The Clintons Partner Up with Hollywood

hillary-clinton-hollywood

Where do you go after you suffer two losses in a back-to-back bid to secure a coveted Oval Office seat? If you are a tried-and-true Democrat with a tried and true far-left following, you’re going to Hollywood!

Magically floating into your hands is that golden ticket to the place where wads of cash, advertisement endorsements, and tons of adulation await you from your like-minded friends who populate the hillside mansions of Tinseltown.

Secure enough in their apparent belief that Hollywood studios are going to roll out the red carpet, Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea have put together a production company, the purpose of which is to create film and television projects.

True to what the Clintons are famous for, particularly when it comes to their Hollywood connections, Hillary and Chelsea are reportedly on a quest for money for their entertainment vehicle. Seemingly not content with having been first lady of Arkansas, New York senator, first lady of the nation, secretary of state, presidential candidate two-times-over, and best-selling author, Hillary, along with her daughter in tag, wants to “influence culture and society” via entertainment; this according to Bloomberg.

“Hillary is still very popular out here and there’s been conversations with several studios and streamers about working on projects together,” a top-tier executive told Deadline.

Reports indicate that the Clintons will focus on, not surprisingly, women. The projects will purportedly be made by women and for women, and additionally will be about women, according to Bloomberg.

Studio executives have already been contacted about financing content for the Clinton upstart company, and there’s one thing that the Clintons and Hollywood certainly have in common. That would be something affectionately known as creative accounting.

Now you may be asking yourself, What qualifications and expertise do Hillary and her daughter actually bring to the film and television production table?

Well, in 2011 Chelsea was able to obtain a position as a special correspondent for the NBC News show “Making A Difference,” which earned her an annual salary of $600,000, despite the fact that she didn’t have any credible prior reporting experience. During her three-year stint at NBC, though, she was able to provide some no doubt riveting reporting about The Clinton Foundation, and a hard-hitting interview with the Geico Gecko.

And in 2018 Hillary herself was hired to be the executive producer of Steven Spielberg’s “The Women’s Hour,” which is a TV drama that deals with women securing the right to vote. Adapted from the book titled “The Woman’s Hour: The Great Fight to Win the Vote,” the plot deals with the women’s suffrage movement and the battle over the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

Would Hollywood let political cronyism affect its choice of business partner? Perish the thought.

It could be that Hillary was haunted by that green-eyed monster when former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle created a production company called “Higher Ground Productions,” which reportedly made a lucrative deal with Netflix. From the Clintons’ perspective, if their Hollywood friends are handing creative power and cash over to the Obamas, there must be some that could be slipped their way.

The type of content that the Clintons will supposedly be creating may be similar to the content the Obamas have in their initial slate of Netflix projects that are currently in production, which include the following:

-a children’s show for preschoolers called “Listen to Your Vegetables & Eat Your Parents”;

-a narrative film adaptation of the biography of Frederick Douglass;

-a series from the creator of “Nashville,” which is set in New York and depicts barriers faced by women and individuals of color;

-a New York Times series “Overlooked,” which focuses on obituaries of notable figures from history who were previously ignored by the press, i.e., women and minorities.

One more project the Obamas have in the making, which is so unsurprising it’s flat-out boring, is an adaptation of an anti-Trump book by Michael Lewis, titled “The Fifth Risk.” The former president and first lady’s company will additionally partner with another tech-entertainment company, Spotify, to develop podcasts presumably with more “woke” themes.

Meanwhile Hillary may have finally found the hobby that she had been looking for: Shaking down Hollywood execs in order to finance female-centric projects. Because Hollywood decision makers abandoned business principles a long time ago, she is likely to be able to obtain financing for some agenda-laden products that few, if any, will want to see.

As an added benefit from all of this, we are able to get a sneak preview of what Joe Biden will be able to do with himself after he loses.

Woke Disney is Risky Business

New York Stock Exchange Disney CEO Iger, USA - 27 Nov 2017

Entertainment behemoth Walt Disney Company, which as a business startup had a focus on child-oriented product, now has a CEO who has taken an anti-child stance on a significant societal issue.

In a Reuters interview that took place prior to the dedication of Disneyland’s newest land, “Star Wars Galaxy’s Edge,” Disney head Bob Iger was asked whether or not the company would continue to use the state of Georgia as a location for the filming of its projects.

The reason the question was posed to Iger is because Georgia recently passed a state law that bans abortion procedures after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (approximately six weeks of gestation). Iger was letting the world know which side Disney is on in the culture war that continues to surround abortion.

The CEO stated that it would be “very difficult” for Disney to continue to engage in its on-location production activities in Georgia if the new law were to take effect.

Georgia is a preferred locale for many of Hollywood’s film and television projects, due to a 20 percent base transferable tax credit. The Peach State brought in $2.7 billion in revenue from such projects in 2018.

“Well, I think if it becomes law, it’ll be very difficult to produce there,” Iger told Reuters. “I rather doubt we will. I think many people who work for us will not want to work there and we’ll have to heed their wishes in that regard.”

Iger continued, “I think it’s also likely to be challenged in the courts and that could delay it. …But if it becomes law, I don’t see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there.”

A sizable amount of The Mouse House’s production has been based in Georgia locales, including that of its blockbusters “Black Panther” and “Avengers: Endgame.”

A number of aptly termed “heartbeat bills” have already been passed, and/or are in the process of moving forward in states that include Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio, using legitimate legislative processes that express the will of the people and allow citizens to exercise their right of self-governance in each respective state.

By choosing to weigh in on one of society’s most controversial concerns, Iger may have inflicted harm on his company’s well-honed brand by slighting a significant segment of Disney’s customer base.

The company recently acquired 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets and is planning to launch its new Disney+ streaming service this year, which will reportedly be loaded with family friendly content. Disney also plans to capitalize on its collection of beloved characters from its “Star Wars,” Marvel, and Pixar catalogs.

Interestingly, at the same time Disney’s CEO is talking about pulling out of Georgia, the company he heads is operating a theme park and distributing movies in China, a country that is known for banning parts of the web, depriving people of their liberties, and engaging in human rights abuses.

Disney recently filmed a live-action adaptation of its 1998 animated film “Mulan” in China. Marvel, a Disney subsidiary, has actually been criticized for caving to censors in China by changing a character’s ethnicity from Tibetan to Celtic.

Iger recently discussed with the Saudi crown prince the prospect of having an amusement park in Saudi Arabia, a place where women are forced to endure second class status.

The comments of Iger followed those of Netflix’s chief content officer Ted Sarandos, who not only said that Netflix’s production would be exiting Georgia, but also indicated that the streaming company would support legal efforts to overturn the democratically passed heartbeat law.

Netflix filmed its hit series “Stranger Things” in Georgia as well as the upcoming sci-fi show “Raising Dion.”

Sarandos told Variety, “We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law… Should it ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.”

However, Netflix does not seem particularly concerned with women’s rights, or even human rights for that matter. The company pulled an episode of “Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj,” which criticized Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This was purportedly done so that it would be unable to be viewed by Saudis following a “take down request” from the Saudi Arabian government. Netflix additionally shot “Marco Polo” in Malaysia, a place in which Sharia law is imposed.

Shortly after Disney and Netflix weighed in on Georgia, other Hollywood companies saw fit to jump on the virtue-signaling bandwagon as well, including WarnerMedia, NBCUniversal, AMC, CBS, Viacom, and Sony, indicating that each may also withdraw from using Georgia production sites.

The Georgia law also prompted a group of Hollywood celebrities to speak out, which included Kristen Wiig, Jason Bateman, and Alyssa Milano. Directors J.J. Abrams, Jordan Peele, and Ron Howard for the moment are filming there but have plans to donate money to the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposing Georgia’s duly passed legislation.

Not all left-wingers are united on ways in which to handle the Georgia law, though. Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is seeking to avoid a boycott over concerns that the citizens of Georgia could be hurt. And more than 3,300 women have signed a “We Work Here” Change.org petition, initiated by The Women of Film in Georgia, expressing opposition to any boycott of the state.

Kanye West Stands Up for Trump’s Supporters

glc-claims-kanye-west-is-never-wearing-maga-hats-again

When it comes to Kanye West, Democrats have a lot to fear.

Bucking the trend in the entertainment industry, Kanye has shown support for President Donald Trump on a number of occasions, including one in which he made a visit to Trump Tower shortly after President Trump’s 2016 election victory.

The popular rapper, who also happens to be the husband of Kim Kardashian, appeared last year on “Saturday Night Live” and gave a speech to the audience immediately after the broadcast. Donning a trademark “Make America Great Again” red hat, he expressed his fondness for President Trump.

“They’re laughing at me. You heard them? They screamed at me. They bully me. They bullied me backstage. They said ‘Don’t go out there with that hat on,’” Kanye told the SNL audience immediately after the broadcast.

He additionally joined former NFL star Jim Brown on a visit to the Oval Office. Surrounded by the press, Kanye once again wore a red MAGA hat, and much to the chagrin of the media and the Democratic Party he gave the president a hug, which at supersonic speed trended around the globe.

When Kanye speaks, the ears of the Democratic Party perk up. African-American voters make up approximately 20 percent of the Party’s electorate, according to the 2016 primary exit polls and Pew Research Center data from 2018. Consequently, any possibility that there could be the slightest reduction in African-American support causes Dems to grow weak in the knees.

Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media breathed a collective sigh of relief, when Kanye made a late autumn announcement via Twitter back in 2018 that he was “distancing” himself from politics. However, at the start of 2019, he was back on the Trump train again. He tweeted, “Trump all day” and conveyed this message to his followers: “Just so in 2019 you know where I stand.”

Kanye also posted language that directly undermines the African-American voter turnout, which Democrat candidates need to secure their wins.

“They will not program me. Blacks are 90% Democrats. That sounds like control to me,” Kanye wrote, adding, “One of my favorite of many things about what the Trump hat represents to me is that people can’t tell me what to do because I’m black.”

Most recently, the pop icon made an appearance on David Letterman’s Netflix streamer, titled “My Next Guest Needs No Introduction,” as the first interview of the show’s second season (yet to be streamed).

According to the Daily Beast, Letterman seemed genuinely nervous about his interview with Kanye. After all, Letterman has been a constant critic of President Trump. But the rapper proceeded to shock the left-wing former late-night host by unequivocally confirming his support for President Trump, while defending the president’s supporters.

During a portion of the interview that focused on the #MeToo movement, Kanye dove right in and brought up the president’s name.

“This is like my thing with Trump,” Kanye said. “We don’t have to feel the same way, but we have the right to feel what we feel.”

When Letterman suggested that support for President Trump is potentially “hurting people who are already being hurt,” Kanye used the moment to point out that those who support and vote for Trump are “treated like enemies of America…”

Kanye asked the following question of Letterman: “Have you ever been beat up in your high school for wearing the wrong hat?”

The fact of the matter is YouTube is filled with examples of people being violently assaulted simply for wearing a MAGA hat.

When the former late-night host brought up the subject of “bullying in America,” Kanye responded, “Liberals bully people who are Trump supporters!”

Letterman asked Kanye whether he voted for Trump and with refreshing honesty he answered, “I’ve never voted in my life.”

Letterman snidely cracked, “Then you don’t have a say in this,” which elicited predictable cheering from the far left-wing audience members.

On a previous occasion, Kanye publicly acknowledged that he did not vote in 2016.

To the dismay of many Democrats there are numerous examples of individuals who did not vote for the president the first time around but are now ardent Trump supporters.

The Daily Beast calls the hour-long one-on-one with Kanye “one of the best interviews Letterman has ever conducted” and “one of the most coherent and engaging interviews Kanye has ever given.”

Kanye’s wife Kim is among the audience members of the show and is shown smiling and nodding in support of her 5-year spouse.

The new season of Letterman’s show featuring Kanye begins streaming on Netflix on May 31.

The Biden Masquerade

121118-Biden-at-UDel-SS-195-768x512

Joe Biden is currently the frontrunner in an ever growing Democratic presidential primary pack.

However, the time honored maxim of history repeating itself may apply when it comes to the former vice president’s third bid for the Oval Office.

Biden’s campaign speechwriters have been tasked with keeping his stump speeches as lofty and broad as possible. One of the clearest examples of this can be found in Biden’s frequently repeated campaign promise to “restore the soul of this country.”

In his rhetoric, he carefully avoids making mention of any specific policy position. Instead he mouths hack political phrases, conveying ideas regarding a supposed return to “unity” and “bipartisanship.” Lost in his words is any semblance of truth about the administration in which he played a major role, an administration that, among other things, left a legacy of having severely polarized the nation along race, class, and cultural lines.

Biden’s latest campaign has come up with a fictional crisis, one of a “soulless” nation that is in need of fixing. His campaign is doing everything it can to avoid the simple fact that the Biden candidacy carries with it an enormous amount of baggage. The former senator and vice president happens to be the embodiment of establishment politics. In addition, he is an apologist for a massive federal bureaucracy.

The third-time presidential hopeful has been in the political business for an astounding fifty years. He apparently believes that he is just the guy who will be able fix things, even things that over the last half century he helped to break in the first place.

Not only does Biden represent to the Democrat electorate the old ways of doing things, his age is a relevant issue. If he were to be elected, he would be kicking off his presidency at the seasoned age of 78. While there is a lot to be said for senior power, at some point a reality check becomes a prudent option.

The Democratic Party’s energy currently resides in its left wing, and many of its activist members are feeling tepid about Biden’s entry into the race, due to his long record as a politician. The titular leader of the Democrat left, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D – N.Y., has already dismissed the notion of a Biden nomination,

“This idea that we can go back to the good old days with Obama, with Obama’s vice president I think, you know, there is an emotional element to that. But I don’t want to go back. I want to go forward.”

Ocasio-Cortez and her likeminded allies do not like that Biden opposed busing to end segregated public schools, voted for the Iraq war, supported the job-killing trade agreements, supported a draconian crime bill, and displayed a prosecutorial attitude toward Anita Hill during the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Two important issues with which Biden must contend that continue to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of primary voters are as follows: 1) a pattern of inappropriate behavior toward women and girls, much of which has been captured on video recordings; 2) a penchant for making serious gaffes.

Biden has a history of failed presidential campaigns. His first one came to an end due to a plagiarism scandal. His second one ended as the result of his having finished in fifth place in the Iowa caucuses.

Still, the Dem frontrunner’s biggest problems may be the serious scandals that are swirling around him. These would typically be ignored by the mainstream media. However, because of the more than twenty Democratic opponents in the field, many of whom are well liked by the media, press coverage of the scandals is likely to ensue.

Two stories that have already been publicly exposed involve transactions with the Ukraine and China. The China scandal has received coverage in two mainstream media organizations that would not typically be revealing stories that might be harmful to a Democrat candidate.

The New York Times and Vanity Fair both reported on Biden, when he was vice president, as having conducted high-level diplomacy with Beijing days before a $1.5 billion deal was made with his son Hunter Biden’s private equity firm, secured from the state-owned Bank of China. This may explain why Biden recently brushed aside the idea that China poses a danger to the U.S.

“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…. They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east, I mean in the west,” Biden said.

During his term as vice president, Biden’s son Hunter was being investigated in the Ukraine after landing a high-paying job at a major Ukrainian energy company. Biden reportedly used taxpayer money and the power of his office to have the lead prosecutor on the case fired.

Known for speaking before thinking, Biden boasted about the misuse of power.

“We’re not going to give you the billion dollars,” he said. “They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ I said, ‘Call him.’ I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting a billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You are not getting a billion. I will be leaving here,’ and I think it was, what, six hours. I looked and I said, ‘Leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b—h got fired.”

Democratic Presidential Candidates Compete for Hollywood Cash

26-pete-buttigieg-joe-biden.w700.h467-696x464

When it comes to campaign financing of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hollywood’s ATM is open for business.

One after another, Dem candidates have been heading west to make their withdrawals. While there, they typically try to grab a bit of stardust wherever it can be found.

Former veep Joe Biden, mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg, senator from California Kamala Harris, and senator from New Jersey Cory Booker have either already held Left Coast fundraisers or are in the process of scheduling them.

Harris has shaken the Tinseltown money tree a couple of times so far. She will be returning to the Golden State on May 19 for a campaign event in LA’s Hancock Park, hosted by Gotham Group’s Ellen Goldsmith-Vein.

In the first quarter of the year, Harris was able to garner a greater amount of cash from individuals and entities in the entertainment biz than her fellow contenders. But that was before Biden entered the race. She now plans to hold a number of events in late May, including one co-hosted by media investor and producer Peter Chernin.

Booker has plans for a two-day LA tour starting on May 29, complete with several events hosted by prominent entertainment industry figures.

Hollywood has always been a tried-and-true money source for Democrat Party politicians. The Party and its candidates are well aware that when then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sought cash for her campaign during the previous election cycle, contributors such as Haim Saban, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg donated mega-bucks to Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super-PAC that was allowed to collect unlimited contributions.

Entertainment sources contributed $22 million to Hillary, and to the super-PACs aligned with her, through mid-October 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By comparison, the same group of Hollywood donors gave less than $290,000 to then-candidate Donald Trump.

Biden and Buttigieg were the most recent candidates to seek financing from entertainment industry sources for their respective campaigns.

Back in 2007 Biden had a difficult time, though, competing with the then-presumed frontrunner Hillary and new face in town at the time Barack Obama. Currently, however, Biden’s chief advantage is the name recognition he has acquired, having been around in politics for the past fifty years.

As writer-director Adam McKay recently tweeted, “Free slogan for Joe Biden’s campaign: ‘You’ve heard my name before.’”

During his first Tinseltown trip of the 2020 campaign cycle, Biden’s notoriety paid off in a big way. Hollywood gave him a massive take in the form of a fundraiser at the home of ex-HBO executive and former ambassador to Spain James Costos along with his partner and ex-White House interior designer Michael Smith. The event brought in more than $700,000. The host committee included Katzenberg, Chernin, actor Rob Reiner, and CBS Films President Terry Press.

The former veep appears to be staying away from specific issues and is instead focusing on a liberal pie-in-the-sky cliché that he will somehow bring unity to the nation should he be elected.

“I promise you if we elect a Democrat this time — I predict to you whether it’s me or someone else, but I guarantee you if it’s me — what’s gonna happen is, we’re going to see this country come together like it hasn’t in a long time,” Biden said.

While on the Left Coast, he attended a lunchtime campaign meeting as well as a late afternoon public event with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Although Buttigieg is not as well known as Biden, Hollywood, the home of professional story tellers, is enamored with the saga of Mayor Pete’s unlikely contender status. Biden’s entourage may be concerned that Buttigieg could run the table like Obama did in 2007.

Even the most imaginative screenwriters have been intrigued with the idea of a military veteran who describes himself as a Christian, is openly gay, a Rhodes scholar, and mayor of a small city in Indiana, who has unexpectedly become a top-tier candidate, according to the polls in early primary states.

The Hollywood elites have already opened their establishments and homes to hold events to introduce Buttigieg to the entertainment community and to additionally raise campaign dollars. Buttigieg has notched television appearances on the shows of Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Maher.

At the same time Biden was in town, the South Bend mayor chalked up a slew of Hollywood events, including a breakfast organized by producer Jordan Horowitz, a public event with Garcetti at SEIU Local 99 to support a ballot measure to raise the parcel tax, a gathering with Gina Gershon, Christopher Guest, and Laurie David, a lunch in Brentwood, an event at The Abbey in West Hollywood, and a cash-seeking get-together at Gwyneth Paltrow’s home, where he answered questions from more than 100 attendees, including actors Bradley Whitford, Amy Landecker, and Martin Sheen, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, director Rob Reiner, Costos, and Smith.

Buttigieg is planning a momentum-seeking return trip to the Left Coast in June to raise money and connect with Hollywood power players, including a fundraiser at the home of producer Ryan Murphy and husband David Miller.

Expect the mayor to leave with piles of cold campaign cash with a lot more to follow.

Democrats Launch Preemptive Strike on Barr

william-barr-1

The Democratic Party and its willing allies in the mainstream media have a new target in their political sights: Attorney General William Barr.

Attorney General Barr is the latest recipient of the poisonous politics in which Democrats of the extreme partisan kind are engaging. Interestingly, what appears to be lurking in the shadows of the political drama is a kind of raw fear on the part of Democrats.

A tactic from the military handbook, known as the “preemptive strike,” involves attacking one’s enemy before the enemy has had a chance to attack first. In this manner, the opposing side’s capabilities are inhibited or eliminated.

Democrats are going on the attack against Attorney General Barr with the goal of destroying the man’s reputation. They are doing so in order to interfere with the efforts of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in unearthing potentially damaging facts relating to the government’s investigation of President Trump.

Senate Democrats know, although some feign otherwise, that the attorney general is a fair-minded and competent legal professional.

The new head of the DOJ has plainly stated that with the Mueller investigation having been completed, he intends to delve into issues that may impact the image and reputation of various public officials, including some in the previous administration. This may prove to be potentially problematic, especially for Democrat candidates who are running in upcoming elections.

Attorney General Barr has let the Senate Judiciary Committee know that he is looking into the origins of the investigation into Trump and any possible criminal leaks to the media by FBI and/or DOJ officials. Additionally, the question of whether the Christopher Steele dossier was a form of Russian disinformation will be examined.

The Steele dossier was reportedly the basis for applications submitted in order to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue warrants against a Trump associate, Carter Page.

Steele was hired to create the dossier by an entity called Fusion GPS, which is an opposition research firm that was paid in part by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, using the Perkins Coie law firm as a cutout.

The attorney general has already started probing the manner in which the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and administration was conducted. He has indicated a desire to determine the facts surrounding the alleged spying on Donald Trump before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election. He has also indicated that he will look into the numerous leaks to the press that occurred, and the origin of the Steele dossier and its use in the FISA courts.

Fear may have set into certain Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when the attorney general informed them that he was working closely with Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice Michael Horowitz to investigate the investigators who initiated and conducted the investigation at the DOJ and FBI into so-called Trump-Russia collusion.

For more than a year Inspector General Horowitz has been looking into the process by which FISA court surveillance warrants were obtained to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. Horowitz commenced the FISA abuse probe after having received requests from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and members of Congress.

Attorney General Barr said, “I talked to Mike Horowitz a few weeks ago about it. It’s focused on the FISA, basis for the FISA and handling of the FISA applications. But by necessity, it looks back a little earlier than that. The people helping me with my review will be working very closely with Mr. Horowitz.”

According to Attorney General Barr, Horowitz’s report could be released at the end of June 2019, and any criminal referrals produced will be placed into the hands of the attorney general.

Democrats are no doubt aware that if the immense investigative and intelligence powers possessed by the federal government were used on American citizens without a proper predicate, the communication thereof to the public will significantly jeopardize their party’s ability to win elections and maintain power.

United States Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber has reportedly been tasked with looking into the way in which the FBI handled allegations of Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of U.S. uranium rights to an entity known as Uranium One. He has also been charged with the responsibility of examining the way in which FISA warrants were obtained to surveil Carter Page. According to various media reports, Huber is close to submitting his findings.

Democrats realize that Huber will be reporting his findings to Attorney General Barr.

The attorney general may have caused certain Senate Democrats to experience further anxiety when he told them that more wrongdoing than previously reported may have taken place by those who were conducting a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump and other individuals connected with him.

“Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I would like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort to stop the threat as it is being represented,” Attorney General Barr said.

The attorney general also indicated that he is working closely with the FBI to go where Democrats never thought he would.

With some of the spying details about to be revealed, the Democrat strategy is to preemptively undermine the credibility of the head of the DOJ, Attorney General Barr.

To this end, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was particularly outrageous in her rhetoric during Attorney General Barr’s testimony before Congress, saying, “Mr. Barr, now the American people know that you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway or any of the other people who sacrificed their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office.”

Calls for the attorney general to resign came spewing out of the mouths of Democrat presidential hopefuls, including Senators Kamala Harris, D-Calif, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Other Democrats issued demands for the attorney general’s resignation, disbarment, and/or impeachment.

When Attorney General Barr used the term “spying” in his public testimony, it sent Democrats and their mainstream media cronies into a tailspin. They subsequently showed their true colors, launching a barrage of attacks against him.

