Say What is the segment of Liberty Nation Radio where we unveil some of the most wacky, astonishing and damnable things uttered by politicians and the chattering class. Here is the latest episode:
Tim Donner: Just about two weeks from now, the 116th Congress will convene for the first time, and Democrats set to take control of the House appear intent on launching a wave of investigations of Donald Trump, his presidency, campaign, personal and corporate finances, and anything else they can think of.
After former Trump fixer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for what the judge called “a veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct”– breaking campaign finance laws, tax evasion, lying to Congress — Democrats were no longer shouting from the rooftops about collusion or obstruction of justice. They moved on to campaign finance violations. And Jerry Nadler, incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, minced no words on CNN about his take and his plans.
…latest justification for taking down Trump is hush money paid to a couple of … paid women.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): Well, I think what these indictments and filings show is that the president was at the center of a massive fraud, several massive frauds against the American people, and it’s now our job, the job of the Justice Department, the special counsel, and the Congress to get to the bottom of this, to find out exactly what was going on, to find out the extent of the president’s involvement. And to find out basically what did the president know and when did he know it.
Tim: Uh-huh. So the Democrats invoke the famous words first uttered in the Richard Nixon impeachment hearings: “What did the president know and when did he know it.” And the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, went on CBS to make a spectacular prediction.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.
Tim: So the Democrats’ latest justification for taking down Trump is hush money paid to a couple of … paid women. Hey, whatever it takes. Collusion didn’t work because there wasn’t any. Obstruction of justice didn’t work because the president has every right to fire the FBI director. So now it’s come down to the payment of hush money they are trying to depict as a felony.
If that falls through, rest assured the Democrats will find yet another basis for impeachment, whatever it takes, like — how about this one — a new revelation about Russia collusion with … the National Rifle Association, the NRA. I’m serious. Here’s Joaquín Castro on MSNBC discussing what he expects to learn from some woman ready to cooperate with the feds and uncover yet another Trump scandal.Rep. Joaquín Castro
Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-TX): First, how deep and extensive the Russian connections are for the NRA. Remember there was reporting and news about the NRA possibly accepting Russian money, this will be somebody who could tell us more about that. But also about the relationship between the NRA and some people in Donald Trump’s circle, between them and Russian oligarchs.
Tim: So now it’s Russia, Trump, and the NRA. What will they think of next? And by the way, is every Russian with money or any Russian billionaire like Trump considered an oligarch? Listening to the Democrats, you would think so.
And, of course, the elite media are, as usual, doing their best to amplify and magnify the charges made by convicted liar, Michael Cohen. Just listen to the questions asked by little Chuck Todd of NBC to Sen. Angus King (I-ME).
Chuck Todd: You have the Justice Department, if you will, in the southern district of New York, pretty explicitly implicating the president in a crime .… Do you believe there’s already enough to start an impeachment inquiry? In fact, is Congress almost obligated to open an inquiry at this point? … The one means to dealing when a president commits crimes is through the impeachment process. If you don’t go through it, isn’t this Congress’s way of saying, “Well, yes, he committed some crimes, but politically it’s uncomfortable, so, you know, if you’re popular enough or if you have a big enough base, you can get away with committing crimes?
Tim: So there you witness a prominent member of the legacy media goading the Democrats to start impeachment proceedings. Todd there used the word crimes to refer to Trump four times in that 37-second sound bite. Impeachment three times. Their bias is … so obvious.
Meanwhile, Trump’s wall remains the other big topic of conversation, as the House and Senate wrangled over funding for the border wall before Democrats take control of the House in a couple of weeks. Trump decided to allow the press to stay for the start of his negotiations with the likely next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer in the Oval Office. Chuck and Nancy were taken aback, and here’s one portion of their three-way argument.Nancy Pelosi
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): We come in here, the first branch of government, Article I, the legislative branch. We’re coming in in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government-
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Open.
Pelosi: The Americans-
President Trump: We’re going to keep it open if we have border security.
Pelosi: The American-
Trump: If we don’t have border security, Chuck-
Pelosi: I’m with you-
Trump: -we’re not going to keep it open.
Pelosi: I’m with you. We are hoping to have border security.
Schumer: And it’s the same border, you’re bragging about what has been done.
Trump: By us.
Schumer: We want to do the same thing we did last year this year. That’s our proposal. If it’s good then, it’s good now, and it won’t shut down the government.
Trump: Chuck, we can build much bigger section with more money.
Schumer: Let’s debate in private.
Pelosi: We have taken this conversation to a place that is devoid, frankly, of fact, and we can dispel that.
Trump: We need border security, and I think we all agree that we need border security. Is that right?
Schumer: Yes. We do. We do.
Trump: Good. See? We get along. Thank you, everybody.
Tim: Chuck and Nancy obviously were not pleased the cameras were allowed to roll and see all of that, but building the wall remains a huge priority for the president. And Stephen Miller, senior adviser to Trump, put it this way on Fox News.
Stephen Miller: The Democrats are fighting for illegal aliens. Donald Trump is fighting for American citizens. This is about sovereignty, it’s about working men and women, it’s about safe communities, it’s about wages, living conditions, quality of life. This is the battle right now, right before our very eyes. We are going to win because Donald Trump is not backing down.
Tim: And Sen. Lindsey Graham says the issue isn’t about the wall, per se, it’s all about Trump.Lindsey Graham
Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Here’s what’s so hypocritical. In February of this year, 44 Democrats, including Schumer, voted for a bill that had $25 billion for a wall. In 2013, Schumer helped create a bill that I was part of, that had eight billion dollars for a wall, $42 billion for securing the border in other ways. So, they’re just, they want Trump to lose more than they want the country to win. They voted for large amounts of money to secure the border before; they just don’t want to do it for Trump.
Tim: Wow, it’s really about that simple.
We close with the most outrageous and actually scary quote of the week. While we know leftists have been trying to chip away at free speech, they haven’t exactly admitted it, until this week, when Ted Lieu of Hawaii went on CNN to discuss the congressional hearing with the CEO of Google and put into words what so many on the left have apparently been thinking.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-HI): I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so.
Tim: Only a leftist Democrat could speak of the First Amendment as a roadblock, something that prevents him and his leftist cohorts from deciding what is and is not acceptable speech.