Happy New Year, Democrats!

This is a tale of two impeachments.

On January 7, 1999, the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton began in the U.S. Senate.  Although the original charges presented to the House Judiciary Committee by independent counsel Kenneth Starr included eleven impeachable offenses, including perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, evidence tampering, abuse of power, and others, the House of Representatives was able to reach agreement on just two counts: 1) lying under oath in a court of law, and 2) obstruction of justice… both serious felonies.  

Under Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is required to preside over all presidential impeachment trials.  As Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the members of the senate to order, he called each of the 100 senators to the well of the senate where he administered the following oath to each one, in turn:    

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?”  With their right hands raised and their left hands on the Holy Bible, each senator responded, “I do!”  Although most of us who’ve fought in the trenches against Democrats for many years could accurately predict how the Democrats would ultimately vote, only God, himself, and the 100 senators, knew which of them possessed the strength of character and the integrity to live up to that solemn oath.

House managers began presenting evidence on January 7, 1999 and completed their closing arguments on February 12.  When the final votes were tallied on the perjury count, all 45 Democrats voted “not guilty,” in spite of undeniable evidence to the contrary.  Forty-five Republicans listened to the evidence, did their duty, and voted “guilty.” Ten Republicans, after being presented with undeniable video evidence, voted either “not guilty” or “not proven.”

To be alive at that time and to have a clear understanding of Clinton’s irrefutable guilt, and then to watch as forty-five Democrats and ten Republicans flagrantly voted “not guilty,” violating their solemn oaths to “do impartial justice,” was a devastating blow to all who love our country and who respect the rule of law..     

When votes on the obstruction charge were tallied, the Senate split evenly: 50 senators voted “guilty” and 50 voted “not guilty.”  Throughout the voting on the two articles of impeachment, and in spite of the undeniable evidence of guilt on both counts, not a single Democrat voted to convict the one man most responsible for seeing to it that our laws are “faithfully executed” and that he/she will “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

But now, in late December 2019, as we gather together with family and friends to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, it is devastating to hear every Democrat in Congress, House and Senate, demanding that Donald Trump be removed from office, even though they are unable to find him guilty of any offense that would qualify as “treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.”    

Of the 100 senators who voted to either convict or acquit Bill Clinton in 1999, seven Democrats and eight Republicans are still there, preparing to vote on the question of whether or not our current president is guilty of impeachable offenses of such magnitude that he deserves to be removed from office.  So, what can we expect from those seven long-serving Democrats and eight Republicans?  Knowing what we do about Democrats, we know that they are evil, vile, disgusting, and loathsome people, totally lacking in integrity and self-respect.  In fact, they are so despicable and so contemptible that we are able to predict with a high degree of certainty that they will all vote to remove Trump from office, innocent as he may be of any impeachable offense.  All eight of the Republicans can be expected to stand with their more junior colleagues and vote to deny the Democrats their bitter revenge for having defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Anyone with access to the mush-filled brains of a millennial might want to keep a very short parable on the tip of their tongue.  What every young person needs to understand as they reach voting age is that, in February 1999, every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to acquit a Democratic president who was indisputably guilty of the charges for which he was impeached, while it is readily predictable, with a high degree of certainty, that those same Democrats will vote unanimously to convict a Republican president whom they’d managed to impeach on the flimsiest of “trumped-up” charges, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.  

The Clinton administration is a perfect example of the Democrats’ approach to law and justice.  When the Clintons left the White House in January 2001, the American people had an opportunity to take stock of what was the most criminal administration in U. S. history.

During the Clinton years in the White House, some 113 individuals were known to have committed felony crimes.  Of these, 54 went unindicted and 59 were indicted.  Of the 59 who were indicted, three… two Buddhist nuns and Monica Lewinski… were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony; two were found guilty, but were later pardoned; two resigned from office rather than submit to a jury trial; one, a black cabinet secretary from Mississippi, was acquitted by a D.C. jury; and 39 faced a jury and were found guilty, as charged.  The final disposition of the remaining 12 felony indictments is unknow. 

It should be obvious to all patriotic Americans that, in the absence of a free and unbiased press, it is impossible to have a free country, and that, in the absence of an honest, educated, and fully informed citizenry, it is impossible to have a justice system that guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens.  At this point in time the American people have reason to doubt that we have either.  We no longer have a free press, and we have a justice system that is increasingly administered based on nothing more than the (D) or the (R) that we place behind our names.

So, who is to blame for this unmitigated failure of the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of mankind?  While there is no doubt that the Democratic Party… the party of slavery, secession, and segregation… has played a major role in everything damaging, destructive, and deadly in our nation’s history, the opposition party, the party of Lincoln, must also accept its share of the blame.

For example, in the present circumstance regarding the impeachment of Donald Trump, the Republican Party has abdicated its leadership and abandoned its strategic responsibilities in ways too numerous to mention.  For example, when Democrats began developing their bogus impeachment claims against Donald Trump by criticizing his July telephone conversation with the newly elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Democrats immediately placed Trump and congressional Republicans on the defensive.  They did so by creating the impression that the primary purpose of Trump’s call was to congratulate Zelensky on his election victory and to seek his assistance in investigating evidence of Ukrainian corruption involving former vice president Joe Biden and his 49-year-old son, Hunter. 

What the Trump administration and congressional Republicans fail to make clear is that, when Trump placed a telephone call to President Zelensky, he was “wearing two hats.”  The first, and most significant hat, was his presidential/commander-in-chief hat.  There is only one hat like it on the face of the Earth, and Donald Trump owns it until at least noon on January 20, 2021.  The fact that he also wears the hat of a candidate for reelection, and that one highly visible American,  whose family member appears to be closely tied to Ukrainian corruption, is also a candidate for president of the United States, is purely coincidental.  In other words, when Trump called president Zelensky he was, first and foremost, carrying out his sole responsibility as chief executive of the United States.  Any other topics of conversation were of secondary importance.

Congressional Democrats sprang their trap when it became known that a “whistleblower,” an unnamed lower-level official of the U.S. intelligence community, had written a letter to one of the principal Trump-haters in the Congress, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).  As it was soon made clear, the “whistleblower” complained about what he/she felt was an improper request made by President Trump in his July 25 telephone call.  However, when Republicans asked for details of the identity of the so-called “whistleblower,” Democrats refused, claiming that they had a duty to protect the identity of the individual.  In short, Donald Trump could be the first man in U.S. history to be indicted, tried, and convicted without being allowed to face his accuser, introduce witnesses in his own defense, or to cross examine his accuser or other prosecution witnesses. 

At that point, congressional Republicans proceeded as if the “whistleblower” actually existed, although they had absolutely no proof that he was a real person.  Instead of putting Adam Schiff and congressional Democrats on the defensive by questioning or denying the existence of a “whistleblower,” Republicans simply proceeded as if Democrats were being truthful about the source of the accusations against Trump.  Had they taken the strategic offensive at that point, the Trump impeachment process may have had an entirely different outcome.

But there is hope.  On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2019, Attorney General William Barr announced D.C. grand jury indictments against eight high-dollar Democratic fundraisers.  The charges include conspiracy, making conduit contributions, causing excessive contributions, making false statements to the FBI, causing false records to be filed, and obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation.  The recipients of the more than $3.3 million in illegal contributions include four super PACs; forty-one party organizations, mostly state Democratic committees; and sixty-nine candidates, including Hillary Clinton (2), Cory Booker (5), Amy Klobuchar (3), and Kirsten Gillibrand (3).  

The Christmas Eve indictments of the nine Democratic fundraisers is just the first shoe to drop in what promises to be an election year filled with surprises for Obama administration officials and Clinton campaign operatives.  If Attorney General Barr lives up to his stellar reputation, 2020 will be a very difficult year for Democrats.  So, here’s wishing them the Happy New Year that they so richly deserve.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

The Ever-Shrinking Democratic Field


Years from now, when historians write the story of the 2020 U.S. presidential election and they recall the names of the twenty-eight candidates who sought the Democratic nomination, they will have just one question.  They will ask, “Who were those people, and what in the hell made them think they were presidential caliber?”

