Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

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.

Anyone that thinks that Brett Kavanaugh’s family went through a living hell are right. It’s indisputable that the Kavanaugh family went through hell and then some. What’s frightening is that it’s likely that what they went through is nothing compared to what will happen if President Trump or President Pence picks someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsberg, especially if that Republican has a Republican Senate.

What Republicans need to understand is that this isn’t a confirmation process. To Democrats, confirming a Supreme Court justice that would tip the balance of the Court to a pro-Constitution majority is political bloodsport. It isn’t hyperbole to say that this is an existential threat to the Democratic Party. The biggest victories in the Democrats’ history weren’t won in the political branches, aka the legislative and executive branches. They were won through the judicial branch.

A judicial branch that isn’t heavily tilted in the Democrats’ direction is a frightening thought to Democrat demagogues. A solid originalist majority on the Supreme Court is the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

The lengths that hardline progressives will go to undermine originalist justices is disturbing. This weekend, the NYTimes ran an article that attempted to take another shot at Justice Kavanaugh that was, putting it charitably, thinly sourced. The ensuing firestorm has been telling:

Democrats couldn’t stop Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation but that isn’t stopping them from attempting to take a second bite at the proverbial apple. A story that was peddled last year that the NYTimes and the Washington Post rejected at the time is being peddled this year as a new story. The thing about this new story is that it’s being pushed by a Clinton operative who’s refused to be interviewed and whose alleged victim can’t recall the incident. Nonetheless, everyone is hyping the article. That includes the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and various other propagandist websites and networks.

Ancient hatemongers like Nan Aron will be out in force when the next nominee is named. Youthful hatemongers like Pete Buttigieg will criticize Republicans by preaching the liberal theology of taking the Bible out of context. Fictional stories, otherwise known as filthy lies, will be published claiming that the nominee is a combination of being meaner than Hitler, more bloodthirsty than Stalin and more ruthless than Ebenezer Scrooge.

Don’t think that these Democrat activists won’t attempt to subtly intimidate the nominees’ families. Remember that, to these Democrats, this is an existential threat. They won’t stop at throwing the kitchen sink at this nominee. If you think that I’m overreacting, remember what Democrats did to state legislative candidates last fall:

A candidate for Minnesota House in District 15B, Shane Mekeland, said he suffered a concussion when he was attacked while campaigning Friday at a restaurant in St. George Township. Benton County Sheriff Troy Heck said his office is investigating the alleged assault.

In another case, Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, says a man punched her in the arm after she confronted him about kicking some of her yard signs Sunday.

If people think that Democrats won’t come after the next Supreme Court nominee that a Republican makes, they haven’t learned from recent history. If Democrats won’t hesitate in attacking state legislators, why wouldn’t they attack a potential Supreme Court justice?

Republicans better prepare for the next confirmation battle. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be a test of wills. It’ll be a preview of Armageddon.

Now that the first ruling is in on SCERAC’s lawsuit is in, it’s time for St. Cloud Educational Rights Advocacy Council (SCERAC) to lick its wounds, then regroup. The arguments put forth by the Rinke-Noonan Law Firm on SCERAC’s behalf were deemed insufficient.

Specifically, “Stearns County District Court Judge Kris Davick-Halfen on Wednesday denied the advocacy group’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit”, writing “Throughout its filings, (the plaintiff) has made a passionate and thoughtful argument as to why the governor and legislature should provide the St. Cloud school district with the additional funding it requests. Nevertheless, this court cannot grant the relief (the plaintiff) requests and must grant (the defendant’s) motion.”

Later in the opinion, it states “(The plaintiff) does not allege that the St. Cloud District receives less funding per pupil than other school districts. Instead, the … complaint alleges that St. Cloud School District would be able to do more with additional funds. This does not constitute a violation of the Education Clause.”

Later, Davick-Halfen notes this:

When discussing the denial of the preliminary injunction, Davick-Halfen cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case where “a court should examine whether granting the (plaintiff’s) request would ‘maintain the status quo until the case can be decided on its merits.'” “The relief that (the plaintiff) is requesting in this temporary injunction would be a substantial change from what has been occurring,” Davick-Halfen states.

What SCERAC was asking the court to do is order the legislative and executive branches to do something that they chose not to do. This is prohibited by the separation of powers clause. Simply put, Minnesota’s Constitution doesn’t give the Judicial Branch the authority to intervene in the appropriations process. That’s left to the political branches. It isn’t left to the judicial branch.

When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat. Let me rephrase that. When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat, except in court. In this instance, it’ll get beaten like a drum.

Harmeet Dhillon lays out what’s happening when she writes “No one, not Congress, not the president, and certainly not a state government, may unilaterally change the requirements to be president of the United States without first amending the U.S. Constitution.” Then she writes “The U.S. Constitution is very clear as to the requirements to run for president: one must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, resident in the United States for 14 years. That’s it.”

That didn’t prevent California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom from signing a bill that attempts to add additional criteria to the Constitution through making new state law. It’s nothing but a PR stunt. That doesn’t mean action shouldn’t be taken. That’s where Harmeet’s law firm comes in:

On behalf of the Republican National Committee, the California GOP, and three Trump-supporting Republican voters in California, my law firm filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to block this unconstitutional law before it can interfere with the 2020 presidential election. The president and his campaign have done the same.

Good for her. Good for them. It’s what I’d expect from California Democrats. It’s what I demand from Republicans.

Saying that Sen. Tina Smith’s intellectual heft isn’t impressive is understatement. Sen. Snith’s op-ed is filled with Schumer-styled partisanship. What isn’t said is that Senate Democrats went all-in with the Resist Movement in slowing down the confirmation of President Trump’s appointees. What isn’t said is that Democrats did this to keep Obama appointees in key positions as long as possible.

Now, Sen. Smith has written this op-ed to complain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate is in the personnel business. Sen. Smith has a problem with that, saying “…McConnell has transformed the Senate into little more than the Trump administration’s personnel office, the place where good ideas go to die.”

Had Sen. Schumer, (D-NY), not tied the Senate up in nots with procedural gimmicks, President Trump’s appointees might’ve gotten finished by now. That’s why Senate Republicans changed the rules to limit debate on nominees. Sen. Smith doesn’t mention that fact, though. Then, to pour white gas on the fire she just started, she wrote this:

What that means is that day in and day out, the work of the Senate has been reduced to voting to pack the courts with Trump-appointed, lifetime federal judges, as fast as we can. And because McConnell and the Republicans have dramatically reduced the time for debate on most of these judges — from 30 hours to two — they can pack the courts faster than ever before.

Democrats created this problem. Had Pelosi and Schumer not pledged to empty the rules toolbox to slow down President Trump’s entire agenda, perhaps Sen. McConnell might be more willing to debate bills. Why should he take up far-left bills from the Democrat House knowing that they won’t fix America’s problems?

Then there’s this howler:

Voting on these nominees is part of my job as a senator, and I take this responsibility seriously. I make time to research the background of each nominee, but the truth is, there’s never any real debate.

That’s BS. She was part of a press conference prior to President Trump nominating Justice Kavanaugh to fill the opening caused by Justice Kennedy’s retirement. At that press conference, held hours before the nominee was known, a bunch of Democrats announced that they’d oppose whoever President Trump nominated. What part of that sounds like Sen. Smith and those other Democrats took “time to research” that nominee?

It’s well-known that Smith was the vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota. Sen. Smith’s decision to announce how she’d vote on the nominee wasn’t the result of painstaking, exhaustive research. It was the result of Sen. Smith’s far-left ideology on abortion on demand. Sen. Smith tries to keep that part of her history secret. Imagine that.

