Mueller Couldn’t Find The Witch

Is Donald Trump “off the hook?” It appears so, at least as far as the Russian collusion witch-hunt is concerned.

But Democrats are so obsessed with destroying the Trump administration, they may subpoena all of the work that Mueller has done and start all over again wasting millions more dollars and time in the process.

But there’s so much more juicy Trump stuff for Democrats to dig into that will take them right up to the next election. Trump’s business practices and ethics will be next on the agenda. Also who’d be surprised if the Democrats surfaced one, two or ten other women who are willing to attest to being sexually abused by Trump?

From a political perspective it would be disastrous to reopen Mueller’s files. Americans across the country and in both parties are sick of the whole charade. The special counsel and his left wing sycophants would have done anything to nail the president, and they couldn’t.

Ironically, everyone knew that Trump and his merry band of amateurs were not savvy enough to perpetrate a voter conspiracy with Putin. Trump can’t even build an administration or retain his appointees. It’s absurd to portray the president as some sort of James Bond master villain seeking world domination. Americans wish he could be even mildly influential domestically and internationally.

Trump has proven over the years to be a terror in his business dealings. There are a plethora of bad stories circulating around from people he has done business with that are likely to be exposed in the ensuing weeks and months. Who knows if any of them might lead to an impeachment proceeding? Probably not, but it depends upon the nature of the discoveries.

Tax evasion is usually a fruitful direction for investigators. Has Trump cheated on his taxes? No doubt there are many gray areas in which Trump’s high paid tax attorneys pushed the edge of the envelope. But to prove evasion, the government would have to show intent to defraud the I.R.S.

Bribes, as defined by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, could present a problem for Trump and his dealmakers. Payments to foreign governments or their agents are commonplace, and illegal, for US individuals and corporate entities. Did Trump ever pay a bribe to gain a foothold to build a hotel, casino, building or whatever in a foreign country? It’s feasible, that’s for sure.

What will it take to force the creeps that Trump has done business with to testify against him? You have to believe Trump has pissed off many people during his reign in the real estate business. Could one of these people bring down the president after being threatened with jail time by prosecutors? Democrats will be turning over every rock to find rats.

How will the conclusion of the Mueller investigation affect Trump’s ability to keep his campaign promises of 2016 to make the country more secure, rebuild the infrastructure, erect a wall, keep the economy chugging along and make new trade and strategic deals with other countries?

The answer is that Trump will not be able to make any gains by going to Congress. He’s in the exact same position as Obama. With a Democratic majority in the House, Trump will not be able to enact any legislation, so he will need to use mandates to make changes.

Regarding 2020, liberals better be careful. Trump is looking pretty solid politically. All his tweets and other commentary relating to Mueller’s investigation were spot on- it was expensive, disruptive, unfair and proved not a thing. Democrats are at a serious disadvantage going into 2020 for the presidency and in Congress. Their strategy to socialize the country is going to be a big bust.

Obama And Congress Will Clash

By Sal Bommarito

Has the liberal media participated in an effort to diminish the mistakes and errors in judgment of the Obama administration? Absolutely. Progressive reporters and editorial writers have been protecting the president for the past six years. There has been no misstep great enough to inspire a thorough investigation by the free press. Americans should appreciate the untiring efforts of Fox News, which refuses to let the most egregious actions slip by without comment.

All this came to a head during the recent elections. Voters finally realized that the president’s ideological bent and uncompromising demeanor is responsible for a number of decisions that hurt the economy and America’s reputation abroad. The reaction of the electorate has been so severe that Democrat candidates who supported Obama’s agenda during his tenure eschewed him in their campaigns. The press has thankfully begun to dig deeper into the plethora of scandals and dysfunction that have plagued the White House.

Consider the following two issues.