One Democrat who has been thinking… quite correctly… is Rep. Al Green, who has represented Houston’s 9th Cong. District in Congress since 2005.  Green was one of the first Democrats to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment and he reiterated that position in an August 8 interview on CNN. 

In that interview, Green made it clear exactly how much he hates and despises Donald Trump, expressing a desire to not only remove him from office, but to do it in such a way that Trump would be totally and utterly destroyed.  He said, “To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice.  To do so would do our nation a disservice, and would not allow us to do (to him) what they did in 1868 when Andrew Johnson, who was the bigot of his time, who was impeached by the radical Republicans…” 

Green is convinced that “There ought to be radical Democrats and Republicans who are willing to rise to the occasion and say to this president, ‘You are unfit, unworthy, and you must be removed from office.’”  He concluded by saying, “(Democrats) can’t let him walk the Earth without that stain (of impeachment).”

It would be interesting to know exactly who Green would choose from the ever-shrinking Democratic field who could even begin to accomplish what Trump has accomplished.  As a Democrat, he might choose a colleague such as Rep. Hank Brown (D-GA), a member of the House Judiciary Committee who has now voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment.  It was Hank Brown who stunned Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, saying he feared that stationing 8,000 additional Marines on Guam would cause the island to “become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”  As proof of the old adage that the people get exactly the quality of representation they deserve, Hank Brown’s intellectual capacity is representative of a great many Democrats in Congress.

But who would Green select from among the remaining announced candidates?  Of the twenty-eight candidates who have announced, to date, four of whom were so unremarkable that no one knew they were running, thirteen have already withdrawn, leaving fifteen candidates.  Of these, six candidates (Booker, Castro, Delaney, Steyer, Williamson, and Yang) are seen as having not even a remote chance of winning the nomination, leaving Democrats with just nine candidates to choose from.  These include Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), former vice president Joe Biden (D-DE), former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN), Cong. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), former Massachusetts governor Duval Patrick, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  

Of these, seven have all-but-disqualifying fatal flaws. In addition to Joe Biden’s serious health problems, making it all but impossible for him to maintain a campaign schedule even half as rigorous as Trump’s, he has major family-related corruption problems which haven’t even begun to cause major damage, as yet.  As the appearance of major corruption drag Biden deeper and deeper into the political mire, he will find it impossible to continue.  Having already slipped to fourth in some national polls, Biden can be expected to withdraw before the Iowa caucuses.  

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a unique case.  Serving as the mayor of the nation’s 306th largest city is not a major qualification for the presidency.  Thus, his political fortunes may ultimately rest on the strength of his military service and on the fact that he is openly gay.  At this point in the 21st century, most Americans are willing to accept the notion that a few of our family and friends may be homosexual or bisexual.  Most are indifferent to the issue, taking a live-and-let-live stance.  However, African Americans are known to be strongly anti-gay and it has been many years since a Democrat has won statewide or national office without carrying a prohibitive share of the black vote. 

But the question arises, are there limits to the tolerance that most heterosexuals display?  In other words, if a heterosexual couple would refuse to rent a spare bedroom to a gay or lesbian couple, would they be just as intolerant of the notion of sodomy taking place in the White House… in the Lincoln Bedroom?  As matters now stand, with Buttigieg seen as a long-shot for the presidential nomination, the question of his sexual orientation has not been an issue.  But how far does such tolerance extend?  Democrats may soon have to decide, but not until they’ve entered the privacy of the voting booth.  The opinions they express outside the voting booth will not always inform the decisions they make inside the voting booth.  Scratch Pete Buttigieg.

Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, is a self-described Democratic socialist.  He has developed a large following among young (age 18-36) liberals and progressives.  However, while he may attract young votes in the traditionally blue states, he would have a difficult time in the South, the Southwest, the Mountain States, the Farm Belt, and the Rust Belt.  Sanders would be 83 years, 4 months, and 11 days old when he completed a four-year term in January 2025.  Having suffered a heart attack while on the campaign trail in recent months, will he be able to withstand the rigors of the campaign trail for the next twelve months?  That is highly unlikely.  Scratch Bernie Sanders.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is the one 2020 candidate who seems to have a bit of staying power and she appears to be in good health.  However, her insistence that Medicare-for-all is a valid idea, in spite of her stunning cost estimate of $52 trillion over ten years, is bringing denunciation from every part of the political spectrum… left, right, and center.  The American people, while willing to pay for the best quality healthcare, have a strong aversion to what has always been known as “socialized” medicine.  They are not likely to changes their minds on that issue in 2020.  Scratch Elizabeth Warren.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while a relatively popular mayor of New York, has proven himself to be quite dilettantish on the issues.  He has bought into the “global warming” hoax and he has spent a great deal of political capital attempting to limit the size of soft drinks that New Yorkers can consume.  As a multi-billionaire and a late entrant into the race, Bloomberg is seen by a great many Democrats, even among his fellow competitors, as a rich man trying to buy the presidency.  Scratch Mike Bloomberg.

Finally, former Massachusetts governor Duval Patrick, having entered the race very late, has had very little chance to build a field organization anywhere but in Massachusetts.  And with a cheering-squad of just one, Barack Obama, there is little or no chance that Patrick has time to create a political movement behind his cause.  Scratch Duval Patrick.

Of the twenty-eight Democrat candidates who announced their intentions to seek the Democratic nomination, that leaves Democrats with just three to choose from: Sen. Michael Bennet, of Colorado; Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii; and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota.  And if all these assessments are valid, we can finally begin to understand why Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, and Adam Schiff are so hell-bent on impeaching Donald Trump, on grounds that do not even deserve to be called “flimsy.”

And as the attorney general, the Justice Department Inspector General, and U.S. Attorney Durham begin to put some meat on the bones of what is sure to be the greatest political scandal in U.S. history, Democratic chances in November 2020 will become slimmer and slimmer.  Congressman Al Green has it just right.  Since Democrats have little or no chance of winning the presidency, or to win control of either House of Congress, their only alternative is to remove Trump from office by impeachment.

As a long-suffering victim of Democratic treachery for sixty years, this is the day I’ve been waiting for.       

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

The Failure of American Justice

On Wednesday, October 23, two clients of Donald Trump‘s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pleaded not guilty to federal campaign finance crimes during an appearance in Manhattan federal court.  The two men, Russian-born Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were released on $1 million bonds and subjected to house arrest at their homes in Florida.  According to an ABC News report, the indictments outline a “foreign national donor scheme” alleging the men conspired to circumvent federal election law by funneling foreign money to candidates in U.S. elections.  The indictments detail how the defendants allegedly funneled $1-2 million’ from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April 2019.

The two men face charges including conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and falsification of records.  ABC News reports that  the defendants have “in recent weeks become key figures in the congressional impeachment inquiry against the president,” suggesting that they “played a significant role in assisting the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his family.  It is also alleged that Parnas and Fruman made a series of illegal contributions that included a $325,000 donation to the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action, and that the two violated the law by falsely reporting the source of those funds.   

The indictments cause us to once again deplore the existence of a double standard in U.S. law enforcement under which Republican-linked wrongdoing is thoroughly investigated and severely punished, while the same violations, linked to Democrats, are ignored, excused, and covered up. 

For example, in July 2008, Barack Obamaboasted that, as of May 31, that year, his contributor base numbered some 1.5 million people, with one-fourth, or $66.25 million of his $265 million, coming from those contributing $2,000-2,300… some 33,200 people.  Thus, the remainder, or $198.75 million, came from some 1.47 million people, each contributing $5, $10, $20… or, as Obama assured us, “whatever they could afford.”    

While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton’s golf scorecard off a teleprompter and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that $198.75 million cannot be contributed by 1.47 million people in “$5, $10, or $20” amounts.  Each of those 1.47 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $135 to create a pool of $198.75 million… and that simply does not happen.  It has never happened before in American politics and it did not happen during the 2008 presidential campaign.

