in support.”

“As the impeachment process heats up in Washington, Donald Trump is seeing a boost in support in crucial swing states,” Firehouse Strategies reports. “Across the board, President Trump is polling well against the Democratic field in each of these battleground states. Notably, Vice President Biden has seen a sharp decline in support in our surveys as he currently runs behind President Trump in each of the three states.”

And it’s not just Biden who is suffering, it’s all the Democratic candidates. Trump now leads each of them, and often by significant margins.

“As the race currently stands, President Trump is in the lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in hypothetical match-ups against former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” Firehouse explains. “Across the three states, Trump’s closest contest is against Joe Biden, although the president leads by an average of 6 percentage points against each Democrat.”

In Michigan, Trump leads Biden by 5 points (46-41), Warren by 9 points (47-38), Sanders by 6 points (48-42), Buttigieg by 11 points (48-37), and Bloomberg by 11 points (48-37).

The numbers are similar in Pennsylvania, where Trump leads Biden by 5 points (46-41), Warren by 7 points (47-40), Sanders by 10 points (48-38), Buttigieg by 6 points (46-40), and Bloomberg by 4 points (45-41). The 4-point gap with Bloomberg is the closest any of the Democrats get to Trump in the three key states.

The results are even worse for Democrats in Wisconsin, where Trump now enjoys a greater than 8-point advantage over all of the Democratic contenders. Trump beats Biden by 9 points (48-39), Warren by 13 points (50-37), Sanders by 13 points (51-38), Buttigieg by 11 points (49-38), and Bloomberg by 14 points (49-37).

So is the Democrats’ impeachment campaign to blame for Trump’s surge and the Democrats’ — particularly Bidens’ — “sharp decline”? The Firehouse/Optimus survey asked the likely 2020 voters in the three battleground states what they thought about impeachment and got some pretty clear results:

In each of these battleground states, we find that a majority of likely 2020 voters do not support the impeachment and removal of President Trump from office. Impeachment and removal is opposed by 50.8% of voters in Michigan, 52.2% of voters in Pennsylvania, and 57.9% of voters in Wisconsin. Non-partisan voters in Michigan (70%) and Wisconsin (61%) oppose impeachment and removal while non-partisan voters in Pennsylvania slightly support it (46.4% to 40.9%). When asked about whether congressional Democrats should be spending their time impeaching Trump or focusing on policy issues, a majority of these battleground state voters choose “focus on policy issues” (MI: 59.4%; PA: 63%; WI: 67.2%).

Firehouse provides the following “key point” in summary of its findings: “Overall, we find President Trump performing well in these crucial 2020 states. While these numbers will fluctuate as the presidential election continues, Trump is well situated to win back these contests.” (Read the full report here.)

via The Daily Wire

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

via American Thinker Blog

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

via Breitbart News

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

There have never been such times as these in the United States of America.  We the People are facing not only the growing insanity of a, seemingly, never ending search by the Socialist Democrat Party for even more deliberately inane items of political correctness but, now they are besieging us with new attempts to weaken and destroy the US presidency and the Constitution itself.  

The greatest existential threat to our nation is coming not from China or Russia…but from the Democrat Party which has now turned blatantly, irrevocably and in-our-faces tyrannically Socialist.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

FIREWORKS!
The House Judiciary Committee led by Chairman Jerry Nadler met on Monday morning to continue their sham impeachment hearing.

Before the two lawyers and “witnesses” were able to deliver their testimony several Republican committee members interrupted the proceedings to question Chairman Nadler about the minority day to call witnesses.

On Friday GOP Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) sent off a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) demanding the Republican minority hearing day before the committee decides on articles of impeachment.
This is their right!

Republicans are owed a day to call in their own witnesses.
Rep. Collins called on Nadler to contact his office immediately to schedule the GOP day to call witnesses.

Of course, Democrats fear a day of minority witnesses will destroy their complete sham of an impeachment process based on lies and hearsay.

https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1202990604675952640

Chairman Nadler refuses to schedule this day of hearings. He continues to ignore this request.

On Monday before the statements by the assembled lawyers Republicans interrupted the proceedings to request their minority hearing day.
Nadler ignored their request.

This is a lawless Democrat coup to remove President Trump.

The post FIREWORKS at Sham Impeachment Hearing: Lawless Democrats Led by Jerry Nadler REFUSE GOP Lawmakers’ Right to Hold Minority Hearing Day (VIDEO) 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

Since the election of Donald Trump, Saturday Night Live has discarded any attempt to present itself as at all politically balanced, so much so that a sketch that even hints at actually mocking a political figure on the Left in a way that aligns with a Trumpian complaint is notable.

In a sketch Saturday (video below), SNL’s Kate McKinnon presents a wide-eyed and condescending House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a bit that mocks her recent meltdown at a press conference over *n0t* “hating” Trump and supposedly “praying” for him “all the time.” But since SNL is SNL, the sketch ultimately takes biggest aim at Trump and throws in a line smearing a key Republican senator as a supposed racist homophobe.

Following a press conference Thursday in which she declared that the Democrats have “no choice” but to impeach President Trump, Pelosi snapped at a reporter from Sinclair for asking if she hated Trump.

“Don’t mess with me. I don’t hate anybody,” Pelosi told the reporter, pointing her finger. She then returned to the mic to put it on the record that she doesn’t “hate” anyone, even Trump. “[A]s a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

Even Trump-hating SNL couldn’t resist taking some jabs at Pelosi over the meltdown. McKinnon, who also frequently portrays the woman whose terrible campaign helped Trump get elected, appeared on the “Weekend Update” to make clear that it’s not her fault that the Democrats are ramming through the increasingly unpopular impeachment.

Asked about another reporter asking if she felt bad for putting the country through the impeachment process, McKinnon’s Pelosi says, “No everybody needs to understand, I am not impeaching Trump because I hate him. I am impeaching him because rules.”

“Look, I didn’t want any of this,” she insists. “Remember, it’s not my fault that we’re in this position. It’s Trump’s fault. It’s not the lifeguard’s fault for evacuating the pool. It’s the rich kid who took a dook in the deep-end.”

Asked about her claim that she “prays” for Trump, McKinnon’s spot-on, self-interrupting Pelosi responds: “Yes, absolu — I pray for him all the time. In fact, I’ll do it right now.”

McKinnon then puts her hands together prayerfully as angelic music begins.

“Lord, please help Donald Trump,” she mock-prays. “If he has to be president, please make him a little better at any of it. And please take him. Not to heaven or anything, just somewhere else. Just for a little while, mama needs a break.”

“Dear lord, teach Donald Trump your values and to understand the Golden Rule, what it means and that it is not a sex thing,” she continues.

The audience liked that one.

“Help him with his cares and concerns, like help him to have those — about anyone or anything,” she suggests. “Here’s an idea, maybe place a curse on him like the movie ‘Liar, Liar,’ where he’s forced to tell the truth for just one week. Come on, lord, even you know that’d be funny.”

When it’s pointed out by her co-star that her prayers are “a little passive-aggressive,” McKinnon’s Pelosi counters, “No, no, some of them are aggressive-aggressive.”

“Lord, please watch over the Trump organization, which is being run by Eric. Yikes,” she prays.

She concludes by taking shots at the Republicans, particularly South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who she suggests is racist and homophobic.

“Please heal the Republicans in the Senate who tragically lost their balls,” she concludes. “And finally, please bless Lindsey Graham with a baby that’s black and gay.”

The SNL audience applauded heartily after the final line. Video below via SNL:

After Pelosi’s Thursday presser, Trump explained what he thinks is really behind the speaker’s “nervous fit.”

“Nancy Pelosi just had a nervous fit,” Trump tweeted. “She hates that we will soon have 182 great new judges and sooo much more. Stock Market and employment records. She says she ‘prays for the President.’ I don’t believe her, not even close. Help the homeless in your district Nancy. USMCA?

Nancy Pelosi just had a nervous fit. She hates that we will soon have 182 great new judges and sooo much more. Stock Market and employment records. She says she “prays for the President.” I don’t believe her, not even close. Help the homeless in your district Nancy. USMCA?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2019

via The Daily Wire

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

via American Thinker Blog

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