• Obamacare is a disaster, even though the press has consistently advocated the benefits of this entitlement. Creating an affordable medical insurance program for lower and middle class families is and continues to be a noble objective. But the law was enacted without any concurrence by Republicans and ramrodded through Congress. The result was a poorly crafted giveaway that hurt almost as many individuals and businesses as it helped. A huge number of the poorest beneficiaries have received assistance via Medicaid, something that could have been enacted without Obamacare drama.
• With the help of the press, the administration has downplayed the criminal and unethical behavior of various agencies of the government. The IRS scandal tops the list. It is inconceivable that our tax collectors were targeting citizens who have different political preferences, and now they are covering up their misdeeds.

The list goes on. But most disturbing is the ideological tenacity of our president. He is on a mission to punish, sanction and disparage the most successful and wealthiest Americans. He says some citizens are too greedy and capitalistic. They don’t do enough for the poor. He thinks exceptionalism somehow deteriorates our society. Business achievement is unproductive. 1%ers are not paying their fair share.

The 2012 presidential campaign rewarded Obama’s class warfare tactics. He successfully denigrated a person who built a huge private equity business and benefitted by it financially. The media jumped on the Obama bandwagon and destroyed Mitt Romney simply because he has enjoyed a great career.

Along with voters, Democrat politicians realize that the president is radioactive. Many will no longer tie themselves to his misguided policies. Allegiance to the president during the last several years was the downfall for many liberal candidates. Obama’s presence in Washington, his actions and his arrogance together with low voter turnout (apathy) were the undoing of progressives seeking to retain or gain office. The press was forced to participate in the resultant electoral massacre because the story was so pervasive.

During the next few months, important decisions will be made regarding the confrontation with ISIS and Iran’s nuclear program. For sure, Congress, under new leadership, will step up its oversight of these matters. The media should follow suit. Investigative reporters must shed their biases and provide the facts that will help Americans understand what their leaders are up to.

The president is not going to change his method of operation. Already he is threatening to mandate immigration changes without approval of Congress. If this occurs, it will be a long, hard two years until the next presidential election.

President Obama Is Not Going To Be A Conciliator

By Sal Bommarito

The president seemed awfully relaxed during his press conference yesterday, after an election that completely changed the power structure in Washington. Republicans are now the majority in both houses of Congress. Given that Obama’s policies, management style, ambivalence and defiance were among the most important things that swayed voters, it is shocking that he so glib and unconcerned about trying to find ways to work together for the benefit of the country.

Many politicians that supported the president were crucified at the polls, yet the president has decided to let it all roll off his back. Publicly, he has shown little empathy for those who were defeated. One reason for this approach may be the fact that almost none wanted Obama to campaign with them.

The president said he would try to work with his adversaries, but also threatened to govern without congressional endorsement, if Congress did not approve of his initiatives. One day after the country repudiated the president and his party, he did not think it was important to seek genuine reconciliation with the new Congress.

It is more than disconcerting that several critical issues are brewing while the president prepares to go to battle with Republicans once again. The war with ISIS is a prime example. The president used the War Powers Act to attack ISIS without congressional approval. However, after a period of time, the president must go to Congress to obtain concurrence or a declaration of war.

The problem is that the president’s plan is faulty. He continues to insist that no U.S. ground forces will be deployed, even though the war cannot be won without such support according to most experts. Alternatively, the coalition intends to train Iraqis and a “moderate rebel force” in Syria to provide ground assistance. The plan is inane because of the time it will take to make the force battle ready. Additionally, the newly trained soldiers are not expected to be large enough or skilled enough to repel the more experienced ISIS fighters. So, a strategy to continue bombing is something Congress will definately consider carefully.

Immigration is one of the most important issues for America today. Forging a plan that protects Americans from drastic demographic and socioeconomic transformation will be a great challenge. The president has threatened to implement reforms (citizenship for millions of illegals) by edict and without congressional approval. He does not have the right to go it alone, nor does he have the right to unilaterally grant immunity and citizenship to illegal immigrants without limits and responsibilities. Unfortunately, this potential action by the president could lead to a serious constitutional confrontation.

Many Americans who are experienced in deal making believe the president has a low social IQ. He does not recognize or accept others who disagree with his perspectives; he is incapable of compromise. He casts aside all opposition, including members of Congress. This is a recipe for disaster. The result of his continued propensity to disenfranchise the other party will result in two more years of complete governmental paralysis.

The New York Times Comes To Obama’s Rescue

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times wing of the Obama administration was in full tilt today. The leading editorial criticized Democrats running for office who eschew the president and his “greatest” achievements.

Readers should be offended that the NY Times played the race card not once but twice in the editorial: “Mr. Obama remains highly unpopular among white voters, particularly in Southern states . . .” and “[Democrat candidates running for office] run the risk, though, of alienating important constituents who prefer a party with a spine, especially black voters, who remain supportive of Mr. Obama.”

Here’s a news flash, Candidate Obama won the last two presidential elections with support from every racial group. His problem is not racial; it may be that the president has not kept promises made during his campaigns, and he’s a sub par leader domestically and internationally.

Let’s consider the actions of several Democratic senatorial candidates. Alison Lindergan Grimes, has refused to say whether she voted for Obama. Only one candidate, Gary Peters, “has been willing to appear with the president on the stump . . .” Other candidates, Mark Begich and Kay Hagan, have spoken against Obamacare and want to “fix it.” Maybe there are some serious problems with the law if members of the president’s party are unhappy with it.

Ms. Hagan and Mark Pryor have even suggested that the Obama policy on Ebola ought be changed, and a travel ban should be installed for all residents of Africa. And finally, candidate Mary Landrieu “has fought loudly against the president’s energy policies . . . [and] she even opposes legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.”

By the way, all of the comments made above were extracted from the NY Times article.

The bottom line is that President Obama is unpopular and Americans are very unhappy with his performance. In this group, are a number of Democrats. And, the NY Times continues to abet Obama’s lost causes.

The Clintons And The Obamas Fight For Control Of The Democratic Agenda

By Sal Bommarito

Game on. The battle for the control of the Democratic Party is in full throttle. How delicious, the Clintons vs. the Obamas for all the marbles. Which wife will become the first female president?

Most astute Americans know that the two families have been at each other since the 2008 election. A nobody, named Barack Obama stole the presidential election from Hillary (and Bill). The country was so enamored with political correctness that it chose a person with no experience over the wife of a former president.

It was great political intrigue until the guy we picked started to make a whole slew of mistakes. And now, the electorate has buyer’s remorse. I often hear “I wish I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries.” Yet, the president believes that he has put America on a more righteous path, and he wants someone to replace him in 2016 that will carry his torch and support his ideology. Is Hillary that person? No way. The differences between Barack and Hillary are stark and make one query why the president chose Hillary as Secretary of State in the first place. It was not a great decision based upon Hillary’s achievements (minimal) and her support of Barack after her retirement.

Before the election that Hillary was supposed to run away with, the Obamas won the hearts of many people who were supposed to be loyal to the Clintons, among the most famous were Teddy and Caroline Kennedy. Bill Clinton must have been apoplectic when the Kennedy’s spurned his wife; he thought there was an understanding. Many others also jumped on the Obama bandwagon; Edward Klein’s new book titled Blood Feud should be consulted for a complete list of the turncoats that abandoned the Clintons. This time around, Bill is not going to sit by idly. He will do everything he can to ensure his wife will be the next president (and he will be her co-president).

The fact is that every candidate must openly disparage Barack’s legacy in 2016 to have any chance of winning. Voters, for the most part (based upon current polls), think Barack is not doing a good job and they want him gone. So, if any Democrat says otherwise to solicit Barack’s endorsement, he or she will be ridiculed and cast aside.