But then, in October 2008, the Obama campaign compounded their error.  They reported that their contributor base had increased from 300 1.5 million to 2.5 million people, and that the total amount raised approached $600 million.  If we can assume that 25% of their contributions still came from individuals giving $2,000-2,300, that base had grown from 33,200 individuals to 65,000 in a time span of just three months, and the number of individuals contributing modest amounts… “$5, $10, $20, or whatever they could afford”… had grown from 1.47 million to 2.43 million people, each contributing, on average, $185.  Anyone who believes that bold-faced lie will believe almost anything.  So how did they do it? 

In a July 25, 2008, column we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf… along with George Soros, one of Obama’s top two bundlers… had been accused of highly unethical and illegal banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.  According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of Zurich, Switzerland, had advised wealthy Americans, including many of our worst villains, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, and others.     

In a Statement of Facts in the criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities.   For example, UBS advised American clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all offshore banking records, and to misrepresent the funds received from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank.” 

It was the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician.  Putting two and two together, I surmised that a very wealthy individual, or cartel, wishing to influence the election of the president of the United States, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device.  A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive hundreds of thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with fictitious donors… contributors “borrowed” from the campaign’s list of $10 and $20 contributors… being entered on FEC reporting forms by teams of paid staffers working in a “boiler room” setting.  The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, “international financier.”   

For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow.  So, who would ever know the source of such contributions?  No one. 

But then, in an October 20, 2008, Newsmax article by Kenneth Timmerman, an article following up on suppositions contained in my July 2008 column, provided details from FEC records that gave substantial weight to my theory.  In studying Obama’s FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election).  The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days of the donor going over his/her limit.  However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not been contacted by the Obama campaign, nor had they received refunds.

But those were relatively minor infractions compared to 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, whose contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts. For example, Timmerman found that an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Illinois, gave a total of $8,724.26.  He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67; $1,542.06; $876.09; $388.67; $282.20; $195.66; $118.15; and one of $2,300. 

A self-employed Los Angeles caregiver made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12.  An astonishing number of contributions.  Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded.  However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount then allowable in any one election.

One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Florida, was reported to have given $13,800… $9,200 over his limit.  However, the donor did not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor had anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund.  Of the 66,383 who contributed in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100; 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999; and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000.

Lest anyone suspect that these 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a tiny bit more Machiavellian.  Those 66,383 contributions are the proceeds of foreign currency conversions, smuggled into the country through foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars.  According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance reports contain some 370,500 unique names… a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign.  Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from Third World African countries, then laundered through UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records.

How massive was their crime?  Since the Obama campaign refused to disclose their complete contributor list (they continue to hide the identities of some 2 million donors).  Newsmax estimated that “Obama was financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.”

On January 20, 2009, we inaugurated a man who should have been impeached before his wife had a chance to measure the White House for new draperies.  But that’s not what happened.  Instead, official Washington gave our first black president a wink and a nod and then looked the other way.  So, can Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Giuliani’s Russian clients expect the same kid glove treatment from the U.S. justice system… even though it is highly unlikely that Trump had anything at all to do with the illegal contribution made by Giuliani’s clients?  Not a chance!

Realizing what has happened to General Michael Flynn, Dinesh D’Souza, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone… the latter two destined to spend the rest of their lives behind bars for relatively minor offenses… their chances do not appear to be good.  They simply had the misfortune to put their faith in the American system of justice and then to serve openly as members of the Republican Party.  

If our constitutional republic is to be saved, our first imperative is to reelect Donald Trump to a second four-year term in 2020, during which he will be in a position to create a strong 7-2 or 6-3  conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, while adding  hundreds of like-minded judges to our district and appellate courts.  We have no alternative.  We must deliver a landslide victory in 2020.  The only long-term alternative is political, economic, and geographic bifurcation.  We damn sure can’t live with Democrats any longer, but I’d sure like to try living without them.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment