Democrats and the Mueller Report: Remember What They Said

Robert Mueller is done; Trump-Russia collusion is dead; but the war on the Trump presidency rages on. As many Congressional democrats and their lackeys in the left-wing media continue to pursue their foolish dream of removing President Trump from office, it’s important to remember that swing-district democrats—whose victories gave control of the U.S. House to their party—won their elections not by promising to impeach President Trump.

In other words, all those Democrat Party chairs now promising endless investigations of the President are only in the position to do so because their swing-state comrades laid off the impeachment chatter. Or, as John Lawrence of The Hill put it the day after the Mueller report summary was released,

Democrats did not win the majority on a promise to relentlessly pursue Trump; they won because candidates for Republican seats persuaded voters, long before the Mueller report was issued, that they could be trusted to address tough issues like health care, immigration, campaign finance reform, and integrity in government. If Democrats hope to retain those seats — and a majority — in 2020, they will have to demonstrate that the voters’ confidence was not misplaced. They assuredly will not retain the hard-won majority if they are perceived as single-mindedly heading down the impeachment, or even the Mueller-Barr, rabbit hole.

Again, not only did swing-district democrats avoid or down-play talk of impeachment, they also frequently spoke of waiting on the Mueller report—as well as relying upon Mueller’s report—before deciding on whether impeachment of President Trump was indeed called for. Let us review their own words.

In September of 2018, The Washington Free Beacon reported,

Gil Cisneros (CA-39) and Katie Porter (CA-45), have generally said they support the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, and that decisions on impeachment should wait for a conclusion and report by Mueller and his team.

Lucy McBath (GA-6) said she “would not call for impeaching Trump unless there was a bad report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Russian influence on the 2016 presidential campaigns.” Reporting on Haley Stevens (MI-11) just three weeks prior to the 2018 midterms, The Detroit News declared,

Stevens takes a wait-and-see approach on possible impeachment hearings for Trump, saying that conversation depends on the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry. “We need to see the Mueller investigation through,” Stevens said. “I believe we need to put the country first and certainly treat anything along those lines very seriously.”

In May of 2018, the Fort-Worth Star Telegram asked 22 Texas democrats running for U.S. Congress whether they would vote to impeach President Trump. Two democrats—Lizzie Pannill Fletcher and Colin Allred—flipped seats in Texas. When asked about impeachment, Ms. Fletcher declared, “Congress must ensure that [Mueller’s] investigation is completed, and that if President Trump has committed impeachable offenses must be prepared to bring the charge.” Allred added, “We need to make sure the Mueller probe is protected and that it’s able to reach its conclusion.”

Reporting on Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) last year ABC News noted,

Wexton was also cautious when discussing Trump and possible impeachment. A former prosecutor, she said she wants special counsel Robert Mueller to continue his work and that “we need to follow the facts and we can’t rush to judgment.”

Just days from the 2018 election, New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill joined her New Jersey swing-district colleagues in calling for restraint on impeachment. She declared, “Congress should support Special Counsel Robert Muller’s investigation and allow him to finish his work.”

And so on. (I chronicle 2018 swing-district democrats on Trump, Mueller, and impeachment here.) Democrats flipped dozens of GOP-held seats because they painted themselves as rational, non-hyper-partisan candidates who would follow the facts—especially on impeachment. Now that Mueller’s report has further revealed the Trump-Russia-collusion farce for what it really was, these democrats must be held accountable to their words.

Furthermore, ever since the Mueller investigation began, there was a bi-partisan chorus of politicians telling us that the Mueller investigation should be “protected” and that Mueller must be “allowed to complete his work.” Of course, to a great extent this was because so many liberals and never-Trumpers were convinced that the end of the Mueller investigation would spell the end of the Trump administration.

Whether or not they felt that the Muller investigation would be the ultimate undoing of President Trump, many democrats put all of their impeachment eggs in the Mueller investigation basket. Leon Panetta—defense secretary and CIA director under Barack Obama and chief of staff to Bill Clinton—summed up this position well. Two months prior to the 2018 midterms, ABC News reported Panetta saying,

“I think the most important thing that the Democrats could do is to allow Bob Mueller to complete his work.” Panetta continued, “I think Bob Mueller’s work will ultimately determine whether or not there are going to be additional steps taken against the president and they ought not to get ahead of that report because that will be the key to determining what happens.”

Now that the collusion narrative has finally officially collapsed, impeachment-obsessed democrats must look elsewhere to satisfy their anti-Trump hate. Of course, as they chase this political unicorn, they only reinforce the notion that the Mueller investigation was never really about Russian collusion at all, but rather just a convenient means of undoing the results of the 2016 presidential election. In other words—as the actions of congressional democrats prove—it seems that the Mueller investigation was little more than a “witch-hunt” all along. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Remember: Democrats Didn’t Take the House by Promising Impeachment

It seems Speaker Pelosi and her party are no longer on the same page. Mrs. Pelosi’s recent revelation that she’s “not for impeachment” directly contradicts the political priorities of many—if not most—on the American left. Recent actions by House Democrats make this clear. By most indications, number one on the liberal agenda is not national security, the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, abortion rights, or even the climate. The highest priority for many congressional democrats and their base is the impeachment of President Trump. As Byron York noted last week,

[Rep. Jerrold] Nadler’s talk with ABC was the clearest indication yet that Democrats have decided to impeach Trump and are now simply doing the legwork involved in making that happen. And that means the debate among House Democrats will be a tactical one — what is the best time and way to go forward — rather than a more fundamental discussion of whether the president should be impeached. 

On Monday morning Nadler released a list of 81 names of Trump associates from whom the Judiciary Committee is requesting documents in what Nadler called “the first steps of an investigation into the alleged corruption, obstruction, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates and members of his administration.” 

Other House Democrats are sending similar messages.

Of course, Nadler and his impeachment allies are only in this position because democrats wrested control of the U.S. House from republicans last November. With one seat in North Carolina still pending, in the 2018 midterms, the democrats had a net gain of 40 seats, giving them a total of 235 in the U.S. House. According to Ballotpedia’s election accounting, there were 82 so-called “battleground” U.S. House districts in the 2018 midterms. Of these 82 districts, 46 of them changed party hands. The democrats flipped 43 House districts while the GOP flipped only three.

To give a better picture of the partisan swing that occurred in the 2018 midterms, examine the Cook Partisan Voter Index (CPVI; a nice table is here). According to the CPVI, after the 2018 election, only one district (New York 24) rated D+3 or higher belongs to republicans. On the other hand, 22 districts rated R+3 or higher are now occupied by democrats. (Recall, the democrats needed to flip 23 seats to gain control of the U.S. House.) The democrats won nine districts that were rated R+6 or higher. In other words, democrats won more than a few seats in solidly republican districts.

In case you’ve forgotten—Mrs. Pelosi seems not to have—democrats gained control of the U.S. House not by promising, pledging, or even hoping to impeach President Trump. They could not have flipped as many GOP-leaning districts as they did with such a message. On the contrary, as memory serves, and as a few dozen internet searches would reveal, democrats gained control of the U.S. House by talking down impeachment, dismissing impeachment, or ignoring it altogether.

According to my research, of the 43 seats they flipped, only one victorious democrat—California’s Harley Rouda—made impeachment a priority of his winning campaign. Other than Rouda, even just days from the 2018 election, as the prospects of democrats retaking the House grew, I couldn’t find another democrat in those 43 races who was openly talking about impeachment. In fact, among such candidates, virtually without exception, impeachment was only discussed when the media brought it up.

The battleground districts won the easiest prove this the best. For example, Democrat Susan Wild won Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district (rated “D+1” by CPVI) by 10%. According to The Washington Post, in late August in a piece that notes how democrats “are avoiding the word” (impeachment), Wild declared, “I don’t want to see a two-year distraction.” She added, “I think, honestly, impeachment proceedings would obviously derail getting other things done in Congress.”

In the same piece, The Post notes that a day after Michael Cohen surrendered to the FBI and plead guilty to eight criminal charges, Wild “did not issue so much as a tweet” to mark the event—“joining other Democrats in swing districts with her silence.”

Jeff Van Drew (D) won New Jersey’s 2nd district (Rated R+1) by 7.7%. In late August of 2018, Van Drew spoke of working with President Trump. In an interview he declared,

[I]f Donald Trump is right about an issue that is going to affect my people in my district or in my state or in the United States of America, I will say he’s right… 

If Donald Trump was — or any president — was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and all a number of serious issues, then you have to look at that. But, I’m certainly not going there in my mind thinking, “Gee, I want to impeach Donald Trump. That’s what my job is.” It is not.

California’s 25th and 49th districts (rated “Even” and R+1 respectively) were won by Katie Hill (D) and Mike Levin (D) by 8.8% and 12.8%. As the Washington Free Beacon reported in early September of 2018,

California billionaire and political activist Tom Steyer has scheduled an October fundraiser for 9 Democratic challengers for seats in the U.S. House, most of whom have been silent on Steyer's pet issue of impeachment.

…Records searches for five of the nine candidates turned up no comment or position offered on the idea of impeaching President Trump, …Those candidates and their corresponding house district are Jessica Morse (CA-04), Josh Harder (CA-10), T.J. Cox (CA-21), Katie Hill (CA-25), and Mike Levin (CA-49).

In early October of 2018, in a debate Levin declared, “I do not seek impeachment.” Just a week out from the election, Katie Hill believed “Talk of impeaching President Donald Trump is a waste of time until Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is completed.”

“Let’s wait on Robert Mueller” was a common theme from battleground democrats. Jason Crow (D) beat five-term republican Mike Coffman in Colorado’s 6th district (rated D+2) by 11.2%. Just over a month prior to the 2018 election, The Colorado Sun reported,

Crow isn’t fully embracing calls from some in his party to seek Trump’s impeachment — at least not yet. He says he wants to see what Special Counsel Robert Mueller digs up in his investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

Just days from the 2018 election, New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill—who won NJ-7 (rated R+3) by 14.7%—joined her New Jersey battleground colleagues in calling for restraint on impeachment. She declared, “Congress should support Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation and allow him to finish his work.”

There are dozens of similar examples. I chronicle all of the flipped seats here, including democrats in what were deemed hotly contested U.S. House races, and their campaign position on impeaching President Trump. What’s more, even democratic leadership—including Mrs. Pelosi—were not fond of talking about impeachment while they were trying to take back the U.S. House and Senate.

With the Mueller investigation looking more and more like a dud and the Russia-Trump collusion farce being exposed for what it really is, many democrats now want to target President Trump’s finances as a means of impeachment. “Impeachment is the only answer,” says Maxine Waters—right, because nothing else has worked so far.

If collusion has truly collapsed, to pivot to Trump’s finances as an attempt to remove him from office only makes democrats appear as if their mouths remain filled with sour grapes over the 2016 election. A seasoned politician such as Mrs. Pelosi knows this all too well. Thus, avoiding impeachment is not a matter of President Trump not being “worth it.” It’s simply a matter of election math and politics. Speaker Pelosi may need to conduct some tutorials.

(See this piece at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Battleground House Democrats and Impeachment

The table below (looks better using Chrome and Safari--working on fixing that) shows the 43 House districts flipped by Democrats in the 2018 midterms along with the candidate who won and their campaign position on impeaching President Trump. It should go without saying that a single quote from one or two links does not make a political position. (Some of them are virtually silent on the matter, which, of course, is telling.) However, with each of the candidates below, the links and the quotes provided are indicative of the candidates overall position on impeachment of President Trump. The table below will be updated as necessary.

(Read: Remember: Democrats Didn’t Take the House by Promising Impeachment.)

District	Dem. Winner	Impeachment Views
AZ-2	Ann Kirkpatrick
CA-10	Josh Harder	“Records searches for five of the nine candidates turned up no comment or position offered on the idea of impeaching President Trump, which is more likely if Democrats retake the majority in the House in the fall elections. Those candidates and their corresponding house district are Jessica Morse (CA-04), Josh Harder (CA-10), T.J. Cox (CA-21), Katie Hill (CA-25), and Mike Levin (CA-49). Two other candidates, Gil Cisneros (CA-39) and Katie Porter (CA-45), have generally said they support the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, and that decisions on impeachment should wait for a conclusion and report by Mueller and his team.”
CA-21	TJ Cox	(See link above)
CA-25	Katie Hill	(See link above)
CA-39	Gil Cisneros	(See link above)
CA-45	Katie Porter	(See link above)
CA-48	Harley Rouda	(Spoke directly in favor of impeachment.)
CA-49	Mike Levin	(See link above)
CO-6	Jason Crow	“Crow isn’t fully embracing calls from some in his party to seek Trump’s impeachment — at least not yet. He says he wants to see what Special Counsel Robert Mueller digs up in his investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia.”
FL-26	Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
FL-27	Donna Shalala	NYT: “You, of course, are somebody who’s recently started advocating impeachment.” Shalala: “No, I have not. I have not.”
GA-6	Lucy McBath	She “would not call for impeaching Trump unless there was a bad report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Russian influence on the 2016 presidential campaigns.”
IL-6	Sean Casten	“Impeaching doesn’t accomplish anything unless the Senate votes to remove. Do you think this will be anything other than a party-line vote?”
IL-14	Lauren Underwood	“The special counsel should be allowed the time he needs to fully investigate the interference in our elections. Efforts to impeach the president before the Mr. Mueller finishes his work are premature.”
IA-1	Abby Finkenauer	“Even when Finkenauer was asked about whether she would vote to impeach President Trump, she dodged the question, repeating three times that the question was ‘a complete hypothetical.’”
IA-3	Cindy Axne	Would you vote to impeach the President? Axne: “I don’t have an answer for that at this time.”
KS-3	Sharice Davids	“Before calling for the very serious act of impeachment, I would allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the multiple congressional committees investigating President Trump to conclude their proceedings and present definitive evidence that the standards of impeachment have indeed been crossed.”
ME-2	Jared Golden
MI-8	Elissa Slotkin
MI-11	Haley Stevens	“Stevens takes a wait-and-see approach on possible impeachment hearings for Trump, saying that conversation depends on the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry. ‘We need to see the Mueller investigation through,’ Stevens said. ‘I believe we need to put the country first and certainly treat anything along those lines very seriously.’”
MN-2	Angie Craig
MN-3	Dean Phillips	Buzzfeed Headline: “Democrats Are Not Eager To Talk About Impeaching Trump” When asked about impeaching Trump, Phillips refused to address the matter directly.
NJ-2	Jeff Van Drew	“If Donald Trump was — or any president — was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and all a number of serious issues, then you have to look at that. But, I’m certainly not going there in my mind thinking, “Gee, I want to impeach Donald Trump. That’s what my job is.” It is not.”
NJ-3	Andy Kim	“A report in The Atlantic said that while candidates like Kim have been vocal critics of the president they are hesitant to call for impeachment from outside of the Capitol. That sentiment was echoed by Democrat Tom Malinowski who is running against U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance in another tight race in the 7th District. “‘I think it's a mistake to talk about impeachment before the evidence is in,’ he told NorthJersey.com. ‘In our system, impeachment has to be seen as the patriotic, not the partisan, thing to do.’ “Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat running in the 11th district, was also hesitant to call for impeachment in a statement she released to NorthJersey.com.”
NJ-7	Tom Malinowski	(See link above)
NJ-11	Mikie Sherrill	(See link above)
NM-2	Xochitl Torres Small
NY-11	Max Rose	“In an interview with NY1's ‘Inside City Hall’ this month, Rose wouldn't say if he supported potential impeachment proceedings against Trump. Instead, Rose said he would be willing to work with the president if he worked on some of his campaign promises like infrastructure and fighting the opioid epidemic.”
NY-19	Antonio Delgado	From a report on a forum with his opponent: “Neither candidate supported the impeachment of President Donald Trump, with Delgado saying that federal investigations into the president should be completed before any calls for action.”
NY-22	Anthony Brindisi	“Despite ads to the contrary, [Brindisi] stated to The Daily Star editorial board that he would not support articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump — a sensible stance, though probably not popular with the left wing of his party.”
OK-5	Kendra Horn
PA-5	Mary Gay Scanlon
PA-6	Chrissy Houlahan
PA-7	Susan Wild	Washington Post headline includes the phrase, “Democratic Candidates Are Avoiding the Word [Impeachment].” From the article: “‘I don’t want to see a two-year distraction,’ said Susan Wild, a Democrat who is favored to win a key Republican-held House seat in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. ‘I think, honestly, impeachment proceedings would obviously derail getting other things done in Congress.’”
PA-17	Conor Lamb	“While many Democrats are baying for the impeachment of Trump, Lamb said, ‘We need the office of the presidency to succeed if we’re going to make any progress on these issues.’”
SC-1	Joe Cunningham
TX-7	Lizzie Pannill Fletcher	“Congress must ensure that [Mueller’s] investigation is completed, and that if President Trump has committed impeachable offenses must be prepared to bring the charge.”
TX-32	Colin Allred	(See link above)
UT-4	Ben McAdams
VA-2	Elaine Luria	“Virginia Politics” headline: “Hampton Roads congressmen said felony crimes by former Trump associates don’t mean impeachment is coming” From the article: Luria: “Any time there are allegations of wrong doing by people close to the president, it is troubling. But I have faith in our justice system and believe the Mueller investigation needs to continue until all the facts are presented.”
VA-7	Abigail Spanberger
VA-10	Jennifer Wexton	“‘I will certainly be a check on this president if I see him or congressional Republicans planning to advance policies that are damaging to the people of the country,’ she said. ‘But if there are areas that we can work together, I’d love to be able to work together.’ “Wexton was also cautious when discussing Trump and possible impeachment. “A former prosecutor, she said she wants special counsel Robert Mueller to continue his work and that ‘we need to follow the facts and we can’t rush to judgment.’”
WA-8	Kim Schrier

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Truth-Loving Methodists Win a Major Battle (but the War Rages On)

Rejecting the sad direction of many of the other mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S., in a historic—and what some view as a surprising—vote at their General Conference last week, faithful United Methodists—thanks in large part to African United Methodists—stood firm and rejected the perverse LGBT agenda on sex and marriage. Unlike American Methodists—more than two-thirds of American delegates and a majority of American Bishops supported the LGBT driven “One-Church Plan”—African Methodists overwhelmingly supported the Traditional Plan. Thank God for the African United Methodists!

However, though the language forbidding any official acceptance of homosexuality by the Methodist Church is strong, the vote was far from overwhelming. The vote to defeat the “One Church Plan”—the liberal (non-biblical) plan that would’ve allowed official acceptance of homosexuality to creep into the Methodist Church—was 54.6% to 45.4%. The vote in favor of the “Traditional [biblical] Plan” was 53.3% to 46.7%. In other words, it was not exactly a widespread ringing endorsement of Scripture when it comes to matters in the sexual realm.

Nevertheless, United Methodists—at least for now—staved off further infection of the liberalism that is helping to destroy other mainline U.S. denominations. Though this victory is huge and represents an emotional and relatively lengthy battle, I urge my brothers and sisters in the United Methodist church to remain faithful and vigilant. Whether via the LGBT agenda or some other wicked means, those bent on remaking Christianity into something that virtually no true believer would recognize will continue their evil efforts.

No less than Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe—general secretary of the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS; the United Methodist Church’s controversial D.C. lobby office)—hinted at such when she angrily denounced the passage of the Traditional Plan. As Juicy Ecumenism notes,

“The 2019 General Conference chose to further deepen the divide in The United Methodist Church,” excoriated Henry-Crowe. “The plan adopted by a slim majority is punitive, contrary to our Wesleyan heritage, and in clear violation of the mandate given to us in 1 Corinthians 12.”

…Her comments were delivered in a GBCS press release appearing on the agency’s web site using church letterhead. It was disseminated using church resources.

Writing that there were moments “that broke the heart of God” at General Conference, Henry-Crowe struck a defiant tone, focusing upon the agency’s “work for LGBTQIA equality”:

“We will seek justice for LGBTQIA migrants. We will seek to end conversion therapy, the dangerous and discredited idea that you can change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. We will work to ensure that no one is fired from their job or prevented from access to housing because they are LGBTQIA. We will work to end hate crimes against LGBTQIA people, especially LGBTQIA people of color. We will seek a climate in which LGBTQIA children are protected and enabled to live full and flourishing lives.” 

In other words, in clear contradiction to a wide array of Scripture, Ms. Henry-Crowe and her ilk (sadly, there are many others within the church who share her views) will continue their war on the truth. Tragically, their efforts will continue to involve attacking Christian institutions, and, if they are not directly involved in, then at least enabling similar attacks upon Christian individuals. Of course, this should be unsurprising given that the website of the “Christian” organization Ms. Henry-Crowe leads declares that “What We Care About” is “civil and human rights; economic justice; environmental justice; health and wholeness; peace with justice; women and children.”

In all of the items the GBCS chose to highlight as “What We Care About,” there’s no mention of Jesus, or salvation, or discipleship, or Scripture, or the Great Commission. This is very typical of so-called Christians who support the LGBT agenda. Their sermons and ceremonies are often bereft of anything resembling orthodox Christianity.

They sound little different from godless fools who have the exact same views on virtually all of the prominent moral issues of our time. If your moral compass is pointing in the same direction as those who say there is no God, why not simply abandon religion all together? Nevertheless, these “Christians” continue their charade. It’s almost as if these heretics have decided that they know better than God what is good and right, and they created a whole new religion—one in which everybody gets to “rule their own world.”

Of course this is exactly what they’ve done, and it’s nothing new. Every false religion, every godless attempt at utopia, every selfish attempt to live your life on your own terms is nothing more than the same sad song sung in a different key. All such wickedness are attempts to replace what God has said is the way and the truth with man’s foolish notions.

Whether Methodists or Baptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, all sincere Christians must continue our fight against such deception. Abortion, homosexuality, “transgenderism,”—notice how the deceived Christians are on the wrong side of the truth in all such matters—and the like, are compelling battles in the same war.

This war will never be won by mere political or legal means, though battles on such fronts are needed and necessary. This is a spiritual war, and we’ll likely be fighting it until the end of days. Take heart, though these fights are hard and taxing, the truth will ultimately win out. Let us work diligently to bring as many as possible to the winning side.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com