But despite their unsavory tactics, the attorney general is proving himself to be unflappable, both in his public testimony and beyond. It highly unlikely that he will be distracted by partisan politicians who in private are more than likely scared out of their wits.

Trump Weathers the Democrat Subpoena Storm

donaldtrumpmgn4

President Donald Trump is experienced in the art of litigation.

As a successful real estate entrepreneur, he was able to acquire the skills necessary to maneuver the legal playing field in the rough and tumble Manhattan marketplace.

The president has now made a strategic decision to litigate rather than comply with the attempt by Democrats to use their oversight powers to keep a discredited narrative alive.

Recently, a significant change took place in the legal approach that the Trump White House adopted.

For the past two years President Trump’s administration fully cooperated with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. More than a million documents were produced, officials were allowed to freely testify, and executive privilege was not exercised.

However, following the release of the Mueller report, the administration has decided to take a different legal approach with respect to what appears to be an unnecessary use of congressional investigative powers.

The president has recently indicated his opposition to having White House personnel submit to the subpoenas peppering Pennsylvania Avenue from overzealous congressional Democrats.

By challenging the Democrats’ efforts to perpetually investigate rather than fulfilling their congressional duties, President Trump increases the likelihood of the Democratically controlled House to be perceived as a “do-nothing” chamber.

White House attorneys are objecting to Democrat subpoenas, which probably means that protracted legal battles will ensue.

The Trump Organization has filed a lawsuit against House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., seeking to block a subpoena for the president’s years-old financial records.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin allowed a deadline to pass, which was given by the Democrat House to turn over the president’s tax returns.

The White House instructed its former personnel security director Carl Kline not to testify before Congress about the process by which the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner obtained their security clearances. The House has since held Kline in contempt.

Personal counsel of the president Rudy Giuliani pointed out to Politico that the president’s position on the House subpoenas is justified, when considering the partisan political motives of congressional Democrats.

“I think it’s exactly the right legal strategy, Giuliani said. “I doubt there’s anybody in America that thinks this has some legitimate governmental purpose.”

“This is like a judge saying I’m going to hang you, but I’ll give you a trial first,” Giuliani added.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., fully supports the president’s policy of not complying with what Graham rightly referred to as “a complete partisan thing now.”

With the Muller investigation wrapped up, the Russia-collusion narrative debunked, and an obstruction of justice charge eliminated, Graham accurately compared Democrats to filmmaker Oliver Stone attempting to come up with a plot line for a film dealing the Kennedy assassination.

“I think Congress is going crazy here,” Graham told The Associated Press.

One of the things that has been driving many of the Democrats in Congress insane is the prospect of bringing in former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify. Because the Trump administration has indicated that it may use executive privilege to prevent Congress from subpoenaing McGahn, the media have been invoking the specter of former President Richard Nixon in an attempt to portray the invocation of the constitutional privilege as an illicit act.

The president is legally empowered to resist subpoenas originating from the legislative branch that are designed to obtain information or testimony relating to the executive function. The Supreme Court has viewed this presidential privilege as a part of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the president’s ability to carry out the duties held by the commander in chief under the Constitution.

The privilege to prevent staffers from testifying and/or withhold documents arises because of the unique need to protect the confidentiality of the advice that assists presidential judgments.

Despite the stilted coverage of most of the media, prior presidents have engaged in similar battles. Former President George W. Bush clashed with Congress after his administration attempted to block testimony from top aides over the firing of several federal prosecutors.

Former President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege to withhold documents related to the gun-trafficking scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in the House holding then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon held that when executive privilege is at issue, “…coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course.” The judicial branch is therefore forced to deal with “the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives.” Such a proceeding “pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances.” The court concluded that “constitutional confrontation between the two branches are likely to be avoided whenever possible.”

Consequently, when dealing with confrontations between the executive and legislative branches, the courts have avoided direct intervention.

In such legal proceedings, the wheels of justice move even more slowly than usual and are likely to slog through the court system eventually making their way up to the High Court.

The bottom-line result will be that the president’s legal battles with Congress are likely to last beyond the 2020 presidential election, thus denying the investigation-obsessed Democrats both their narrative and their pound of flesh.