Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

Democrats have a messaging problem with Joe Biden. The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’ve stuck with the ‘Trump is going after his political enemy’ storyline. Up until now, that’s been effective. Bit-by-bit, though, it’s hitting the point-of-diminishing-returns wall.

It’s indisputable that candidates can’t take campaign contributions from foreigners or foreign companies. That’s been on the books for decades. That’s getting murkier by the day. Presidents have the obligation to fight crime, too. As long as those 2 obligations tug at each other, this isn’t a simple thing to sort through.

The minute you say President Trump can’t ask for China’s help in investigating Hunter Biden’s activities, 2 bad things happen. First, you tie the president’s hands in conducting foreign policy. That’s never a positive. I also don’t think it’s constitutional because the Constitution gives the president sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Also, does anyone seriously think that the Supreme Court would capriciously limit a president’s ability to conduct foreign policy? I can’t imagine it.

Next, does anyone think it’s wise to tell the executive branch that they shouldn’t investigate corruption hidden within the US executive branch? I don’t. If the man who’s getting investigated is the former VP and he’s also running for President, I’d suggest that that political party should find someone with more integrity to be their nominee.

In 2016, Hillary complained that Jim Comey demolished her presidential campaign. At the time, I wrote that if she didn’t want the FBI investigating her, she shouldn’t have been that corrupt. I’d tell Joe and Hunter Biden that they shouldn’t have trafficked in influence peddling while Crazy Joe was Vice President. It isn’t that complicated, though I’ll immediately admit that it’d be mighty tempting to take the millions and run.

This isn’t just a campaign finance issue. It’s a governing/law enforcement issue, too. It can’t be one or the other. It’s gotta be both. As is often the case with the law, there’s a judicial ‘tug-of-war’, for lack of a better term, between competing principles that aren’t settled with oversimplified communications. It’s best admitting right at the start that there’s a conflict that must be resolved.

To me, it isn’t that big of a deal for President Trump to tell China or Ukraine he’d appreciate their help in investigating high-level corruption. If that corruption potentially involves a presidential candidate’s offspring, should the offspring get a free pass? Or should that son or daughter get investigated? To me, that’s a no-brainer — investigate.

If a presidential candidate’s son or daughter wants to stay out of the news, behave yourself. If you continue misbehaving, expect the investigation. This isn’t that tough to figure out.

It’s time for these reporters to start putting 2 and 2 together. It’s time that they figure out what the people that they’re covering are busy with. It’s time they start putting the puzzle together.

Things are definitely heating up in the presidential race, with President Trump and Vice President Pence on one side and former Vice President Joe Biden on the other side. Right now, Vice President Biden is outmatched. Today, Vice President Pence was asked if it was ok for President Trump to tell China and other nations to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Vice President Pence “gave a full-throated defense of President Trump’s call for an investigation into” Biden and his son, saying “The American people have the right to know whether or not the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position. My predecessor had a son who was paid $50,000 a month to be on a Ukrainian board at the time that Vice President Biden was leading the Obama administration’s efforts in Ukraine, I think (that) is worth looking into. And the president has made it very clear that he believes … other nations around the world should look into it as well. When you hold the second highest office in the land it comes with unique responsibilities – not just to be above impropriety, but to be above the appearance of impropriety, and clearly in this case there are legitimate questions that ought to be asked.”

Pence also said that he and President Trump were elected, at least in part, on draining the swamp. Voters didn’t say ‘drain the swamp except if it’s happening in another country.’ People want the swamp drained. Period. This video is a precise, intelligent explanation for why Vice President Biden should be investigated:

Here is President Trump calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens:

Meanwhile, Joe Biden attempted to defend his family with limited success:

Let me make something clear to Trump and his hatchet men and the special interests funding his attacks against me: I’m not going anywhere. You’re not going to destroy me. And you’re not going to destroy my family. I don’t care how much money you spend or how dirty the attacks get.

Biden sounds defensive. It might be the best he can do but it isn’t enough to win the gold medal.

As I wrote earlier, President Trump is getting good news from lots of different locations. His job approval is definitely improving. His fundraising is shooting through the roof. These aren’t the characteristics of a candidate on the defensive. They’re the characteristics of a man campaigning with confidence.

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed is must reading if you want to know the difference between the Democrats’ definition of impeachment and the Constitution’s definition of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Republicans better get their act together on this. Democrats have declared war on President Trump and Republicans. Senate Republicans better prepare for warfare. They should opt to shut down the trial, if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment.

Here’s why: Nothing that President Trump has done comes close to meeting the constitutional test of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” In fact, President Trump hasn’t come close to committing a crime, much less a high crime. When Bill Clinton was impeached, a grand jury identified a series of felonies that he’d committed.

Let’s remember that, in the end, President Clinton paid Paula Jones a small ton of money and surrendered his law license in Arkansas. He wouldn’t have had to do those things if he hadn’t initially been indicted.

Mentioning Biden’s name and Biden’s son’s name in the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wasn’t the best thing to do but it doesn’t come close to a high crime. That isn’t just my opinion. That’s Alan Dershowitz’s opinion, too.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

I wrote about this recently because I’m convinced that governments shouldn’t be overthrown for “light and transient causes” any more than presidents should be impeached for light and transient causes. This isn’t a joke. This is serious stuff.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, it is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate. Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Vice President Biden shouldn’t get that get-out-of-jail-free card because nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents. This video sums things up nicely:

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings and paid $83,000 a month for 5 years. What’s worse is that he didn’t have any expertise in the energy industry or in the Ukraine. Then, when investigators started checking out potential corruption, Vice President Biden threatened to pull $1,000,000,000 in loan guarantees from Burisma if Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, wasn’t fired.

Impeachment is a political act because it involves the political branches of government. That being said, it also uses judicial principles if done properly. If articles of impeachment are passed on a straight party-line vote, Republicans should essentially throw the case out for not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment.

Roger L. Simon’s latest article isn’t likely to help Democrats sleep well at night. Simon’s article quotes extensively from Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s WSJ op-ed, which is behind a paywall. The biggest story lately has been impeachment. That won’t stay the biggest story forever. If Attorney General Mukasey is right, I’d hate to have a last name spelled B-i-d-e-n. Here’s Mukasey’s explanation:

That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.” [Bold mine]

I doubt that Moeller’s investigation into Ukraine was that vigorous. Nobody will doubt that Durham’s investigation is thorough enough. This is why this digging is utterly worthwhile:

The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

I don’t know what Durham will find but I’m confident he’ll find lots of stuff. After all, he’s the guy who took over a cold case after 30 years, then found the evidence and witnesses and won a conviction. If I’m a Biden or associated with the Clinton campaign, I’d start worrying. It’s warranted.

John Ratcliffe is quickly becoming one of my favorite Republicans because he’s skilled at cutting through the Democrats’ subterfuge. I just watched Rep. Ratcliffe demolish the Democrats’ impeachment charade. While questioning Acting Secretary McGuire, Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the so-called whistleblower didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Further, Ratcliffe pointed out that the whistleblower got his/her information from media articles. That caused Ratcliffe to say that this was “Russia 2.0”.

The transcript was made public yesterday. The whistleblower’s complaint was made public (with redactions) this morning. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the Democrats preferred the information from a document whose information was, at best, secondhand and perhaps thirdhand over the transcription of the actual phone call.

It’s worth noting that this tells me that the whistleblower will get crucified if that person testifies to Congress. If the whistleblower doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call, why should that be considered credible? Ratcliffe highlighted that the whistleblower’s worries came from articles in Politico, NYTimes, Washington Post and other media outlets.

As bad as some of those articles might’ve been in terms of accuracy, they pale in comparison with Chairman Schiff’s opening statement:

Chairman Schiff rearranged some paragraphs from the transcript to make it sound nefarious. Apparently, it didn’t dawn on Chairman Schiff that reading things in the order they were written is required to understand what the people intended to convey. Shortly thereafter, Ranking Member Nunes delivered his opening statement. Notice how he mocks Chairman Schiff:

The whistleblower’s complaint contains some things that destroy the Democrats’ credibility. For instance, it says “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple Government officials that President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. election.” In other words, it’s entirely possible that this whistleblower might’ve gotten their information from deep state operatives who hate President Trump. That isn’t a verified statement but it’s entirely possible.

Earlier, I mentioned John Ratcliffe’s questioning of Secretary McGuire. Now, I have the videotape of his questioning. Right at the opening of Rep. Ratcliffe’s questioning, Rep. Ratcliffe starts with something very disturbing:

That’s pretty stunning. The whistleblower first accuses Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with Bill Barr to rig the 2020 election. Later, in a footnote, the whistleblower admits that they aren’t certain to what extent either Giuliani or Barr was ever involved. That’s kind of a big point to be uncertain about if you’re interested in journalistic integrity. If you’re just worried about impeaching President Trump regardless of whether the evidence supports it, which appears to be the Democrats’ goal, then it isn’t that important.

Final prediction: Apolitical people will side with Republicans on this issue. Hyper-partisans will side with Democrats. Since there are more people whose lives don’t revolve around politics, it’s likely that this issue favors Republicans politically.

Anyone that watched this afternoon’s House Judiciary Committee hearing that featured former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski as the Committee’s star witness saw Democrats that were frustrated. Those same Democrats were mockingly called “the Party of Impeachment” by Congressman Ratcliffe, (R-TX). By any stretch of the imagination, today’s hearing was a wretched sight.

If I was running the NRCC’s campaign, and I’m not (Tom Emmer is running things), I’d simply have candidates watch Jerry Nadler’s questioning of Mr. Lewandowski. Either that I’d have them watch the 3 Stooges, although the 3 Stooges weren’t as discombobulated as Chairman Nadler. Chairman Nadler wasn’t just bewildered during his questioning of Mr. Lewandowski. He was frustrated, too. Watch this videoclip and ask yourself if Chairman Nadler looks composed or agitated:

To me, Chairman Nadler looked extremely frustrated. He didn’t look composed whatsoever. Then compare that with how composed Rep. John Ratcliffe looks while questioning Mr. Lewandowski:

Doug Collins’ needling of Chairman Nadler might be my favorite part of the hearing:

The best part came when Collins said “I’ve never seen a majority so interested in packaging in all my life. You know why? Because they can’t sell what’s inside. They can’t sell the product so they just keep packaging it differently. You like having the press here. You like having the cameras because it makes it look like something’s happening but it’s not.”

Collins continued, saying “The American people are starting to get it. They’re starting to get it that if you’re just howling at the wind, you’re not doing anything.”

Later, Lewandowski got under Hakeem Jeffries’ skin:

Lewandowski later declined to play along with certain questions. New York Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries asked Lewandowski if he was Trump’s “hitman, the bag man, the lookout, or all of the above?” “I think I’m the good looking man, actually,” Lewandowski replied.

Honestly, today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing exposed how incompetent Democrats are. If a back-bencher like Jerry Nadler is a committee chairman, that’s proof positive that Democrats aren’t worthy of holding gavels. Democrats were so bad that MSNBC and CNN criticized Committee Democrats:

NBC News correspondent Ken Dilanian suggested to MSNBC’s Ali Velshi that Democratic lawmakers were primarily focused on “getting their moment on television” than getting the facts from their witness.

Then there’s this:

Politico reporter and MSNBC analyst Jake Sherman questioned why Lewandowski’s involvement in the Mueller report “wasn’t the focus” of the hearing. “At the end of the day, Democrats are going to have to leave this hearing and say, ‘What did we accomplish today and did it bring us closer to X?’ They don’t know what ‘X’ is,” Sherman told the panel.

“They don’t know what they’re doing and at the end of this hearing, I suspect… that they feel like Trump has changed the rules so much that he’s impervious to all of this. He’s not afraid of impeachment… so they’re just kind of coasting along and doing their thing.”

Holding a gavel is a prestigious accomplishment. I didn’t see a single Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee that I thought was qualified to chair a committee. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee got trolled. These Democrats sit on one of the most prestigious, historic committees in history. This is the committee that started the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. Rather than looking the part, Corey Lewandowski trolled Eric Swalwell:

Lewandowski appeared to mock California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s unsuccessful bid for the White House earlier this year, calling him “President Swalwell” at one point during questioning.

These Democrats aren’t ready for primetime. I’m not certain that they’re up to a part on Keystone Cops. I am certain that they’re best suited to back-benchers in the minority party in the House.

Isn’t it a coincidence that this article just happened to pop up right after Jerry Nadler’s impeachment inquiry fizzled, again. It seems like the fiftieth time on that. It feels like the fiftieth time that Democrats have brought forth unsubstantiated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats have put together another ‘scandal’ involving Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This time, a significant portion of the Democrats’ presidential candidates insist that Justice Kavanaugh be impeached. According to this article, “Top 2020 Democratic contenders Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro announced on Sunday that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh ‘must be impeached,’ after a new, uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh surfaced in a weekend New York Times piece.”

Apparently, Democrats don’t care if they destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s family, including his beautiful daughters. Remember this moment from Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing?

That’s a moment I’ll never forget. Conversely, I wish I could forget the torture that Democrats inflicted on Justice Kavanaugh’s family. I wish I didn’t have to know this BS:

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Then there’s this:

But, the Times’ article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode. “The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” observed The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”

The book reads: “[Tracy] Harmon, whose surname is now Harmon Joyce, has also refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”

It isn’t a coincidence that Ms. Blasey-Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, just admitted in a speech that Dr. Blasey-Ford had political motivations for testifying:

This is frightening:

The Times went on to note in the article that it had “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.

In other words, the NYTimes’ article is just about worthless. This story is just as corroborate as Ms. Blasey-Ford’s initial accusation. This is just as frightening:

Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, who infamously said last year that Kavanaugh did not deserve a fair hearing because he might be pro-life, said the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin an impeachment inquiry to determine whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.

Sen. Hirono should take a civics class from Dean Urdahl. Impeachment doesn’t start in the Senate. Impeachment investigations start in the House because the House is the only body authorized by the Constitution to start articles of Impeachment.

These Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t contributed a thing to make the United States better. That’s why Democrats should be run out of Dodge, proverbially speaking.

To say that Michelle Benson is on a mission to fix the graft and corruption within the Minnesota Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) is understatement. Sen. Benson hasn’t let up in her pursuit of answers into why Democrats ignored the corruption within the Department. According to this official statement, Sen. Benson sent out questions to key figures in the recent crisis.

According to the statement, “During the HHS hearing on August 13, Senator Michelle Benson told DHS officials she would provide written questions for the department to answer. Questions were sent on August 19 to Carolyn Ham, Acting Commissioner Pam Wheelock, and Deputy Commissioners Chuck Johnson and Claire Wilson. Benson did receive acknowledgment the questions were received by Acting Commissioner Wheelock. However, with another hearing scheduled for September 4, Benson has not received substantial responses to the requests, nor has she received responses the data practices requests made in July.”

In other words, political appointees within DHS have refused to cooperate with the legislature’s legitimate oversight responsibilities. I wrote here that Jodi Harpstead, Gov. Walz’s appointee to replace Commissioner Lourey, has a history of specializing in hiding important details from authorities.

Ms. Harpstead hasn’t assumed her position as Commissioner but the Department has already started with hiding things from the legislature. Imagine how tight-lipped they’ll be when Ms. Harpstead, aka the silence-meister, takes over as Commissioner.

Check out these questions to these people:

View the written questions:
Questions to Acting Commissioner Pam Wheelock
Questions to Carolyn Ham
Questions to Chuck Johnson
Questions to Claire Wilson

It’s pretty obvious that these employees specialize in hiding information from taxpayers. It’s equally obvious that these employees think that they don’t answer to anyone.

Sen. Benson realizes that that’s a problem. That’s why she’s on a mission.

Apparently, Ilhan Omar thinks that public figures shouldn’t be scrutinized. If she thinks that, then she’d fit right in as Commissioner of Minnesota’s Department of Human Sacrifices Services. Their deputy commissioners resigned abruptly without explaining why. Then the commissioner abruptly resigned the following Monday without explanation.

Do Minnesota Democrats think that they shouldn’t be held accountable? DFL Chairman Ken Martin certainly didn’t think that Keith Ellison should be punished for his alleged abuse of Karen Monahan.

After the UK Daily Mail and the New York Post broke the story that Ilhan Omar had allegedly had an affair with her chief campaign consultant, the Minneapolis Star Tribune said nary a word. In an interview with WCCO’s Esme Murphy, Omar said she preferred not to talk about her “personal life.” Esme Murphy quickly moved on rather than push her for answers.

Obedience is apparently a requirement to be a Twin Cities ‘reporter’ if you’re a Democrat. Follow-up questions are apparently not allowed with controversial Democrats like Omar. When I tried finding Murphy’s interview of Omar on Youtube, I got this response:

No results found

Thankfully, there are still real journalists left in the Twin Cities. Unlike WCCO, they’ll actually dig into politicians’ lives:

Government ethics watchdog Tom Anderson of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center said Omar may have violated campaign finance law if she used campaign funds to pursue a romantic affair.

“We believe Representative Ilhan Omar may have touched the third rail of campaign finance law: disbursing campaign funds for personal use,” Anderson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s a brazen act Representative Omar was caught doing before in Minnesota and all of the evidence we’ve seen tells us she’s probably doing it again.”

Brazenness apparently is what Rep. Omar specializes in, along with anti-Semitism. Rep. Omar hasn’t followed the law too often. Thankfully, Minnesota Rep. Steve Drazkowski has persisted in tracking down the truth about Rep. Omar. He’s even started this website that’s essentially a one-stop shopping center on Omar’s foibles. This is just one of the documents posted at Steve’s website:

Rep. Drazkowski should be thanked for doing what the Star Tribune and other Twin Cities media outlets have done. (I won’t call them newspapers because they apparently don’t give a damn about investigative reporting.)

Though the Democrats have tried convincing consumers that the economic sky is falling, consumers aren’t buying the Democrats’ schtick. Instead, they’re heading to Walmart to buy lots of things that they can suddenly afford thanks to the Trump/GOP tax cuts. In case you hadn’t heard the economic good news, which is highly likely if you get your news from the New York Times or MSNBC, Walmart profits are up, consumer confidence is through the roof and retail sails are increasing, not decreasing.

That isn’t to say that everything is hitting on all cylinders. China’s tariffs on farmers are hurting them. Nancy Pelosi’s unwillingness to hold a vote on ratifying the USMCA trade agreement is hurting farmers and car manufacturers, too. That’s the intent of House Democrats. House Democrats hate President Trump more than they love prosperity and their constituents.

Desperate Democrats deny that they’re trying to talk the nation into a recession but the proof is too abundant to ignore. First, Trump-hating Democrats put their eggs in the Trump-Russia collusion concoction. When that failed, Democrats put their eggs in the Mueller testimony Basket. When that failed, Democrats put their eggs in the Racism Basket. The minute that failed, Democrats hurriedly put their eggs in the Recession Basket.

Larry Kudlow dumped a few pales of ice-cold water on the recession talk during his interview on Meet the Press:

Kudlow opened by saying “Well, I’ll tell you what, I sure don’t see a recession. We had some blockbuster retail sales consumer numbers towards the back end of last week, really blockbuster numbers…despite all of the worries about the volatile stock market, most of the economists on Wall Street towards the end of the week have been marking up their forecasts for the third and fourth quarters. That echoes our view.”

It’s worth noting that the negativity found in these doom-and-gloom reports talk about a slowdown. The minute that they hit the NYTimes or are reported on by CNN, the report changes from slowdown to recession. Isn’t that interesting? I wonder what additional information the NYTimes or CNN has that Wall Street doesn’t have.

Let’s review the fundamentals. Marginal tax rates are low. Corporate tax cuts have given CEOs new incentives to invest in bigger plants and more employees. The deregulation has triggered a huge boom throughout the domestic energy industry.

Let’s admit that the Democrats’ economy grew at a pretty pathetic pace. Think of it as keeping the car idling. When Trump got in, the economy shifted from being a family station wagon into a 73 Mustang with a 351 Cleveland in it. Suddenly, that idling station wagon turned into Steve McQueen’s Mustang from Bulitt:

Eventually, we’ll go through a recession. It won’t be anytime in the next 6 months, though. Too many people have much bigger paychecks thanks to the Trump/GOP tax cuts to let this economy start contracting anytime soon.