Sen. Smith is a waste of a Senate seat. She does whatever the Democrats tell her to do. That isn’t just on major issues. Sen. Smith follows the Democrats’ instructions to the letter on virtually every issue. In this video, Sen. Smith looks like the robot she’s been since becoming part of the Democrats’ minority:

Like Al Franken before her, Sen. Smith has been a partisan hack. The thought of her working across the aisle on important issues is laughable. It’s that simple.

It’s clear that CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin can’t take being humiliated any longer. Toobin’s ongoing humiliation triggered this eruption:

Our constitutional system never contemplated a President like Donald Trump. The Framers anticipated friction among the three branches of government, which has been a constant throughout our history, but the Trump White House has now established a complete blockade against the legislative branch, thwarting any meaningful oversight. The system, it appears, may simply be incapable of responding to this kind of challenge.

The President has been candid about his plans for responding to investigations from the House of Representatives, which has been controlled by the Democrats since January. “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Trump said, last month, and the pace of his defiant actions has since quickened. The President and his Administration have defied congressional inquiries about security clearances, access to the full Mueller report, the President’s bank records, his tax returns, and the continuing investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia.

First, let’s talk about Congress’s request for “access to the full Mueller report.” The minute this fight reaches the Supreme Court, it will be unanimously defeated. Congress isn’t entitled to information that’s been put off-limits by … Congress. Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s talk about why grand jury testimony shouldn’t be public information.

In a grand jury investigation, the accuser isn’t allowed to be cross-examined by the defense attorney. Further, the witnesses are questioned only by prosecutors. What part of that procedure sounds like the accused person’s due process rights were followed? If a person’s due process rights are violated, then that testimony should be off-limits with only a few exceptions.

Next, let’s talk about Toobin’s supposed “meaningful oversight.” President Trump has been in office for 27-28 months. Why does the House Ways & Means Committee need 6 years of President Trump’s tax returns? Congressional oversight isn’t meant for private citizens. It’s meant for legislative purposes. Let’s throw that intellectually feeble argument into the garbage where it belongs. This is the Democrats’ attempt to harass President Trump. This doesn’t have anything to do with providing with proper oversight.

Finally, congressional oversight is about finding out new facts about government operations. Why would any person with a functioning brain think that a bunch of publicity-seeking politicians will find anything that 50 FBI agents and 20 trained attorneys couldn’t find?

So, after nearly two and a half centuries, Trump will create a new constitutional norm—in which the executive can defy the legislature without consequence. The only likely remedy, therefore, will lie with the voters, next year.

Actually, Obama did that. Actually, Obama and Holder did that. When AG Holder sent guns to south-of-the-border drug cartels without having a plan in place to track them, he was showing he wasn’t ready for a heavyweight job like Attorney General. When he refused to cooperate with a legitimate oversight investigation, he showed that he was a corrupt AG who wasn’t ready for primetime. When he and other Democrats acted like refusing to actively participate in a legitimate investigation, they blazed a path that’d never been blazed before.

Any trash-talking from lightweights like Toobin might confuse some but not all. The truth is that he isn’t a convincing spinmeister or history re-writer. That’s why he’s employed by CNN. That’s why he’s a Democrat.

The only way to characterize this article is to call it Democrat spin from another planet. How else would you characterize this BS?

Supreme Court reform has entered the public debate, with legal luminaries like former Attorney General Eric Holder and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe supporting adding justices to the Supreme Court, and a number of 2020 presidential candidates expressing openness to the idea.

Regardless of your views on proposals to reform the Supreme Court, there is important context to this discussion that is often missed: Conservatives are already packing the courts. Senate Republicans have been changing the rules and ignoring long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with narrow-minded conservative elitists. Their goal is to use the courts to implement conservative policies, regardless of their popular support. The issue we face now is how to respond to this power grab.