Hillary knows that Barack is radioactive, so she needed to start to bad-mouth the president sooner or later. She began her campaign to distance herself from Barack over the past couple of weeks because her new book campaign has been disappointing, and she has not performed well in interviews, even with supporters like Steven Colbert. The first volley was an interview with The Atlantic in which Hillary dealt with Obama’s decision not to be more supportive of the Syrian rebels; doing so might have “prevent[ed] the fighting from spreading to Iraq.” And also, in the same interview, Hillary criticized Barack’s comment about not doing “stupid stuff,” not a particularly sophisticated foreign policy perspective.

In classic Clintonesque style, Hillary later called Barack to say that her comments were not intended “to attack him, his policies or his leadership.” Yeah, right! The Clintons like to bash people, send a message and then they say they are sorry. Of course, Barack is aware of this ploy, and no matter what he said in response to Hillary, I am sure he does not believe her and resents her even more today than yesterday.

This incident is not a good sign for American politics going into the 2014 elections and the general election two years later. Gamesmanship, deceit, untrue advertisement in the media and by word of mouth will overwhelm the electorate. And, I have not even mentioned the Republican campaign machine.

Does Karl Rove Help The Cause Of Republicans

The current political landscape is fraught with pols and talking heads, who do not necessarily help the party to which they are affiliated . Karl Rove is an excellent example of a person whose time has passed, but his commentary is still encouraged by  conservative media outlets.


Rove wrote an article  that was published by the Wall Street Journal on July 3, 2014 titled “The Democrats’ Top Leaders Wilt in the Polls.” Given that Rove’s reputation is still suffering from his disastrous prediction that Mitt Romney would win the presidency in 2012, how can Republicans depend upon the man for substantive, unbiased and accurate political input? I’m afraid Karl is a has-been whose greatest moments came when George W. Bush was president.


Rove’s op-ed is chock full of political gossip that surely delights the hearts of hardcore conservatives. Paragraph after paragraph of his piece attacks Obama and Clinton. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything mentioned, but his words are not impactful because he is, well, he’s Karl Rove.


For Obama, the IRS investigation (it’s a cover up), the economy contracted  in the first quarter (most analysts expect a recovery in the balance of the year), children from Central America (neither political party has done a damn thing to reform immigration), Iraq is disintegrating (Bush started this mess), Obama’s polls are down (just look at Bush’s poll numbers and those of the current Congress today) and the Supreme Court “slapped him down” in four recent rulings are all mentioned by Rove.


And then there’s Obama’s attitude. Most Americans now realize that the president is insular; he’s a one-man show, and he gets pissed whenever anyone criticizes him. Frankly, he’s arrogant. But this is old news. The president has always parsed his words carefully, but recently, he has uttered some inappropriate things. The worst comment may have been his “So sue me” admonition to the Congress.


Similarly, Rove went off on Hillary Clinton. Please, Hillary is such an easy target. We all know about her political warts. And, we recognize that she thinks she has a divine right to be president. Rove writes that Clinton’s popularity has dropped precipitously to the level at which she lost the 2008 primary. I’m not exactly sure what this foretells, as her favorability rating is greater than 50%.


Then, Rove makes a point that Clinton is unable to offer any significant foreign policy achievements during her tenure as Secretary of State, other than resetting the Russian relationship. Actually, Clintin’s comment really is a joke, especially since Putin has not been reset- he just invaded Ukraine while the U.S. and other western countries have done little other than imposing a few economic sanctions.


Clinton’s new book, according to Rove is ill timed. In it, the Clinton says the couple pays ordinary taxes (as they rake in $200,000 for one speech). And,  the happy couple was “dead broke” and in debt at the end of Bill’s term (but now they have many millions).


However, the worst aspect of the op-ed is when Rove starts to opine about the Clinton political strategy to win the 2016 presidential election. Here’s a news flash, Mrs. Clinton has not said she will run for president. If she does run, she will win the primary and be difficult to beat in the general election.


Demeaning comments about Democrats from the mouth or pen of Karl Rove are hurting the Republican cause. My recommendation is that Rove take a sabbatical until after the 2016 election along with all of his Tea Party supporters, or Clinton will surely win in 2016.