Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

This GAO opinion reeks of Deep State intervention into the Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Today, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog office, issued an opinion stating that the Trump administration had broken the law by temporarily withholding lethal military aid to Ukraine. The GAO specifically stated that the Trump administration had violated the “Impoundment Control Act.

Anyone who knows the Constitution knows that Article II gives the Executive Branch sole authority on foreign policy. Further, as James Freeman points out, the GAO’s boss is the Legislative Branch. Quoting from Freeman’s article, “For people who aren’t students of the Washington bureaucracy, it should be noted that few people consider GAO the authoritative word on legal issues. The Justice Department and ultimately of course the federal courts make the big calls.”

According to the gospel of Schoolhouse Rock, the Legislative Branch isn’t equipped to render verdicts. At best, the Legislative Branch might be authorized to offer an opinion on legal matters but that opinion is purely advisory. It isn’t the type of thing that has legal weight behind it. It shouldn’t be surprising to find out that the Deep State is attempting to tip the Senate’s trial of President Trump’s impeachment in the Democrats’ favor. This is how we know that’s what’s happening:

At the urging of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD), GAO now says that Trump administration delays in sending aid to Ukraine were illegal. In a new letter GAO’s general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12—before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds—it still should have happened earlier. It’s not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy but in the agency’s view the White House did not have an unavoidable “programmatic delay” which prevented funds from going to Ukraine.

Again, the Executive Branch doesn’t obey the Legislative Branch. If that were reality, then we wouldn’t have a constitutional republic. We’d have a parliamentary system in which the president would serve the Parliament. That isn’t the system we have. Our system is one that insists upon co-equal branches of government.

The GAO counsel didn’t have the authority to say this:

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

That isn’t the GAO’s decision to make. The appropriation was spent with time to spare. The GAO admitted that. This was done to give Democrats a fresh talking point. Even if the GAO is right about this potential infraction, at best, this wouldn’t be a high crime, which the Constitution requires to impeach.

Despite this declaration, we haven’t seen proof that this isn’t a president exercising his authority in setting foreign policy. That constitutional question is something that a federal court would need to sort through. It isn’t something that the GAO can unilaterally decide.

If people still entertained the silly notion that CNN was impartial about who wins the Democrats’ presidential nomination, that notion just disappeared. That notion disappeared because CNN moderator Abby Phillips ignored Sen. Sanders’ answer to her question.

The fight started when Phillips asked “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Sen. Sanders replied, saying “Well, in fact, I didn’t say that.” Sen. Sanders’ answer apparently didn’t fit CNN’s narrative so Phillip asked Sen. Warren “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

Welcome to the club, Bernie. You now know how Republicans feel when the Agenda Media ignore their answers. Implicit in the Agenda Media’s response is the inference that both parties know that the aggrieved party is lying. The answer isn’t important. What’s important to CNN is whether they maintain the narrative.

After the debate, CNN went further in antagonizing Sen. Sanders, releasing audio of Sanders and Warren fighting. During that fight, Sen. Warren said “I think you just called me a liar on national TV.” After that accusation, Sen. Sanders replied “What?” That led Sen. Warren to respond, saying “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Bernie’s supporters aren’t taking this lightly:


Sen. Warren went into this debate needing to regain momentum going into the first contest for the Democrat presidential nomination. Sen. Warren came across as dishonest and vindictive during the debate and afterwards, too.

Yesterday, like other days, Democrats insisted that a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses should be considered a sham trial. Those statements, whether they’re made by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Nadler, are part of the Democrats’ strategy to extend their investigation in the hopes of finding a nugget of incriminating evidence against President Trump.

Rather than passively accepting that, Republicans should highlight the sham investigation that Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler conducted for House Democrats. The point should be to highlight the Democrats’ intellectual inconsistency. This video highlights the fact that Chairman Nadler refused to allow a hearing where Republicans could call witnesses:

The Judiciary Committee, traditionally the ‘impeachment committee, didn’t call any fact witnesses. The first hearing consisted of 3 partisan Democrat activists and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley testifying. The other Judiciary Committee hearing consisted of the majority and minority counsels answering questions about the Schiff Report. Chairman Schiff wasn’t required by Chairman Nadler to testify about his own report.

A simple question screams out for attention. Where are the witnesses? We’re now told that a Senate trial must include witnesses. If we don’t have witnesses, we’re told, it’s a sham trial, a “cover-up”:

Why didn’t Adam Schiff testify about his own report? Why weren’t Republicans allowed to call a single witness in the House impeachment hearings? What are Democrats trying to hide? What exculpatory evidence are these Democrats trying to omit?

Democrats don’t want Chairman Schiff testifying because that might force him to explain whether the faux whistle-blower worked with 2 of Schiff’s new hires when they worked at the National Security Council. If Schiff testified, he might be forced how many times he or his staff met with the faux whistle-blower. If that happens, they might be forced to tell Congress if they worked with each other to conspire against President Trump.

Democrats didn’t permit Republican witnesses because actual fact witnesses would’ve interrupted the Democrats’ carefully-edited narrative. With the weakest articles of impeachment in our nation’s history, Democrats couldn’t afford a) to let Republicans offer exculpatory evidence or b) to let Republicans call witnesses who might have provided truly bombshell testimony.

It isn’t that I want the Senate to conduct an unfair trial. Republicans don’t need to shaft Democrats because these facts are on their side:

  1. Neither article rises to the level of Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanor
  2. The exculpatory evidence that Republicans tried presenting during the impeachment hearings will come in on the Senate side.
  3. This time, the ‘jury’ won’t be composed of outcome-based partisan Democrat hacks.

This time, Democrats won’t get a pass from the jury. This time, Democrats will need to actually to prove their case. This time, America will see the difference between the partisan political hacks that make up the House impeachment managers and the professional litigators on President Trump’s legal team.

This time, America will notice the difference between a hurried sham impeachment investigation and a fair, properly conducted impeachment trial.

When the history books get written about this impeachment, the record won’t be complete without mentioning the facts that a) the House Democrats didn’t meet their evidentiary burden, b) this was the most partisan impeachment in this nation’s history and that c) Democrats attempted to flip the burden of proving innocence to the accused rather than insisting that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For all of Speaker Pelosi’s BS about Democrats doing their constitutional responsibilities, the truth is that Democrats failed at guaranteeing everyone’s civil rights. Let’s remember that the precedents set during the 2 House impeachment investigations in the Twentieth Century were totally ignored by House Democrats. This wasn’t fair in any sense of the word.

What’s worst is that the exculpatory evidence produced by Republicans was thrown out or ignored by Democrats. When Republicans on the House Intel Committee blew gaping holes in the Democrats’ star testifiers’ testimony, Adam Schiff ignored those inconsistencies like they didn’t exist. Had this taken place in a court of law, the case would’ve gotten thrown out the minute the Democrats finished calling witnesses.

That’s because Democrats only called one witness who actually spoke with President Trump. That’s Ambassador Sondland. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call and quibbled a little with the transcript. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he objected to parts of the call but his boss overruled him on that. In short, the Democrats’ case has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.

Democrats insist that witnesses need to be called for it to be a fair trial. Due process was written into the Bill of Rights to protect the accused. It wasn’t written to protect the government. I won’t be lectured by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler or Chairman Jefferies on integrity. None of them have any of that virtue. They’re nothing more than a collection of partisan hacks who put partisanship ahead of patriotism.

Democrats read off the same script, whether they’re talking about Iran, the economy, impeachment or anything else. If the information changes, like it did this week with Iran, they just continue with the same script. At last night’s Democrat presidential debate, when the candidates were asked about Iran, the candidates each insisted that President Trump had isolated us from our allies.

These stiffs said that despite the fact that the British, French and Germans notified Iran that they’d better get back into compliance with the JCPOA or they’d snap tougher sanctions on. That doesn’t sound like the US is isolated. That sounds like a nation with stout-hearted allies.

That didn’t matter to Democrat activists. That’s because they don’t care about being right. Democrats just care about reciting their talking points correctly. Whether it’s evidence in an impeachment trial or the truth on a debate stage, Democrats are indifferent towards those things.

It’s been that way for almost 30 years. When Anita Hill testified against Justice Thomas, Democrats said it didn’t matter whether it was true or not. What mattered was the seriousness of the charges.

I didn’t watch last night’s Democrat presidential debate but it sounds like the fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took a nasty turn after the debate. This upsets the Democrats happy little family storyline:

Sanders and Warren approached one another and he stuck out his hand. She did not shake it. What followed was a brief but clearly uncomfortable conversation. As Sanders’ campaign co-chair Nina Turner put it on CNN: “I’m not sure what she said, but you can read the body language. Obviously, their conversation was not pleasant.”

Then the fight turned to social media. As of Wednesday morning, the hashtag “#neverWarren” was trending as Bernie allies took to Twitter to attack the Massachusetts senator as a lying snake.

There’s little doubt that Warren is lying, not Sanders. Sanders doesn’t have a history of lying. Warren does. This is from last night’s debate:

Elizabeth Warren has a lengthy history of lying:

Policy-wise, Bernie and Pocahontas are nuttier than fruitcake. From a character standpoint, though, they’re different. Warren is utterly corrupt.

This reeks of desperation on Warren’s part. She’s been sinking in the polls ever since she couldn’t explain how she’d pay for her health care plan. With the first votes looming, she needs, to use a football metaphor, a Hail Mary pass. This intentional leak is likely Sen. Warren’s attempt to regain momentum and relevance.

Jim Geraghty’s article on Sen. Klobuchar doesn’t hide the things that the Twin Cities press has ignored for years. In his article, Geraghty writes that “If you squint, you can make the “Klobuchar’s getting hot at the right time” argument, as the latest Monmouth poll has her at 8 percentage points, her second-highest number yet. Except … getting any delegates out of Iowa requires getting 15 percent of the vote. Klobuchar needs to more or less double her current support to walk out of the state with any delegates.”

Then Geraghty cuts to the heart of Sen. Klobuchar’s problem, saying “Klobuchar wasn’t that well-known when the race began; it was a crowded field; her debate performances ranged from okay to easily forgotten; she’s not the choice of the party establishment or the progressive grassroots, she doesn’t have the resources to blanket the airwaves the way Bloomberg and Steyer can … she’s a perfectly fine, almost generic Democratic candidate in a field that was bursting with more exciting options.”

Don’t mistake Sen. Klobuchar’s lack of presence as proof that she’s a moderate Democrat. That’s BS. She thought that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were extremists. In fact, she thought that Kavanaugh didn’t deserve the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, she thought that Sonia Sotomayor was a centrist. Klobuchar voted for the ACA, which destroyed Minnesota’s health care system but voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which has produced the strongest economy in the last 20 years. That doesn’t sound too bright, does it?

While she’s been protected by the Twin Cities media, she’s been portrayed as a moderate/centrist. Clearly, that isn’t accurate. While she isn’t as far left as Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison, her policies are more than a little leftist. On her campaign website, Klobuchar has a page titled a safer world. On the subject of foreign policy, she says:

Amy believes that we need to stand strong, and consistently, with our allies and that we must respect our frontline troops, diplomats and intelligence officers, who are out there every day risking their lives for our country, and deserve better than foreign policy by tweet. She would invest in diplomacy and rebuild the State Department and modernize our military to stay one step ahead of China and Russia, including with serious investments in cybersecurity.

This past week, President Trump has convinced the British, French and Germans to force Iran’s mullahs back into compliance with the JCPOA. Next, President Trump has rebuilt the military the past 3 years, too. Third, President Trump has seen to it that the troops have gotten pay raises the past 2 years. Fourth, rebuilding the State Department, aka the Deep State, is downright stupid. The last thing we need are ‘diplomats’ who think it’s their job to undermine a president they think isn’t qualified. Finally, President Trump, working with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have significantly upgraded our cybersecurity.

In other words, the things Sen. Klobuchar says she’d do are things that President Trump has already done. This is a perfect example of how the Twin Cities media protect St. Amy of Hennepin County:

Sen. Klobuchar is kinda right in that tensions are rising in Iran. It’s just that the pressure on Iran is increasing. Tuesday was a major breakthrough for US-British diplomacy. Thanks in large part to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s behind-the-scenes work, we’re on the verge of getting Iran back to the negotiating table where a proper treaty will get negotiated. When the JCPOA was negotiated, Iran didn’t have a worry in the world. Now, 5 years later, Iran’s mullahs are worried about students protesting, Iran’s economy is in virtual freefall and the international community is exerting maximum pressure on the regime.

Last night’s Democrat presidential debate got stupid fast when the moderators changed the subject to Iran. Democrats didn’t attempt to abandon the DNC’s talking points. From there, things went downhill fast.

Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden stood out but not in a good way. Sen. Klobuchar said “Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. What I would do is negotiate. I would bring people together just as president Obama did years ago. And I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number one goal. I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

First, it’s stupid to negotiate if the country you’re negotiating with isn’t feeling pain or is frightened of you. When John Kerry negotiated with Iran, Iran wasn’t worried about whether their people would overthrow the regime. The product was an agreement that was so weak that the Obama administration wouldn’t submit it as a treaty for ratification. The agreement was so terrible that most Democrats opposed it.

Next, President Trump’s taking out of Gen. Soleimani triggered an uprising against the Regime, with 5 straight nights of protests against the regime. With Iran’s economy collapsing, unemployment skyrocketing, inflation hitting 50% and students having lots of time to protest, there’s reason for Iran’s regime to worry about getting overthrown.

Third, Sen. Klobuchar should pay attention to events. Yesterday, Boris Johnson announced that the British, French and Germans had taken the first step in dragging Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA:

Britain, France and Germany on Tuesday formally accused Iran of breaking the 2015 agreement that limited its nuclear program, taking the first step toward re-imposing United Nations sanctions.

The European countries started the clock running on what could be some 60 days of negotiations with Iran about coming back into full compliance with the nuclear deal. Under the agreement, if they cannot resolve their dispute, that could revive United Nations sanctions on Iran that had been suspended under the deal, including an arms embargo.

Call me crazy but I’d argue that President Trump’s strategy is working beautifully. Biden sounded almost as incoherent:

“I was part of that deal. It was working,” he said. “It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon. And look what’s happened. We’re now isolated,” he continued. “We’re in a situation where our allies in Europe are making a comparison between the United States and Iran saying both ought to stand down, making a moral equivalence. We have lost our standing in the region; we have lost the support of our allies.

“The next president has to be able to pull those folks back together, reestablish our alliances and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done. And quite frankly, I think he’s flat out lied about saying the reason he went after [Soleimani] was because our embassies were about to be bombed,” Biden added.

That’s breathtakingly uninformed, which is dangerous for us. Biden being this uninformed gives credence to his nickname of Sleepy Joe. We can’t afford a president who isn’t paying attention to the world around him.

It’s either that Biden is uninformed or he’s unwilling to admit that President Trump’s strategy is well thought out and working. This information about the British, French and Germans accusing Iran of breaking the JCPOA didn’t happen right before last night’s debate. It was announced during Tuesday morning’s BBC Breakfast Show. That should’ve been part of these candidates’ morning briefing.

In short, the Democrats’ presidential candidates couldn’t admit that a) President Trump’s strategy is working and b) US allies are joining us in increasing pressure on the Iranian regime. This is what the Democrats’ stupidity towards Iran looks like:

God help us if any of these idiots becomes our next commander-in-chief.

When Republicans complained that anti-Trump lawyer David Kris had gotten appointed to oversee the FISA reforms, people predictably questioned whether Republicans were playing politics with the appointment. That hasn’t disappeared yet but it should now that independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has written this article on the subject.

In her article, Ms. Attkisson highlights the main problems associated with this appointment, starting with this:

On Twitter, Kris called Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead,” and wrote that Trump and his advisers should be “worried” that the “walls are closing in” regarding the Mueller probe. Kris also bought into the now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia and Putin.

In other words, the FISC appointed a political hack at a time when the FISC needed a nonpartisan person to supervise these FISA reforms. Then there’s this:

To some, the appointment of Kris to help with the job is as mysterious as to why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own. It would seem more important than ever to have an apolitical person, or a balanced group of people, conducting oversight of these politically sensitive matters.

Why didn’t the FISC police these warrant applications? It wasn’t until after the Horowitz Report had been published that the judge put out a warning. That isn’t policing the process. That’s CYA after the fact.

There’s no question that we need something that hunts the bad guys but that also keeps Big Brother playing fair. If anything is certain, it’s that FISA won’t get renewed without major changes. If Christopher Wray doesn’t step forward with a lengthy list of reforms, then FISA should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Things get more questionable with this tweet from whistle-blower attorney Mark Zaid:


The op-ed written by Mike Morrell and David Kris says “This summer, a whistleblower complained to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community of an alleged ‘violation’ of law, ‘abuse’ of authority or similar problem. The inspector general, in turn, advised the acting DNI, and later the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint was both credible and ‘urgent,’ meaning it involved something ‘serious or flagrant’ or otherwise significant.”

Why didn’t Kris and Morrell highlight the fact that the faux whistle-blower isn’t covered by the ICWPA? For that matter, why didn’t Kris mention that the person who tweeted about the op-ed is the faux whistle-blower’s attorney? Additionally, Mr. Zaid is the partisan Democrat who tweeted that “the coup” had started about 10 days after President Trump had been inaugurated?

Anyone associated with Mr. Zaid shouldn’t be associated with FISA reform. Period.

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized House Democrats of handing the Senate an incomplete piece of workmanship and calling it impeachment. During his speech on the Senate floor, Sen. McConnell called the House Democrats’ impeachment product a “half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable.

During his presentation, Sen. McConnell also said “There is a reason why the House inquiry that led to President Nixon’s resignation took 14 months of hearings, in addition to the separate special prosecutor. There is a reason why the Clinton impeachment inquiry drew on years of prior investigation and mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. That’s because both of those Houses of Representatives knew they had to prove their case before submitting it to the Senate for judgment. Both situations involved legal battles over executive privilege. Extensive litigation, both times, not after a trial had been handed to the Senate, but beforehand. When the case was actually being compiled. Mountains of evidence. Mountains of testimony. Long legal battles over privilege. And none of this discovery took place in the Senate.”

After putting those comments into the official record, Sen. McConnell got nasty:

The Constitution gives the sole power of Impeachment to the House. If a House majority wants to impeach a president, the ball is in their court. But they have to do the work. They have to prove their case. Nothing in our history or our Constitution says a House majority can pass what amounts to a half-baked censure resolution and then insist that the Senate fill in the blanks. There is no constitutional exception for a House majority with a short attention span.

Look, I think everyone knows this process has not been some earnest fact-finding mission with House Democrats following each thread wherever it leads. The Speaker of the House did not reluctantly decide to impeach after poring over the secondhand impressions of civil servants. This was a predetermined political conclusion. Members of her conference had been publicly promising it for years.

Let’s put Democrats through the grinder. They’ve been pretending that their case is strong. Let’s see how their testifiers do on cross-examination. Two ice ages ago, during the original Schiff Show, the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, aka the MSM, wrote breathlessly about that day’s “bombshell” testimony. At the end of each day’s testimony, Republicans had devastated the testifiers’ bombshell testimony. Anyone expecting a Perry Mason moment should tune into METV, not these hearings.

For goodness’s sake, the very morning after the House’s historic vote, Speaker Pelosi literally chastised reporters for asking too many questions about impeachment! She tried to change the subject to economic policy! She said: “Any other questions?… Anybody want to talk about the SALT tax… I’m not going to answer any more questions on this.”

Really? You impeach a president of the United States, and the very next morning, there’s nothing to see here? Does that sound like a Speaker of the House who really thinks the survival of the Republic is on the line? Does anyone really think that if Democrats truly believed the president of the United States was a criminal who is imperiling our country, they would have abandoned the search for evidence because they didn’t want to make time for due process?

Frankly, people living in the real world notice that Democrats aren’t serious. This is a partisan charade. This isn’t about saving the Republic or honoring the Constitution. This is the Democrats’ latest episode in trying to appease the Resist Movement.

For those who haven’t noticed, the Resist Movement is built on Democrats who hate America and want to cripple the Trump presidency. Fortunately, they’ve only slowed him down. The economic boomtime continues unstopped. That’s because, unlike House Democrats, President Trump and congressional Republicans addressed the economy properly.

Last week, Democrats pointed to the huge crowds attending the Soleimani as proof that Iranians loved the mullahs. Since then, that narrative hasn’t just collapsed. It’s been shattered into tiny bits. This article highlights how repressive regimes control the media to the point of turning them into propaganda factories.

The article starts by saying “At least two Iranian journalists at a state-owned media outlet reportedly resigned from their jobs, and another left a while back, apologizing for ‘the 13 years I told you lies‘ to her supporters as Tehran grapples with the fallout from protests stemming from a cover-up of its accidental downing of a Ukrainian airliner.”

The article continues:

Gelare Jabbari posted an apology on an Instagram that appears to have been deleted. “It was very hard for me to believe that our people have been killed,” the post read, according to The Guardian. “Forgive me that I got to know this late. And forgive me for the 13 years I told you lies.”

Nazee Moinian joined in with the chorus:

“The Iranian protesters have had enough of this. They don’t want less. They don’t want more. They want out,” Moinian said. “They don’t want this regime to represent them. Actually, this regime doesn’t represent the people.

Last week, Democrats blamed President Trump for bringing down the Ukrainian jetliner:

Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly one of the sensible presidential candidates on the Democrats’ side. The above video disproves that foolishness. This foolishness isn’t just confined to the Democrats’ presidential candidates. It’s found in the Democrats serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI. Jackie Speier is a member of that committee. Here’s what she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:

President Trump’s “provocative actions”? What the hell is she talking about? President Trump gave the order to kill the nastiest terrorist in the world. When the time was right, that order was fulfilled. The day that killing the world’s nastiest terrorist is considered a provocative action is a frightening day. That’s the day that Democrats will have shown that they’re utterly spineless.

There is a possibility that Iran will attack the US for killing Gen. Soleimani. It isn’t likely but it’s possible. Democrats apparently make military decisions based on what longshot possibilities might happen. They act like the US military isn’t the best in the world. Democrats apparently think that diplomacy that isn’t backed up by the legitimate possibility of military retribution is the right path to peace and harmony in the Middle East. We know that because that’s the path they’ve taken in the recent past.

Like most Americans, I don’t want the US military tied up in endless wars. That doesn’t mean, though, that I want the bad actors in the world to think that we’re a nation of pacifists, either. Coupling a devastating set of sanctions that’s brought Iran’s terrorist activities to a halt with a well-timed military strike against a man that Iran thought was untouchable has Iran on the brink of a tipping point. The previous administration never got close to this point with Iran.