Conservatives have done everything they can to keep their years-long court packing efforts under the radar. Rather than start by adding new judges, they instead subtracted them, quietly refusing to let President Barack Obama appoint judges. Then, under President Donald Trump, they have changed the rules to fill those seats with ultra-right wing judges at breakneck speed.

First, it’s BS to say that conservatives quietly refused “to let President Barack Obama appoint judges.” They stood in the way of Judge Merrick Garland. That’s the only one. Period. That’s judge (singular), not judges (plural.)

Next, conservatives aren’t “packing” any court. They’re doing a fantastic job of confirming judges appointed by President Trump, just like Harry Reid did when he was the Senate Majority Leader and President Obama did the nominating. The difference is that Sen. Reid threw out the rulebook (and the filibuster) on district court and appellate court judges.

The other difference is that Sen. Mitch McConnell is doing a far better job of confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees than Reid did with confirming President Obama’s judicial appointees. That falls under the category of “Elections have consequences. I won.” Only presidents get to nominate judges. Congress’s role is advise and consent. They play a roll but their role is well-defined and limited.

Packing the court has always meant that a president has tried adding judges to a court when it’s already full. This idiot spinmeister is attempting to tell people that a president filling vacancies on the district courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court, which is the president’s responsibility, is somehow a constitutional crisis. Hint to the author: Presidents have been doing this since the late 1700s. They’ve done it because it’s part of their job.

I have a few suggestions for President Trump’s SOTU address. First, I’d wait until after the Feb. 15 funding deadline to give it. If Congress does what it’s supposed to do and funds the wall, I’d give a different speech than I’d give if Democrats obstruct again. That being said, I’d be surprised if Democrats didn’t continue with their open borders agenda. In that case, I’d prefer that President Trump open his SOTU Address like this:

As I traveled across the nation, I saw cities getting rebuilt, communities coming together and great unity. Across that nation, the state of our union is as strong as it’s ever been.

Unfortunately, when I’ve tried working with Congress, especially Democrats under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, what I’ve seen is a dysfunctional union, a union that refuses to protect our southern border and the people living in the Southwest. Democrats haven’t paid much attention to Angel families. In fact, I’ve spoken with Angel families who visited Speaker Pelosi’s office, only to be told she wasn’t in.

I canceled my Christmas vacation so I could stay available to negotiate with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer. Rather than work on re-opening government, Speaker Pelosi left for a Hawaiian Christmas vacation. After the new congress was sworn in, Speaker Pelosi tried leaving on a week-long trip paid for by taxpayers. Senate Democrats took a different path. Thirty Senate Democrats accepted a lobbyist-funded vacation in Puerto Rico rather than negotiating in good faith with me.

While they were making these extravagant trips, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer talked about hold the American people hostage. How are their travels not holding the American people hostage? How were the Democrats’ trips not proof that they didn’t negotiate in good faith.

Speaker Pelosi, you started with no funding for border security. Your next bid was literally $1 of border security funding. Drugs are pouring across our southern border. Human trafficking is as awful as it’s ever been. That’s why, after attempts to negotiate multiple times in good faith with Democrats, I’m declaring a national emergency. Later tonight, I will sign an executive order to build 150 miles of border wall in Texas to stop the drug cartels, illegal aliens and human traffickers from crossing the border in those sections.

I specifically want President Trump to focus on building the barrier in Texas because that isn’t in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

As long as the Democrats can’t file their lawsuit in the 9th Circuit, which is a virtually guaranteed victory, President Trump holds the upper hand. Democrats were ecstatic last week when President Trump “caved”. If Democrats don’t negotiate in good faith, they’ll regret it because President Trump still has, metaphorically speaking, another card to play, namely the National Emergencies Act. Once that gets into the courts, the president wins.

I’m betting that Democrats will overplay their hand because that’s what they typically do. Right now, I’m betting that Speaker Pelosi thinks she’s won the final battle. I’m betting that because she knows that she can manhandle the moderates in her caucus.