DNC Platform for 2018 Midterms: What’s In It?

Play

Many have questioned what Democrat Party candidates are going to use to court voters this fall to choose them over their Republican opponents. Besides the fact that no one knows who is the “Face” of the Democrat Party now that Barack Obama is out of office, Americans are struggling to know what issues Democrats can use in upcoming elections. Listen to today’s podcast for complete details. Thanks for joining in!

The DNC: Who’s In Charge?

A sitting President is always considered to be the head of his/her political party. In the last Administration the Democrat Party leader was obviously President Obama. Hillary Clinton was by most expected to receive the mantle of DNC leadership with her 2016 presidential victory. Of course that did not happen and the DNC leadership mantle did NOT fall to HRC.

Where did it go and to whom?

Conventional wisdom was that former labor secretary Thomas Perez who was elected the first Latino chair of the Democratic National Committee in February of 2017 as “chair” is that leader. In that election Perez narrowly defeating Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). In his acceptance speech, Perez gave Ellison the symbolic role of deputy party chair, and the Minnesota congressman gave a short speech asking his supporters to stay with the party. But since that day, neither Perez or Ellison has been accepted as the Democrat Party leader by rank and file Democrats.

After considering those two, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) would be the obvious “go-to’s” for that role. But neither has even attempted to pick up that responisibility though both are still very active in the Party in every way.

We are very close to the run-up to the 2018 mid-term elections — a critical time for any political party in any election. These mid-terms are critical for the Democrat Party. Almost always, the mid-terms under any new President result in control changes in Congress. Most of the time, the opposition party to that President picks up a bunch of House seats and usually some Senate seats — even if control of either House does not always change. 2018 is seen as the most critical mid-term election in many years for the Democrat Party. With the White House departure of Obama and the 2016 election loss by Hillary, the Democrat Party is facing a must-win election to keep the party alive.

Doing so takes a unifying message among party members. But what messaging is the DNC today sending to American voters?

What is the DNC 2018 Mid-term Message to Voters?

The DNC message to Americans is simple: “Dump Trump!” Never in my lifetime have I seen such animus for a U.S. President. Substance of any of his accomplishments is left in the “other room” when there are political discussions among Democrats. We see non-stop venom spewed by almost every Democrat win the world of entertainment, professional sports, the media, political class at local, state, and national level — all echoed  overseas by socialist heads of several foreign governments.

The reason for this non-stop vitriol from Democrats is certain AND obvious: they still have not recovered from Middle Americans sending the message in November 2016 that Democrats no longer represent the ideals that Middle Americans still embrace, even though Democrats for generations wore that badge of being the political party of average Americans.

The Democrat Party has always excelled at messaging. Their ability to reach the hearts and minds of Americans and make them believe in those messages has been lost on the GOP for decades. But in this election cycle and this presidential administration, Democrats AND Republicans have been taken to “messaging school” by former Candidate and now President Donald Trump. And Democrats are scrambling.

The best way I can illustrate this destructive slide by Dems into purely negative messaging is by telling you a story:

I’m from south Louisiana where crabbing is an art. If you’ve never been crabbing you probably have no idea how this applies to a political messaging story. But in this case they are the same.

A crab trap is a wire box with 6 sides and a hole in the top. To crab one drops bait through that hole — chicken necks or some other type of raw meat works best. Then put that crab trap down in the water below the surface several feet and wait. After a while, take that crab trap out of the water and set it on the ground (or in your boat if you’re off the southern coast of Louisiana). If your crabbing attempt is successful, there will be several crabs that crawled into that trap through the hole on top to get a fine chicken meal.

If you set that crab trap there and watch it long enough, you will almost always see several of the crabs trying to find a way out of the trap. Pretty soon you’ll probably see one of the crabs ascertain he (or she) can climb up the side of the wire crab trap, across the top to the hole, all to escape the trap. BUT THE CRAB NEVER MAKES THE ESCAPE GOOD! Why? Before the crab completes the “Great Escape,” one of the crabs still on the floor of the trap reaches up and with a claw pulls that crab back down into the trap with the others.

Democrats are scrambling for a message for the 2018 mid-term elections that they can use to tickle the fancy of American voters that will recapture Dems previous long control of the American political narrative. Their quest for the right message for voters is eerily similar to those crabs I just told you about. There are some crabs (Democrats) who see that meat in the trap, crawled in to get it, and see the way out of the trap. They struggle to get out, but seem to always get stuck in the trap because those below instead of following those up the side, across the top and out of the trap, reach up to pull those almost-successful crabs back into the trap with them.

The Democrat Party 2018 Platform

As Dems have scrambled since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, they have (for the first time in recent political history) failed to strike a happy medium within their party for their party platform. Without real leadership, there has been no one willing or capable to devise and implement a plan that the party can sell to the American people. However, Nancy Pelosi DID step forward after the election with a scenario in which she believes Americans will abandon the Make America Great Again mantra that successfully resulted in Trump’s election, and come home to the Democrat Party. What is it? THE REVERSE OF EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP!

Think about it: Dems despise the tax cuts for individuals, saying again and again that those tax cuts favor the rich, even though the cuts made immediate impact on the pay checks of ALL Americans. Dems scream to America that Trump’s slashing of onerous regulations to benefit businesses are attacks on American individuals by giving corporations a free ride. Pelosi called the billions of dollars in bonuses passed out by corporations nothing more than “Crumbs,” even though it gave millions of Americans extra dollars for their households, and did so immediately. Democrats honestly think this President is incapable of having a meaningful and intelligent conversation with anyone, especially foreign leaders. They in horror screamed to America that President Trump was starting a nuclear war as a result of his verbal sparring with Kim Jong Un; Trump is incapable of negotiating trade deals with other countries and would lead America into an international trade holocaust; the leaders of foreign countries would no longer respect the U.S. nor would their citizens because of the buffoon in our White House. The news media — that is dominated by Democrats — laughed, screamed, demeaned, and constantly ridiculed the President for everything from his personal appearance, the way he talks, the things he says, his wife, his children, his intellect, integrity, and even his weight.

The Democrat 2018 Party Platform has no substance other than “All Things Not Trump.” And it’s not working. Americans — to the chagrin of Democrats and other Leftists — see through the attempted bait-and-switch by the Donkey Party. Democrats have for decades successfully fooled Americans — especially those who they have falsely championed, like Hispanics, lower income citizens, immigrants, and African Americans — into believing Democrats are the political party that has those peoples’ best interests at heart. Democrats have pandered to those people for one reason and only one: power that has allowed Democrats to “own” those Americans’ votes.

Democrats: Just Imagine “If”………

What would your party look like “IF” you simply in objective ways analyzed just the “results” of this Administration’s policies implemented in its short life:

(Here are some of those economic results. They are links to details for each if you care to look at them)

That’s just a few. That’s just economic successes that do not include education progress, foreign policy, trade, and political world stability.

Let’s be honest: how could any reasonable, duly elected Congressional leader denigrate in any way the progress so far of this presidential administration? The answer is simple: it’s for one purpose only — to diminish this President and each of his policy actions. The Democrat Party thinks their doing so creates a political platform. And it has!

Summary

Here’s a message to Pelosi-Schumer and Company: Go ahead and stay in the bottom of that crab trap with the chicken necks. Yep, you found some food….not enough to survive for long, but it will take care of hunger for a while. You can refuse to follow the other crab that realizes staying there will eventually result in your demise and works to get out of the trap.

Of course you’d be wise to look for ways to make things better — in this case find food for later. But if you decide to stay in the trap, why not just leave the crab alone that DOESN’T want to stay there, sees a way out and chooses to take. Instead of pulling him back down to your level, just let him go live his life to the best of his ability. He just might find some food he’d be willing to share with you.

Illegal Immigration Bullet Points

Play

 

Immigration Law, Definitions, and Brief History in “Modern” USA

If you do not have a Visa, a Green Card or citizenship in the United States and are currently living in the country, you are subject to deportation. Getting deported is a very serious aspect of immigration law; it is the process of the United States government removing illegal immigrants from the country. Deportation may eliminate your ability to secure a visa in the future. The United States Government may deport you for the following reasons:

  • If you enter the United States while being deemed “legally inadmissible” by the immigration laws of the federal government
  • Entering the country without a legal visa
  • Failure to renew a conditional permanent residency visa
  • Aiding an illegal immigrant with entering the country
  • Conviction of a criminal offense
  • Endangering national or public security
  • Participating in a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of securing an immigrant visa

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas.  The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law.  To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and non-immigrant, and documented and undocumented (“illegal”). The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S.  Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit.  The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States.  The IIRIRA eliminated the term “entry,” replacing it with “admission.”  An application for admission occurs whenever an alien arrives in the U.S. regardless of whether the arrival occurs at a designated port-of-entry. Applicants at either designated ports or otherwise must submit to an inspection by U.S. customs, even if the applicant possesses an immigrant visa.  The IIRIRA also employs the term “arriving alien” to describe applicant aliens attempting to enter the U.S., regardless of whether they arrive at a designated port, a non-designated point on the border, or are located in U.S. waters and brought to shore.

Post-9/11 reform

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS.  The Bush Administration had designed the Department of Homeland Security to foster increased intelligence sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for responding to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism.  Within the Department, three different agencies – U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – now handle the duties formerly held by the INS.  Currently, the CBE handles the INS’s border patrol duties, the USCIS handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions, and the ICE handles the INS’s deportation, intelligence, and investigatory functions.

Refugee and asylum seekers

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants.  Under the Refugee Act, the term “refugee” refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions.  Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group.   As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer.   For refugees who have “firmly resettled” in another country, the United States will deny a request for refugee admission.  The government considers refugees “firmly resettled” if the refugees have received an offer of citizenship, permanent residency, or some other permanent status from a foreign country.

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States.  The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear.  A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test.  The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality.  Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning.  The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant’s return to the homeland.

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.

Deferred Action (DACA/DAPA)

Deferred action is an administrative relief from deportation; DHS temporarily authorizes non-U.S. citizens to remain in the U.S.  Through deferred action, a non U.S. citizen may apply for employment authorization for the duration of the temporary stay.  Recipients of deferred action grants, however, cannot claim lawful status during that time, but they are considered lawfully present in the U.S.  In other words, they are not accruing unlawful presence, which could later render them inadmissible to the U.S. if and when they apply for permanent legal status.  DHS grants deferred action on a case-by-case basis.

In June 2012, the Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  The program aimed to grant deferred action to those under 31 as of Jne 15, 2012, who entered the U.S. before their sixteenth birthday and continuously resided in the U.S> without lawful status since at least June 15, 2007.  The policy rationale was to prevent deportation of young adults and children, who grew up as Americans yet did not voluntarily enter the U.S. without lawful status.

In November 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to address illegal immigration and to prioritize deporting felons not families.  The executive actions expanded the DACA program by extending the period from two to three years, removing the age requirement, and easing the continuous residency requirement (continuous residency since June 15, 2007 changed to January 1, 2010).  The executive actions also introduced the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.  The DAPA program permits parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents (LPR) to apply for deferred action if they have continuously resided in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and had a U.S. citizen or LPR child as of November 20, 2014.

The expanded DACA and DAPA programs, however, are on hold due to a pending Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas.  USCIS is not currently accepting applications for the expanded DACA or DAPA programs.

 

“Some operations have taken place that have been focused on individuals, deporting individuals that have recently crossed the border. That is consistent with the kinds of enforcement priorities that the president and the secretary of homeland security discussed more than a year ago,” Earnest said at the daily briefing for reporters. “Certainly, people should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious about enforcing our immigration laws.”

Johnson said the batch of deportees were among immigrants who crossed the southern U.S. border illegally since May 2014. That’s when the U.S. began experiencing a surge of families and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Officials say such crossings decreased by early last year, but began to pick up again in recent months.

Obama Administration officials expressed concern with the spike in the number of families and unaccompanied children apprehended at the southern border — particularly since illegal migration tends to slow down during colder months. In October and November 2015, just over 12,500 families were apprehended, compared with 4,577 during the same two months in 2014. Meanwhile, 10,588 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the southern border in October and November 2015, according to federal officials — more than double the number of minors who tried to cross into the United States during the same period in 2014.

The proposals to increase deportations appear to have stirred some dissent within the Obama administration. Just before Christmas, unnamed “people familiar with the operation” disclosed the plans to the Washington Post — a highly unusual leak about planned law enforcement actions. The disclosure of the planned raids drew immediate criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley condemned the planned actions, while front-runner Hillary Clinton issued a more muted statement through a spokeswoman, who said Clinton had “real concerns” about the plans. Word of the planned raids also highlight a political predicament for Clinton, who endorsed quick return of illegal immigrant children in 2014 but is also trying to court Latino voters.

 

Democrats LOVE Illegal Immigration

Play

It appears to be true. But, hold on: it looks like some “Establishment Republicans” may be in the tank with Democrats. Two versions of comprehensive immigration bills are set to be introduced, debated, and voted on in the House of Representatives this week. Will they show up on the floor? Listen today to get the skinny!

DHS Secretary Nielsen details the truth of illegal immigration and the treatment of children by border agents. Watch this press briefing. 

https://youtu.be/qYvZqPGedo0

Amnesty

Play

am·nes·ty
noun: “
an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses; an amnesty for political prisoners; an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.”

We will here this word often in the next month or two in combination with “Immigration Reform.” Accomplishing true immigration reform is critical to this Congress to complete before the mid-terms in November. Why? Listen today to find out what is at stake, what plans Congress has, and where our ongoing immigration dilemma actually lies today. Enjoy!

 

Hillary Indictment Now Certain

Play

Talk about open a can of worms! I promised that today we would analyze Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report released yesterday on the FBI Hillary Clinton email investigation from 2016. We are going to do that first. But in the second half of today’s show we will — with facts — give you new supporting information of today’s headline: “Hillary Indictment Now Certain.”

Buckle in! It’s going to be an interesting ride today……

 

HRC Broken Laws

A Second Special Investigator on the Way?

Play

There have been constant calls by many for the appointment of another Special Counsel/Investigator in the wake of the woeful performance by current Special Investigator Robert Mueller. Most Americans feel the Mueller investigation into the Trump Campaign for collusion with Russians to impact the 2016 election is going nowhere regarding unearthing evidence of those allegations after more than 1 year and $20 million of expense to the American people. Mueller’s approval rating in one poll, has slipped to 30%. If a second Special Investigator was appointed, conventional wisdom is that this person would pick up the Hillary Clinton email server probe along with peeks into misdoings of fired FBI Director Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the Clinton Foundation. Sessions threw a curve ball at the expected Counsel appointment with an unforeseen act that angered many and prompted questions from others that until now went unanswered. 

The “Sessions” Special Counsel Plan

Professor Jonathan Turley, a top national legal expert on government investigations, commented on Thursday about Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to bring in U.S. Attorney John Huber. Turley called it “brilliant”to combine all the powers of the U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general with a prosecutor who can bring charges, seek indictments, and get results for President Trump far more quickly than a second special counsel.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), informing them that Huber is conducting a full-fledged criminal investigation into all the matters Republicans are calling for a special counsel to investigate. Huber has been investigating these possible crimes for five months, since November 13, 2017.

During an interview on Lou Dobbs’s Fox Business Network show, Turley explained to guest host Stuart Varney that the media are wrongly reporting that Sessions will not appoint a second special counsel. “He did not foreclose the possibility of a special counsel,” he insisted.

Instead, Turley explained that Sessions has ordered Huber to “team up with the inspector general (IG) within the Justice Department to investigate these matters.”

Sessions informed Congress in his letter that all the matters recommended for investigation by Goodlatte, Gowdy, and Grassley are “fully within the scope of [Huber’s] existing mandate.” He also informed the chairmen that Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is working with Huber, has a staff of 470 investigators, giving Huber access to enormous investigative firepower that far exceeds the staff of any special counsel.

That point is critical because as Sessions’ March 29letter explains, the inspector general’s jurisdiction to conduct civil and criminal investigations includes “actions taken by former employees after they have left government service.” Then Huber can act on any of those matters.

As a U.S. attorney, Huber has full authority to empanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges. A grand jury can be empaneled anywhere, which means that it could be a group of citizens from deep-red Utah – in the heart of Trump country – instead of the D.C. Swamp that decides whether to hand down indictments for felony prosecution.

“The Inspector General’s jurisdiction extends not only to allegations of legal violations, but also to allegations that Department employees violated established practices as well,” Sessions added in his letter, which means that the IG’s report can hold people accountable even for actions that do not violate a specific statute.

“I think [Sessions] did the right thing here,” said Turley. “I think the president should listen to General Sessions on this one.”

Sessions “can always appoint a special counsel,” Turley explained, but that should not even be necessary because Huber “has the ability to prosecute cases.”

“Do these prosecutors have the same power to investigate and get to the bottom of things that a special counsel would have?” Varney asked.

