Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

Fred Barnes’ article highlights the GOP’s strategy for making the federal judiciary more conservative. According to Barnes’ article, “Eligible appeals court judges (appointees of Republican presidents, to be specific) are being asked to switch to senior status, a form of semi-retirement that allows them to continue hearing cases but opens their seat for a new nominee. This could create as many as 28 vacancies on the appeals courts.”

Utilizing this strategy is smart. There’s no sense in not exercising this option. That being said, the activists need to activate and grow Mitch McConnell’s majority and get President Trump re-elected so we can transform the federal bench. At some point, a Democrat will get elected president. Eventually, there will be a Democrat majority in the Senate. Pushing that date out further into the future means, potentially, another Supreme Court justice or 2 and 15+ conservative appellate court judges. Those are game-changers.

Democrats are frightened at the possibility of having their policy-making tool of preference, the courts, changed for a generation. Barnes notes that Democrats only have themselves to blame for this situation:

But Democrats have only their former Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to blame. He abolished the filibuster for appeals court nominees in 2013. Even with a thin Republican majority, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has kept his caucus united in approving judges. Were the filibuster alive, conservatives would have to lie about their views to be confirmed.

Mitch McConnell deserves lots of credit for getting tons of judges confirmed but so does Harry Reid. At the time, most pundits thought that Reid wouldn’t be foolish enough to eliminate the judicial filibuster. They were wrong. Now, Democrats will pay the price for a generation. Most of the judges getting confirmed are in their 40s, with a small percentage being in their 50s.

McConnell has touted the confirmation of judges by saying that the Senate is in the personnel business. He’s right about that in that the Senate is where judges and cabinet secretaries get confirmed. He’s virtually guaranteed his re-election by confirming a record amount of judges.

Mollie Hemingway’s article highlights the threat posed by Chuck Schumer’s statement poses to the justices. First, it’s worth noting something that former US Attorney Guy Lewis told Harris Faulkner shortly after Schumer’s threats. Lewis said that US marshals were likely called into action minutes after Schumer’s threats. When Ms. Faulkner asked if this was speculation or whether it was fact, Lewis replied that that’s the procedure that’s been used in the past. He said that a dozen US marshals would be detailed to the justices, their wives and their kids for the next 6 months to protect them from violence.

Sol Wisenberg, a former assistant independent counsel on the Whitewater investigation, insists that Schumer’s statements are protected by the First Amendment. I disagree. What Schumer did was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is what Schumer said, along with a discussion on Schumer’s threat:

With the things that Antifa and other thugs have done, with the exhortations made by Maxine Waters, with the Bernie Bro who shot Steve Scalise, why wouldn’t Sen. Schumer’s statement be treated as a threat?

These statements can’t be taken as idle chatter. That might’ve been fine 20 years ago but that isn’t the world we’re living in today. Sen. Schumer’s statement was a threat and he knows it. Since Ted Kennedy’s hate-filled diatribe against Judge Robert Bork, Democrats have thoroughly politicized the judicial confirmation process.

The justices that were nominated by Republican presidents got confirmed since then but they’ve been scrutinized unlike any justices in history. Democrats have made these confirmation hearings like Armageddon. Democrats understand that their ideas aren’t popular enough to win passage through the legislative process. That’s why they need an outcomes-based judiciary to implement their social agenda.

Justices that interpret laws through a constitutional lens won’t give Democrats the legislative victories that they’re looking for. More than any other reason, that’s why Sen. Schumer got the activists riled up with his threats.

Multiple times in the past year, Democrats have threatened to change the composition of the Supreme Court because Republicans confirmed Constitution-loving justices. It isn’t a secret that Democrats prefer outcome-based justices. During John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, Sen. Durbin asked a question about what assurances the American people would have that Roberts would rule in the little guy’s favor. Roberts replied, saying that he’d guarantee that he’d rule in the little guy’s favor every time the Constitution was on the little guy’s side.

The Constitution isn’t meant to give “the little guy” an advantage. That’s what legislatures are for. In this post, I wrote about a brief that the Democrat senators Whitehouse, Rosenthal, Hirono and Durbin sent to the Supreme Court. In that brief, they wrote “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

This was clearly a threat from the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices if Democrats didn’t get the outcome they wanted on a gun control lawsuit. Democrats haven’t been bashful about their desire to pack the courts. This article highlights the Democrats’ politicization of the Supreme Court:

Democratic candidates are increasingly advocating “court packing,” that is, upping the number of Supreme Court justices to balance the bench — or ensure a liberal majority. The idea is unlikely to succeed for historical and practical reasons but its resonance on the campaign trail reflects Democrats’ new emphasis on the judiciary during the Trump era.

While the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the number of members of the Supreme Court is dictated by the Legislative Branch. In other words, a simple majority of Democrats in the House, a simple majority of Democrats in the Senate and a signature of a Democrat president could pack the Supreme Court for a generation or more.

It’s time to take that matter out of the hands of partisans. It’s time to pass a constitutional amendment that forever establishes a 9-member Supreme Court. That’s what we have now. The Court works just fine. Let’s see how many Democrats vote against such an amendment. I triple-dog dare Democrats to admit that they favor the full politicization of the Supreme Court. This is a campaign ad from Elizabeth Warren’s senate campaign:

There’s no way she wouldn’t pack the courts to tip the Supreme Court in the Democrats’ favor.

When Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn’t the first time Senate Democrats criticized members of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court when they submitted this brief, which closed by saying “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

That’s a thinly veiled threat by Senate Democrats to pack the courts because they don’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings. What’s clearly meant here is that the Supreme Court could avoid the Democrats’ court-packing if the justices delivered the right ruling in that lawsuit. This highlights the fact that Democrats view the Supreme Court as a legislature.

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases by determining whether a statute lives within the Constitution’s limitations on government. The Constitution was designed to limit the reach of the federal government. The federal government was built by the states to take care of a limited, enumerated, list of things.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights sought to expand individuals’ rights by codifying the right to seek redress of grievances before one’s government, the right to defend one’s family. It also guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront one’s accusers. Article III wasn’t written to give Democrats political victories it couldn’t earn through the legislative process.

Democrats should stop using the courts in this fashion. That isn’t what they were designed to do. The reason why there are protests in front of the Supreme Court is because Democrats politicized it 50-75 years ago. President Trump is depoliticizing the Supreme Court by picking judges that apply the Constitution to the lawsuits they hear. Democrat justices rule in favor of the outcome they prefer, regardless of whether it fits the Constitution’s mandates.

Expect Democrats to continue their intimidation tactics as President Trump straightens out the judiciary.

Jonathan Turley’s op-ed should infuriate every civil libertarian across this nation. In the second paragraph of Prof. Turley’s op-ed, he wrote “Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: ‘It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.'”

Prof. Turley added “That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.” What happened after that is frightening. Prof. Turley’s op-ed was essentially an opposition research dump on Hart. Check this out:

Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

In addition to her prior statements about Trump, his associates and this case, Hart is a lawyer. That only magnifies concerns that any bias on her part may have had a more pronounced influence on her fellow jurors.

WOW. How could such a person become part of a jury, much less the jury foreperson? Here’s how:

The brief examination in the voir dire hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart’s political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not.

Part of the problem, in hindsight, is that Stone’s attorney didn’t know any of this information. Prof. Turley explains that this might be because he’s incompetent or “uninformed.”

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

This doesn’t prove that Stone is innocent. It’s just proof that the trial is subject to extensive questioning. The process must be fair from start to finish. That’s the only way justice is consistently done. This exposes Tomeka Hart’s duplicity:

I have to believe that lying or, at minimum, not telling the whole truth, to the judge carries with it a penalty. Apparently, Tomeka Hart is as shady as Roger Stone. She deserves some sort of punishment. This type of behavior isn’t acceptable.

During his interview with Maria Bartiromo this morning, Devin Nunes talked about the corruption within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, aka the FISC. House Intelligence Committee Republicans have been questioning the FISC’s integrity. Thus far, the FISC’s replies suggest a cover-up. Rather than answering Republicans’ questions, the FISC has stonewalled and given platitudes for answers. At this point, there’s a strong chance that FISA won’t be renewed when it expires this year.

Rep. Nunes expressed his frustration with the FISC during his interview with Bartiromo:

“It’s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside [James] Comey, [Andy] McCabe, or [Adam] Schiff,” Nunes said. Speaking to Fox News contributor Sara Carter, Nunes added: “It’s a ridiculous choice. The FBI lied to the FISC, and to help make sure that doesn’t happen again, the FISC chose an FBI apologist who denied and defended those lies. The FISC is setting its own credibility on fire.”

It’s important to fill in the details:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has stunned court-watchers by selecting David Kris, a former Obama administration lawyer who has appeared on “The Rachel Maddow Show” and written extensively in support of the FBI’s surveillance practices on the left-wing blog Lawfare, to oversee the FBI’s implementation of reforms in the wake of a damning Department of Justice inspector general report last year.

The development on Friday, first reported by independent journalist Mike Cernovich, has roiled Republicans who have demanded accountability at the FBI. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told The Daily Caller that Kris’ appointment was “shocking” and “inexplicable.”

Quite frankly, this is what’s meant by the fox meeting the henhouse. By all accounts, Kris is the personification of the Swamp. Putting the Swamp in charge of reforming the Swamp is something that only the Swamp would think is reasonable. The truth is that this truly jeopardizes FISA.

If this is how unserious the FISC is, then they shouldn’t expect support from either side of the political aisle. There’s too much trust invested in the FISC to let it be untrustworthy. In fact, a total overhaul of that institution is warranted:

Earlier this month, the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered the FBI to re-verify all previous warrant applications involving the FBI attorney who falsified evidence against the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. However, Fox News has learned the court did not order the FBI to double-check warrant applications involving other officials who made key omissions and errors in warrant applications as the bureau sought to surveil Page.

The FISC’s failure to request a comprehensive evaluation of previous submissions has stunned court-watchers who have questioned whether enough is being done to deter future misconduct by the FBI. In the past, the FISC has gone so far as to prohibit some FBI agents from appearing before the court after finding impropriety.

What’s needed is a reform-minded person to fix the FISC. In fact, I’d argue for hiring someone from outside the FISC to help with the reformation. Andy McCarthy or Trey Gowdy would be at the top of that short list, as would Michael Mukasey. This isn’t the type of thing that I’d entrust to leftists. They aren’t trustworthy. Before reforming the FISC, I’d put together a commission to determine what reforms and safeguards were needed. Mssrs. McCarthy, Gowdy and Mukasey need to serve on that commission. Ditto with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

Eliminating the FISA Court likely isn’t a legitimate option. That being said, keeping it in its current structure isn’t a legitimate option, either. This needs to get fixed immediately. And I mean fixed, not tampered with.

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy’s support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It’s understandable why they’d spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York’s article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.” Consider this the Senate Democrats’ equivalent of House Democrats’ “bombshell testimony” coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day’s testifiers would provide “bombshell testimony” that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day’s star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler’s articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother calling fact witnesses. That’s because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn’t hurt them.

There’s speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”

The American people aren’t paying attention. They’re too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They’re too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that’s about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let’s hope for a quick trial. The Democrats’ House impeachment managers don’t have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower’s complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats’ gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he’s called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.

Further, we know that John Bolton won’t testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that’s their option. It’s also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It’s time to put the Democrats’ fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

Democrats finally proved that they have a sense of humor when they released the Schiff Report. The report contains enough malarkey to qualify for a Biden bus tour through Iowa. One funny line from the Schiff Report said “President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign,’ the Democrats’ report said.”

Do Democrats seriously think that Joe Biden has a snowball’s prayer in H-E-Double Toothpicks of defeating a president with a fantastic economy? It’s difficult picturing Democrats getting enthusiastic about Joe Biden at the top of next fall’s ticket. If Democrats publicly take Biden’s candidacy seriously, President Trump doesn’t. President Trump doesn’t picture any Democrat presidential candidates seriously. This was written later in the report:

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Just how did President Trump endanger “U.S. national security”? Second, if placing their “own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States” was an impeachable offense, half of U.S. presidents would’ve gotten impeached. The more you read from the Schiff Report, the more people should question its seriousness.

Then the Schiff Report sunk to this low:


A paragraph very early in the Schiff Report contains this information:

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Here’s what the transcript says about investigating the Bidens:

I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First off, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to µs, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Yovanovitch.

First, it’s important to notice that the “I have a favor” paragraph is entirely different than the “Investigate the Biden” paragraph. In fact, they’re on separate pages. Where in the “I have a favor” paragraph does it mention military assistance? Further, the “I have a favor” paragraph doesn’t mention military assistance. Neither does the “Investigate the Bidens” paragraph.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he can just make things up and people will just take his word on it. Mr. Schiff hasn’t figured out that the American people stopped giving Mr. Schiff the benefit of the doubt years ago. Further, since House Impeachment Committee Democrats voted on a 13-9 straight party line vote to approve the Schiff Report, they’re complicit in Mr. Schiff’s lies.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

Actually, President Trump didn’t claim executive privilege as often as Bill Clinton claimed it in 1998-99. It’s worth noting that Congress isn’t the final arbiter on claims of privilege. The Constitution gives the Judicial Branch the responsibility of settling disputes between the political branches, aka the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Since Congress didn’t ask the judiciary to settle these disputes over privilege, it’s impossible to take the Schiff Report (or the Democrats who voted to approve it) seriously.

The Schiff Report isn’t a serious report. Its “Findings of Facts” section is especially farcical. That’ll require a separate post, which I’ll write Wednesday.

Alan Dershowitz’s latest article highlights an old phrase attributed to Stalin. According to the article, Stalin said “show me the man and I will find you the crime.” Appearing on America’s Newsroom, former Clinton Independent Counsel Ken Starr told this horrific story:

“The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it’s being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives,” Starr said. “But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn’t have a full debate on the floor of the House — and that just lends itself to, ‘then to let’s go to court and have this litigated.’ “And of course, the chairman then says, ‘you go to court, you’re in contempt.’

“For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt… is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best… to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness,” he said. “He’s already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty.”

This isn’t about fairness. It’s about hating the outcome of the 2016 election, then doing whatever it took to string up the guy who defeated the woman who was going to shatter that last glass ceiling. This isn’t an impeachment inquiry. It’s an inquisition:

an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners and recklessly cruel punishments.

Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee President Trump’s civil rights. Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee the civil rights of anyone who served on the NSC were protected. It’s impossible to highlight such a thing because Schiff isn’t interested in such things. He’s interested in making history even if it means destroying the nation.

The gospel of Dershowitz

Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

This isn’t a constitutional crisis. It’s the Constitution working the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton codified it to work. The first step is to let the political branches fight things out amongst themselves. The only time the courts should get involved is after the political branches have proven they can’t resolve their differences.

As Dershowitz has said, a dispute isn’t cause for voting on an article of impeachment. It’s cause for letting the Constitution function the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton intended it to work. The legislative branch doesn’t resolve disputes. The executive branch doesn’t resolve disputes. Only the judicial branch gets to resolve disputes between the political branches. If Schiff wasn’t in such a rush to impeach President Trump, he’d let the judiciary settle this dispute.

Notice the slap that Prof. Dershowitz gave Mr. Schiff. Prof. Dershowitz said “Schiff calls it a rope-a-dope. There’s another word for it. It’s called checks and balances.” Schiff’s political animus is so strong that he isn’t capable of controlling himself. When Nixon was all but officially impeached, Chairman Rodino put together this roadmap for the House to follow. There isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell that this roadmap will be considered, much less adopted. Adam Schiff won’t let this be considered. Nancy Pelosi is too partisan to let this become the law of the land.

Everyone knows that President Trump and Vice President Pence, aka Team Fun, are coming to Minnesota this Thursday. Good for them. They’re going all in to flip Minnesota. DFL Gov. Tim Walz sounds worried that President Trump will flip Minnesota. While Ed still thinks it’s a longshot, I still think it’s possible. I think it’s possible because, frankly, the Democrat presidential candidates are pretty mediocre. If there was a positive-sounding moderate voice that didn’t listen to the AOC + 3 crowd, I think Minnesota would be offlimits. Democrats don’t have a candidate that fits that description.

That being said, they’re sending out tons of fundraising emails:

John,
I’m sure you’re aware that President Trump is holding a campaign rally in Minnesota this Thursday, but I wanted to make sure you saw the breaking news that they’re tripling down.

Karen Pence and Lara Trump will now be coming to hold a campaign event on Wednesday, and Vice President Pence will be coming to hold a separate rally on Thursday. For both Trump and Pence, this will be the second time they’ve visited Minnesota this year. They’re going all-in on flipping Minnesota red, and they think they can do it with a message of fear and division.

But we know better. Minnesotans resoundingly rejected their scare tactics up and down the ballot in 2018, and as long as we can hold our own against the avalanche of far-right-wing money headed our way, we will again in 2020. So, with all eyes on Minnesota this week, we need to send a clear message. We’re setting a goal of 500 individual donors by Thursday night and we’re counting on you to hit it.

Most of Gov. Walz’s fundraising email is right but he got one thing wrong. Unfortunately, the thing that Walz got wrong is the biggest thing he got wrong. Lara Trump and Karen Pence don’t think that they’ll flip Minnesota from blue-to-red “with a message of fear and division.” If Minnesota flips, it’ll be because the economy is helping all population groups. The economy is helping minorities like never before. President Trump signed prison reform, which is already helping minority communities. The energy industry is incredible, with the US as the world’s energy superpower.

This looks like fun.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are the dividers. Democrats are the people pushing a divisive faux impeachment drive. Democrats retook the US House by promising the people that they’d fix health care. The Democrats haven’t fixed the problems they promised they’d fix. 33 Democrats joined the Problem Solvers Caucus. Thus far, those Democrats haven’t fixed anything.

When we had unified Republican government, they focused on making life better for the people. Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which helped the economy take off like it never did during the Obama administration. They used the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Obama administration’s anti-energy regulations.

To be fair, there’s more to accomplish, like fixing immigration and asylum walls and building the wall between the US and Mexico. We still have to fix health care after the Democrats screwed it up with Obamacare. If you want a stagnant economy and rationed health care, including no private health care, vote Democrat. If you want a strong economy, vote Republican. If you want minorities prospering like never before, vote Republican. If you want your constitutional rights protected, vote Republican.

If you want Congress to waste time on a divisive faux impeachment inquiry, vote Democrat.