“Actually, yes,” Turley answered. “I think people are missing what could be a brilliant move here by Sessions. What he did is he essentially combined the powers of the inspector general with the powers of a line prosecutor.”

“This prosecutor does have not just the experience and training to look for a criminal case; he has the ability to move a case of that kind” in court, Turley emphasized.

Not only that, but if Sessions believes crimes were committed, but Huber for some reason does not bring charges, “Sessions has reserved the right to go ahead and appoint a special counsel,” said Turley.

“That’s a powerful combination,” he observed.

When Varney asked if Huber and Horowitz’s status as “Obama holdovers” creates a possible problem for Sessions and President Trump, Turley said no, observing that each man has a great reputation as a “dogged investigator.”

Breitbart News has separately confirmed that Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, both of whom are Republicans who support aggressive investigations of these scandals, enthusiastically supported Huber to be reappointed by President Trump as his U.S. attorney in Utah. The Senate confirmed Huber in 2017 for a second term.

Huber is a Utah lawyer, not a D.C lawyer. “That distance between him and Washington is very important,” Turley explained, because Huber is not part of the Deep State, that is, not cozy buddies with the cocktail party scene that is suspected of perpetrating all of these actions against President Trump and his administration.

Turley said President Trump should be very happy that Sessions chose this route of appointing Huber, who has the power to seek indictments and prosecute cases, and teamed him up with Horowitz, who has 470 investigators at his disposal, if the president wants to see swift and decisive action.

“If a special counsel were appointed, there would be a great deal of delay,” Turley stated, versus the team of Huber and Horowitz, who are already five months into this investigation.

What about the Mueller Investigation

To be honest, in the wake of the year-long plus efforts by Mueller et al to unearth Trump campaign Russian collusion with no results to that end, it is time for the former FBI director to bring this to an end. It is true that he has indicted several people, (indictments are NOT convictions though) none of the indictments have anything at all to do with the stated purpose of his appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who himself is under fire for a multitude of alleged wrongdoings in multiple actions.

President Trump has labeled the Mueller probe a “Witch-hunt” — maybe rightfully so. Unless evidence of that collusion remains hidden, it seems to most that the President may be accurate in labeling the investigation this way. Regardless of Mueller/Rosenstein’s real purpose for this investigation, American justice is based upon (for all people) the fundamental premise that anyone charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. That does not seem to be the case in the Mueller probe.

I am today joining many who are much more educated than I on such matters in a call for Congress to re-examine the Special Prosecutor statute, and do so immediately. It appears once again as in previous such investigations, much of the “real” purpose for their implementation lies at the feet of the intent to weaponize investigators for political purposes. We have gone down that path too many times. Remember: Bill Clinton did not even know Monica Lewinsky when Ken Starr initiated his investigation into President Trump’s actions. Starr kept digging and ultimately charged Clinton with lying under oath in a civil trial, which led to his impeachment proceedings.

Really? Millions of dollars, mountains of animus of millions of Americans who took sides in that probe, and nothing happened. What a waste!

I’m pretty certain with Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s release of his report as it is rolled out in detail all will see Special Prosecutors are NOT necessary IF the Justice Department only does its job and stays out of politics.

No more Witch-hunts!

Meeting with Kim Jong Un: Good or Bad?

Play

The answer to that question is certainly subjective. What is odd to me is that even Conservative members of the media are at best cautious about any positive results of this meeting. Even FOX News — with the exception of Sean Hannity — is being very cautious. Why do you think that is? We’ll analyze that today. Listen in!

U.S. Trade Wars: Real or Perceived?

Play

With all of the talk about tariffs already in place with new ones being assessed against U.S. trade partners, do you know what this is really about? What are tariffs? How do they actually do? What are their results — positive or negative to us regular citizens in the U.S.? Today we answer these questions and give you facts. Just listen in!

Discharge Petition: What is It?

Play

The U.S. House of Representatives is frantically trying to get 218 signatures on such a petition. What is it? How does it work? What are they trying to accomplish with it? Answers to these and other questions coming right up! Thanks for listening.

Conflict of Interest

Play

Definition of “Conflict of Interest:”

a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible. Or a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.
In the case of the Mueller investigation and for all those who are either active in it or complicit or hold a personal interest in it achieving removal of President Trump, there is very obvious as defined by public statute “Conflict of Interest.”
Let’s look closely: