Christian, Father of Eugene Jr, and Robert, Grandfather of Evelyn, Michelle and Eric, Retired Chemistry Professor 30+ years. PhD NCSU
Raleigh, NC
Joined August 2018
- Tweets13.2K
- Following911
- Followers990
- Likes1.3K
Gene Douglass retweeted
The Atlantic blames @HarmeetKDhillon for the “destruction” of the DOJ’s civil rights division on the grounds that 70% of the Biden-era lawyers who worked there quit during her tenure.
What The Atlantic does not tell you is that Dhillon’s predecessor was progressive activist Kristen Clarke, an extremely controversial Biden appointment who, prior to joining the DOJ, was best known for antisemitism. She famously invited the author of a hate tract called “The Jewish Question” to speak on the Harvard campus under the auspices of the Black Student Union.
At DOJ, Clarke used the Civil Rights division to force state and local governments to adopt illegal DEI programs and dismantle policing and criminal justice enforcement. She was the threat of government legal action pushing the adoption of the most noxious woke policies during the Biden era.
She did immense damage to the DOJ and the country, she forced the adoption of unpopular and ineffective policies and she filled her department with ideologues, activists and diversity hires who do not belong anywhere near the levers of power.
The transformation of the Civil Rights Division and the removal of Kristen Clarke’s loyalists is one of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration. Dhillon is a hero and has done a great service to her country.
Gene Douglass retweeted
The White House Counsel's Office has now put the incoming Oversight Chair on written notice, and the letter goes straight to the controlling law. Quoting the Supreme Court in Watkins, investigations "conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible." Congress, it says, cannot use investigations "to exercise powers of criminal prosecution assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary."
That is the heart of what I've been calling Silly Subpoena Season. "Lawyer up" is not the language of legislating. It's the language of a unchecked prosecutor. And when members brag about handing out subpoenas like "candy" and "Mardi Gras beads," as the letter notes, they are building the record a court will read later when it asks whether a subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose. Mazars tells courts to look hard at exactly that, and at breadth, when Congress comes after the President's information.
Don't misread the letter as a refusal to deal. It's the opening move in the accommodation process, which is the Constitution's actual structural answer here. Name the legislation you're considering, tailor the request to it, and negotiate. If that fails, the fight belongs in a civil case.
What it doesn't belong in is a grand jury. That's why Licavoli has to go and why the Navarro case matters now. Oversight is a serious constitutional power. A subpoena is a tool for legislating, not a party favor or a frivolous festival bead.
@RealPNavarro
Gene Douglass retweeted
Hey Rep Massie. International law prof & retired military lawyer here. I read the articles of impeachment you filed against @SecWar today. And it's clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
For everyone else, read on for a detailed (though not exhaustive) analysis explaining why the allegations presented in these articles are unconvincing as a matter of law.
In case you're not familiar, the Constitution establishes the causes & procedures for impeachment. Very briefly, the House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2) & must adopt articles of impeachment by a simple majority of members present for the vote. If that occurs, the Senate then has sole power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3) & a conviction requires an affirmative vote by 2/3 of members present for the vote.
Finally, the Constitution also establishes that civil officers (including, in this case, SECWAR) "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Art. II, Sec. 2).
The focus for present purposes is on the last provision. That is, Massie must demonstrate in his articles - and a majority of the House must agree - that the allegations involving Sec. Hegseth amount to "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That will be the focus of this analysis, since none of the 8 articles so qualify.
The critical analysis below addresses each of the 8 articles of impeachment. Because the full document is just over 33 pages long & the current platform is an @X post, this analysis won't necessarily be comprehensive in relation any of the 8 articles. Even so, treatment of each one will be detailed enough to at least hit the most important points.
Also, it is worth noting that, as a whole, the 8 articles of impeachment merely rehash many of the same complaints & criticisms that have been directed at SECWAR over the last couple years. This means I have addressed many of the individual criticisms along the way as well. For those articles, I'll give an overview of the critical analysis & provide a link to an earlier post for additional reading.
One more point before diving in - some of the articles are fundamentally flawed for the same reasons because they involve the same topics (particularly the first 3). For those, I'll consider them together while also addressing each of the individual accusations as part of the overall analysis of the group.
With those introductory points in mind, let's carry on to (briefly) analyze each of the 8 articles of impeachment.
(For reference, the full articles of impeachment, as filed, are available here: massie.house.gov/uploadedfil…)
- Articles I, II & III.
The first 3 out of 8 Articles deal with the so-called "War Powers Resolution" adopted, over Pres Nixon's veto, in 1973. Because the WPR has been unconstitutional from the outset, each of these allegations fails to state a "high Crime or Misdemeanor" for the same reason.
Specifically::
Article 1 claims, citing 50 U.S.C. §1541(c): "Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation notwithstanding the absence of congressional authorization, an attack upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress."
Article 2 claims, citing 50 U.S.C. § 1544(c): "Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that treated the Executive Branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress’ direction to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. By implementing those orders, he effectuated, in practice, the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran despite Congress’ exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress’ formal action directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities."
Article 3 claims, citing 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b): "Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every potentially applicable statutory period."
The foundational flaw with each of these allegations is that they're based on "obligations" the executive branch - including SECWAR Hegseth - is not ACTUALLY required to recognize or implement.
And that's because the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional when it was initially adopted in 1973 & it remains unconstitutional - for the same reasons - still today.
This is a topic I've addressed fairly comprehensively before, so I won't do so here. The short explanation, though, regarding why the WPR has always been unconstitutional is that it purports to expand Congress's authority to declare war (Art. I, Sec. 8) to include all situations of "hostilities."
The problem with THAT is that not all "hostilities" amount to "war." And just because Congress has authority to DECLARE "war" doesn't mean it can prohibit the executive from exercising Art. II, Sec. 2 commander-in-chief authority to order @DeptofWar troops to engage in "hostilities".
(for additional reading on this topic, see here: xitter.gq/BrianCox_RLTW/status/2…)
Of course, this isn't JUST my analysis. In fact, every @POTUS since the WPR was adopted in 1973 has determined that resolution is unconstitutional (pic 1), essentially for the reason I outlined above.
Likewise, historical practice supports the executive's (and my) assessment. As a separate Congressional Research Service report indicates, "there have been hundreds of instances" since 1798 "when the United States has used its Armed Forces in situations of military conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes." Of these HUNDREDS of instances, there have ONLY been 11 formal declarations of war, and these "encompassed five separate wars" (pic 2) (pic 3 also shows a sampling of these from 1798 to 1825, only one of which - the War of 1812 - involved a formal declaration of war).
So, either ALL of these HUNDREDS of examples of "hostilities" that weren't "authorized" by a formal declaration of war were ALSO illegal, OR the War Powers Resolution of 1973 - which purports to expand Congress's authority to "declare war" to cover ALL "hostilities" as well - is unconstitutional.
I don't know about you, but that seems to be fairly adequate evidence indicating that the WPR is, in fact, unconstitutional. And if it IS (which, it is), then it isn't capable of establishing binding obligations with which the executive MUST comply.
And if THAT is the case (which, it also is), then Rep Massie's claim that SECWAR Hegseth committed "other Crimes and Misdemeanors" by failing to comply with various (nonexistent) obligations is, in a word, bogus.
- Article IV.
The basis for the next article is a claim that: "Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and therefore, foreseeably effected the death and injury of over 200 civilians [referring to the attack reportedly directed against an elementary school in Minab, Iran], to the manifest injury of the United States."
Tbh nearly every line of this article misrepresents various aspects of international AND domestic law in such an egregious manner that I'm tempted to do a deep-dive on just Article IV. Maybe there will be an opportunity to do so at some point in the future.
For now, I'll just focus on the core of this allegation: that SECWAR Hegseth failed to comply with legal "obligations" involving civilian harm mitigation & reduction (CHMR). This is a topic I have previously addressed in more detail here: xitter.gq/BrianCox_RLTW/status/2…
The MAIN point to address here is that Congress doesn't possess the constitutional authority to FORCE DoW to implement specific CHMR practices. Congress can appropriate funds for such practices (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 12). And Congress can "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 14).
But POTUS is appointed as commander-in-chief of the military (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 1). And practices related to civilian harm mitigation & reduction are strictly within the purview of CiC authority since they don't involve making rules for the armed forces (that authority is exercised by adopting the Uniform Code of Military Justice ... more about the UCMJ below).
There are SO many other deficiencies in Article IV that demonstrate why the CMHR initiative has been flawed since @SecDefAustin & @JoeBiden initially implemented the program & that fundamentally misrepresent #LOAC obligations + command responsibility & so on.
For present purposes, though, Art. IV fails to state a "high Crime or Misdemeanor" primarily because SEC WAR Hegseth has NO "obligation" to implement "laws and directives mandated" BY CONGRESS "for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict" since CONGRESS exceeded its Art. I authority - at the expense of legitimate Art. II CiC authority - by purporting to "mandate" executive compliance in the first place.
- Article V.
The essential basis for the next allegation is: "Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force, resulting in the summary execution of at least 243 persons in international waters, but also by using his office to compel members of the Armed Forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed upon the chain of command."
This claim is centered on the campaign of attacks directed against suspected narcoterrorists in international waters.
Once again, this is a topic I've covered at length before (for example, here: xitter.gq/BrianCox_RLTW/status/1…).
The MAIN problem here (out of many) is the assertion that: "By subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets, Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the Executive Branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die."
Of course, the "without congressional authorization" element returns us to the analysis from the WPR articles involving the concurrent constitutional powers to "declare war" (Congress) AND engage in "hostilities" (POTUS).
Even so, the assertion that suspected narcoterrorists operating drug boats on the High Seas are MERELY "suspected of criminal conduct" is a gross misrepresentation of international law involving the resort to force (jus ad bellum) & domestic implementation thereof.
See, this article explicitly acknowledges that an interagency task force developed a classified memo that presented "a legal basis for such strikes" by determining that the "United States is engaged in a noninternational armed conflict (NIAC) with 24 Latin American Designated Terrorist Organizations."
Whether one disagrees with this determination or not, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. And when it DID determine the existence of a noninternational armed conflict against drug cartels, by definition the adversary was no longer merely "suspected of criminal conduct."
Yes, trafficking narcotics IS criminal conduct. But saying it is ONLY criminal conduct would be like claiming al-Qaeda operatives are "only" criminals since they're engaged in activity that is against the law.
A drug dealer at home is a criminal. A narcotics trafficker on the High Seas that ISN'T part of a group the government has determined to be an adversarial belligerent in a (noninternational) armed conflict is ALSO a criminal.
But a narcotrafficker on the High Seas that IS part of a group the government has determined to be an adversarial belligerent is a criminal AND a civilian taking direct part in hostilities (DPH).
And what do we do with civilians DPH? Sure, we can detain them - but we can ALSO make them the object of attack pursuant to LOAC. That's what DoW did, that's what SECWAR Hegseth directed, and none of it constitutes a "high Crime or Misdemeanor".
Article VI.
The crux of the allegation here is: Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegseth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress’ constitutional authority to oversee the Executive Branch, grossly expand Article II powers at the expense of both the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government, and establish a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States service members and inflict irreparable harm upon their First Amendment freedoms."
Yet again, this is a subject I've covered in more detail previously (see, for example, here: xitter.gq/BrianCox_RLTW/status/1…).
For now, I'll just reiterate that @SenMarkKelly didn't MERELY say, "Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders."
Of course, if that' ALL he had said, there probably wouldn't be any issue. After all, he IS right - servicemembers can, indeed must, refuse to comply with unlawful orders.
The problem is, Sen Kelly AND the rest of the "Seditious 6" didn't just stop at that "reminder." What Article VI fails to mention is that Kelly (and the rest) ALSO repeatedly claimed actual orders provided by SECWAR Hegseth were illegal.
First of all, they were all full of shit (see above, in particular, related to narcoterrorist ops). Even so, this messaging crusade of the Seditious 6 was essentially an effort to substitute their OWN judgment regarding what constitutes "lawful" orders for that of the duly appointed Secretary of War.
And although this article condemns the move by SECWAR Hegseth to recall Sen Kelly to active duty as an abuse of power that would set "a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States service members and inflict irreparable harm upon their First Amendment freedoms," Hegseth was merely exercising EXISTING STATUTORY AUTHORITY established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
That is, pursuant to Art. 2 of the UCMJ, retired servicemembers "who are entitled to pay" as Sen Kelly is, remain subject to the Code (pic 4).
So reasonable views may certainly differ whether SECWAR Hegseth's move to reinstate Sen (ret Cpt) Kelly to face court-martial was ADVISABLE. But it certainly was NOT a "high Crime or Misdemeanor" if existing law permitted such a move.
If Rep Massie doesn't like it, maybe he should introduce a motion to change THAT provision of the UCMJ - rather than wasting everyone's time with these frivolous articles of impeachment.
Article VII.
The essence of this claim is that SECWAR Hegseth used Dept of War "to carry out an unprecedented military operation—code-named ABSOLUTE RESOLVE—to capture and kidnap President Nicolás Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela—an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves."
In doing so, according to this article, "Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers to Executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress."
No need for present purposes to address the "constitutional allocation of war powers" claim - though it is rather amusing that THIS article asserts the Maduro operation was "of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war" yet the counter-narcoterrorist boat strikes were ... not (selective outrage much?).
And, yes, this is also a topic I've addressed at length previously (see, for example, here: xitter.gq/BrianCox_RLTW/status/2…).
The MOST important point to keep in mind in relation to this allegation is that Maduro wasn't recognized as the 🇻🇪 head of state at the time of the raid that captured (er ... "kidnapped" 🤣) him. For confirmation, this is what @SecRubio said after the operation:
"Maduro is NOT the President of Venezuela and his regime is NOT the legitimate government. Maduro is the head of the Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization which has taken possession of a country. And he is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States." (xitter.gq/SecRubio/status/194942…)
So this operation wasn't a "kidnapping" as the article claims, nor was it an "act of war against a sovereign country." Maduro wasn't the head of state & the operation didn't constitute "international relations" in accordance with the UN Charter (as I have previously analyzed at the X post presented above).
As such, once again, ordering & directing this operation doesn't constitute a "high Crime or Misdemeanor."
Article VIII.
The primary allegation here is: "Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed" hostilities in Yemen "in the absence of any of the predicates required in section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities."
Since the goal here is to focus on the main points rather than also addressing the less central - though still conspicuous - deficiencies inherent in the articles, I'll refrain from getting into the weeds on some of the other points.
The main point here, though, as it is with Articles I, II & III, is that the WPR has been unconstitutional from the start.
If it's unconstitutional from the start (which, it still is), then it can't establish binding obligations. And if it can't establish binding obligations (which, it still can't), then "violating" its provisions isn't a legitimate legal basis for claiming "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
____
Ok, that's it - at least for the main points - in relation to all 8 articles of impeachment.
Each of the articles includes an assertion that SECWAR Hegseth "will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office," or words to that effect.
In reality, the articles of impeachment are a sham - from beginning to end. And it is Rep Massie, not Sec Hegseth, who IS a clear & present threat to the Constitution - for abusing the impeachment powers vested in Congress by distorting international AND domestic law to create the false appearance that Hegseth's conduct amounts to "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Thankfully, Rep Massie won't be allowed to remain in office himself since he got crushed in the primary in the great state of Kentucky.
Even so, any member of Congress who supports or votes in favor of Massie's misguided articles of impeachment is ALSO "a threat to the Constitution" - and for the same reason.
As such, any member who DOES support or vote for these articles should not be allowed to remain in office - and it will be up to their constituents to watch closely & hold them to account, where it counts, at the next election.
#ImpeachmentHoax #GoHomeMassie
I’ve seen some of my colleagues say @SecWar Hegseth has been effective and they agree with the war, so they’ll vote not to impeach.
That’s not the question though. The question is whether he committed impeachable acts, and the answer is yes, eight times:
massie.house.gov/UploadedFil…
Gene Douglass retweeted
If you want to know why Thomas Massie’s impeachment failed today and why it never had even the slightest bit of merit, watch this Episode of Counterweight with Brian Cox xitter.gq/willchamberlain/status…
Gene Douglass retweeted
House Oversight Republicans release final report on Epstein investigation, clears Trump of crimes justthenews.com/node/194969?…
Gene Douglass retweeted
Watch this woman's brain malfunction when asked a simple question about abortion | Joel Abbott, Not The Bee
Liberal woman: Have you ever been in a spot where you have needed to abort a child?
TPUSA host: Well, considering I am a man, I don't often find myself in the situation where I'm pregnant, so no.
Liberal woman: Exactly!
Liberal woman: You will never have to experience the pain and shame of wanting to carry something that you don't -
TPUSA host: Okay, let me ask you this: Do you think slavery is wrong?
Liberal woman: Absolutely!
TPUSA host: Whoa! You will never have to experience the pain or shame of being a slave. So how dare you come up and tell me your opinion on that.
Liberal woman: Because it's obvious!
TPUSA host: Right, so again, do you start to see where this idea has a little bit of flaws? It's also obvious, in the same way that slavery is obviously wrong, that murdering an innocent human is also wrong.
Liberal woman: [Glitches, has panic attack]
William Wilberforce, the English politician credited with spearheading the movement to abolish slavery across the British Empire, once said this:
"You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know."
It is a fallacy to say we can't label something wrong if we have never experienced it ourselves. Murder, rape, slavery, theft, jealousy, anger, lust, pride, and greed are all wrong, and we can say they are wrong regardless of our #LivedExperiences.
This, of course, opens up wider questions. We all know murder is wrong, but why? Because the government says so? Of course not. Even little kids are born with an innate sense of justice (and also an innate desire to steal other kids' toys).
The Bible says that even people who don't believe in God act in ways that show how God's rules are "written on their hearts." We all know that punching a puppy is bad, in other words.
All humans have a conscience, and that is a curious thing. It is difficult to explain evolutionarily, considering that our consciences often work against self-preservation.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to — whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
If slavery is wrong (and we know it is), then murdering a child must be wrong (and we know it is).
The pro-abortionists must therefore argue why exceptions for murder must be allowed ... or else they must adopt the Law of the Jungle and claim there is no moral compass in the universe.
But in that case, I better not hear them complain when they are executed for murder.
notthebee.com/article/watch-…
Gene Douglass retweeted
The path to GOP re-emergence in 2028 -- told by a single district.
In 2020 Lauren Boebert challeged a 5 term GOP Congressman in Colorado's 3rd District. She ran a campaign based in large part of COVID issues and as a strong supporter of Pres. Trump. She prevailed in the primary 55-45% due in large part to the incumbent not taking her challenge seriously.
She won the general election by a narrower margin of only 51-45.
But in 2022 she won reelection by one of the narrowest margins of the year -- 550 votes.
So in 2024 cycle she switched and ran in the Colorado's much more GOP friendly 4th District after the incumbent announced he would not run. The prior GOP incumbent had won that seat in five election cycles with more than 60% of the vote each time.
She won election to that seat in 2024 by a margin of 54-42.
Today she was declared the loser in her re-election effort by a margin of 49-48%, with a libertarian candidate receiving 3%.
Boebert was -- and always has been -- a bad candidate who caught lightning in the bottle in 2020, and then rode the MAGA wave in winning reelection by margins far narrower than they should have been in the districts she ran in.
Now she will be gone.
And in 2028 a good GOP candidate should have little or no trouble recapturing that seat.
There are dozens of seats just like this -- districts that went Trump-Trump-Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024, that voted in an Democrat in 2026.
Those districts are ripe for the picking with better GOP candidates and a more normal environment in 2028.
Gene Douglass retweeted
That's why I wrote UNELECTED. amazon.com/Unelected-Jennica…
Gene Douglass retweeted
I want everyone in the White House to know that Susie is executing a systematic strategy to throw President Trump under the bus.
Below is Susie’s stenographer sharing her leaks that it was not in fact Susie who was captured by Ballard, but the President.
Brian Ballard said in writing he didn’t lobby Susie or White House staff on glyphosate. Since Ballard’a disclosure below said he personally lobbied the White House in the quarter of the EO’s release, he is either lying or throwing President Trump under the bus. Which one is it @BallardFirm
James Blair is angrily texting saying “my problem is obviously with President Trump” and sending quoted to media blaming him for the corporate capture in the first two years
Additionally, Ballard is running a public relations campaign to explicitly defend Susie Wiles and say that President Trump is the sole reason the administration has caved to the tobacco and pesticide industries.
What’s most demonic is that Susie and Ballard are taking aim at the foundational claim I’ve made that she and her cronies on K street didn’t prioritize corporate interests to a larger degree than Americans voted for. Ballard is actually making the argument with a straight face they didn’t materially coordinate with Susie to rig policies.
The Joe Rogan episode has caused cultural impact because everyone watching knows it’s true.
Susie - I’m not intimidated and you will not scare me. Again, please stop sending me emotional texts. This is not personal - this is civilizational.
If America doesn’t move on from the revolting version of politics you represent, our country will cease to exist. A lot of Americans feel that.
To current and former leaders in the admin - it is time to speak out. It is time to speak to the press about what you saw. The weapon we have is truth. Let’s identify the problem - so Stephen Miller and President Trump can solve it.
Whatever side of the aisle we are on, we should pray for Stephen Miller’s to exorcise Susie’s culture of corruption from the admin and get us on a posture advocating for voters, not Ballard.
Gene Douglass retweeted
Feminism told women that careers were freedom and marriage was a trap.
A generation later, the birth rate is in freefall, loneliness is an epidemic, and nobody wants to talk about who made those choices seem inevitable. This piece does. Read it on The Daily Wire.
Gene Douglass retweeted
In October I wrote that Senator Slotkin was announcing a program of Lawfare designed to deter young Republicans from serving a duly elected President. Her own formulation was revealing: she wanted prospective staffers to worry that joining this Administration meant “buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want.” She added: “I want that deterrence message sent.”
Now the President has named Slotkin while calling for DOJ to examine threats against administration officials and supporters. Whether particular conduct violates a criminal statute requires evidence and legal analysis. My objection to the deterrence program does not depend on establishing a crime.
There is a constitutional difference between investigating identifiable misconduct and announcing consequences for people before they have even entered public service. Impeachment and oversight are real Article I powers. They are not licenses to make service to the opposing party professionally ruinous.
As I said then, quite apart from party, Lawfare and Barfare are anathema to the American experiment. I do not want young Democrats punished for serving Democratic officials. I want their arguments defeated by better arguments. A system that instead frightens the next generation out of serving is selecting for submission, not constitutional government.
Gene Douglass retweeted
This is what I believe happened in the 96 hours before, during and after Election Day. I have little insider information, this is just me connecting some dots. I could be wrong:
1. The Trump Administration knew it would be a wipeout.
2. The Vance team coordinated with Susie Wiles so there would be a concerted information campaign to blame the loss on Pete Hegseth because of Iran and to oust him, thereby clearing a JD Vance competitor from the field (plus maybe Rubio too).
3. Trump was unaware of this campaign, which included Susie scheduling a Saturday Camp David meeting with Vance/Susie loyalists with Trump out of town (that meeting got cancelled).
4. Vance dropped his "It wasn't me" X post on Wednesday morning (which directly blamed Trump's decisions but also impliedly blamed Hegseth and Rubio), but not before a whole bunch of people (me included) had already started backing Hegseth.
5. Hegseth himself dropped an info campaign that was clearly in anticipation of unfriendly folks in the admin trying to pin the loss on him.
6. It all came to a head in the Oval Office where Trump had to choose between Susie and Hegseth. Trump chose Hegseth and ousted Susie.
This is all conjecture on my part, but it feels right. I base my assessment in part on the fact that there were media people telling me that the Vance team was POd at my "Hegseth 2028" article and they tried to discredit me in the media as being paid by Hegseth to post that article (which is an absolute lie). (Note the similar attacks on Laura Loomer.)
Politics is a nasty, nasty business.
As you see efforts to impeach Hegseth in the days and weeks ahead because he does his job so well, please consider my theory.
Gene Douglass retweeted
xitter.gq/DataRepublican/status/…
I was shaken to my core last night after reviewing this video. Why?
Because I understand the leftist radicals masterplan at the strategic level. I understand their vision.
The radical left coalition coordinated a high level strategic plan with tactical implementation at the grassroots level. The NGOs formulated a unifying message and provided massive funding down to the ground level. They translated the long term why into short term actionable hows.
The NGO framework is the backbone of the strategic plan, the unified messaging, and the grassroots organizing is the tactical implementation of their long-term vision.
The Law School Deans, the unions, the educational system, and the NGOs are the ones that indoctrinate the youth to hate our current constitutional framework. The message is that it is broken and that it must be reformed.
Instead of attempting to overthrow the government through direct conflict, the organizers introduce an alternative pathway: reinterpreting or amending the foundational law of the land.
The alternative pathway relies on reinterpreting the Constitution as an inherently majoritarian document or forcing a constitutional convention.
By arguing that the "will of the people" should immediately overwrite existing checks and balances, electoral colleges, and judicial reviews, they establish a justification to dismantle representative institutions in favor of direct majority rule.
Once direct democracy gains momentum in local or state ballot initiatives, it creates a cascading effect.
The public appetite for bypassing representatives grows, rapidly neutralizing traditional governing bodies and accelerating the transition toward a system where 51% of the population holds absolute, direct control over all national policy.
Prior to the midterms, 18 states and Washington, D.C. had already signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)into law, securing 222 electoral votes. This left the initiative exactly 48 electoral votes short of the 270 needed for activation.
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Democratic candidates secured trifectas, meaning they won the governor’s mansion and majorities in both legislative chambers, in five key states that have not yet joined the compact: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona.
If the governors and lawmakers in these newly flipped states choose to prioritize the NPVIC, they will bypass the traditional constitutional amendment process by utilizing Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
This clause gives state legislatures the absolute power to choose how they allocate their electors. Rather than using the traditional winner-take-all method based on state-level totals, the new state laws would mandate that their electors align with the national popular count.
If the newly elected governors and legislatures move to pass the compact and push it over the 270-vote threshold, opponents have several distinct legal pathways to challenge and block its implementation.
The Compact Clause Violation: Article I, Section 10 states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
Because the NPVIC shifts political power away from non-participating states, it fundamentally requires congressional consent to be valid. Without it, the compact is an illegal political cartel.
If the Democratic Party holds a trifecta in Washington (President, House, and Senate) alongside a majority of Democratic governors leading into the 2028 presidential election, Congressional Intervention is likely.
Rather than just approving the compact, a unified Democratic federal government could use Article I, Section 4 (The Elections Clause), which gives Congress the ultimate authority to alter the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding federal elections.
Congress could pass sweeping federal legislation that standardizes how states must report their popular vote totals, legally locking the multi-state pooling system into federal statute and making it much harder for individual red states to sue to disrupt the count.
The core argument for building a strong conservative framework leading up to the 2028 election is simple.
It is vastly easier to defeat an unconstitutional system at the ballot box than it is to dismantle it in a courtroom once it has been codified.
Winning the presidency and expanding the Republican governorships map in 2028 ensures that the mechanisms used to force the National Popular Vote Compact can be dismantled legislatively and executively, preserving the federalist system envisioned by the Framers without risking it all on a single judicial ruling.
I very rarely get shaken to my core.
But I did last night based on my extensive understanding of the overall strategic plan of the radical leftist organizations including numerous Deans of Law Schools.
Because they have built a formidable base, the radical left organizations will continue to build on the "unifying message" moving forward: their messaging will be to push alternatives to our Constitution, Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and more.
They are openly telling you the plan. All you need to do is listen.
More drops to come later today. Stay tuned.
🚨🚨 THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 16: HOW THE MIDTERMS WERE PULLED OFF 🚨
Among today's talk of voter fraud, a critical role is overlooked: the importance of NGOs in early voting.
Below, I show the receipts where NGOs directly take a role in making the midterms happen.
It's been a long week, and I'm too tired to type up a summary.
Just know the two main points:
Republicans have an institutional blindness. They believe getting voters is all about branding and messaging. They pay enormous sums to consultants and TV ads and have endless conferences on what the right "message" is.
Democrats, meanwhile, have built an entire and expensive institutional machinery around getting people physically to the polls. And they were more motivated in 2026 than any other year.
I do NOT deny the existence of voter fraud. Saying the data doesn't show that others claim to show, is not equivalent to saying there is no fraud.
As I've said in several posts today, the election system in the United States is structurally set up such that citizenship verification is an honor system. The biggest swings in 2026 were among young people and Hispanics.
And 2026 was a concerted effort by NGOs like none other. Watch them in their own words how they pulled it off:
Yeah @HarmeetKDhillon well done.
The Atlantic blames @HarmeetKDhillon for the “destruction” of the DOJ’s civil rights division on the grounds that 70% of the Biden-era lawyers who worked there quit during her tenure.
What The Atlantic does not tell you is that Dhillon’s predecessor was progressive activist Kristen Clarke, an extremely controversial Biden appointment who, prior to joining the DOJ, was best known for antisemitism. She famously invited the author of a hate tract called “The Jewish Question” to speak on the Harvard campus under the auspices of the Black Student Union.
At DOJ, Clarke used the Civil Rights division to force state and local governments to adopt illegal DEI programs and dismantle policing and criminal justice enforcement. She was the threat of government legal action pushing the adoption of the most noxious woke policies during the Biden era.
She did immense damage to the DOJ and the country, she forced the adoption of unpopular and ineffective policies and she filled her department with ideologues, activists and diversity hires who do not belong anywhere near the levers of power.
The transformation of the Civil Rights Division and the removal of Kristen Clarke’s loyalists is one of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration. Dhillon is a hero and has done a great service to her country.
27
Gene Douglass retweeted
The thing that disgusts me about the "We lost because of Iran, MAGA is over, tear it all down" crowd is that I cannot find a single one of them who acknowledges that stopping a nuclear Iran might be more important than any midterm election.
Have the decency to acknowledge these facts:
1. Iran declared war on the USA in 1979.
2. We have been dealing with this reality fecklessly since that time.
3. The Iranian mullahs are not rational actors. They want nukes so they can USE THEM to precipitate Armageddon and bring forth the Twelfth Imam who will miraculously arise from a well in Qom and forcibly unite what is left of humanity under Shia Islam.
4. Trump may have had intel that said he needed to act before it was too late, midterms be damned.
I ACKNOWLEDGE that the Iran War likely cost us the election.
Why can't YOU acknowledge that Trump may have had no choice and acted bravely for the greater good of humanity?
WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS POSSIBILITY?
Gene Douglass retweeted
The Dems in the election ran on no particular platform of policy proposals.
They started with "Oppose Trump" and then were observational - gas too expensive, food too expensive, health care too expensive, etc.
The Dems offered nothing really -- other than to agree.
Even on Israel their objections were simply observational -- the US relationship with Israel is too close.
The "opposition" to the Iran war has two parallel tracks -- only one of which really relates to the War. That one is anti-semitic, and really just wants Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah to emerge victorious.
The second track of Iran war opposition really is nothing more than unhappiness with the collateral consequences -- higher gas and energy prices that feed inflation, and and a distraction of Trump's attention away from what he was returned to office to accomplish -- a repeat of the economic prosperity he brought in his first term.
The GOP was punished because Trump has not FOCUSED on the issues that mattered to voters -- he's focused on the issues important to him.
Too much of that is vanity inspired, and it's seen as just a giant middle finger to the voters that looked to him to fix what Biden had broken just like he fixed what Obama had broken.
And Congress did nothing.
This all combined into a maelstrom that saw the Democrats run decent candidates in KEY races where the vulnerability of GOP incumbents was not obvious -- but it was in the shadows hiding.
The Dems ran good candidates in Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
They happened into some serendipity when the GOP ran bad candidates -- given the environment -- in a couple of those same places.
But the major problems can be solved in 2 years.
The Dems will be forced to put forward actual policy proposals -- and everyone seems to have memory-holed the fact that the Dem Congress had a lower approval rating than Trump.
The public has already rejected what it is the Dems are about to put forward because they think the election was an endorsement of them.
It was not.
30% of the voting electorate is not partisan -- they will vote for either party depending on the environment and the issues. Both parties can "get" them -- the GOP can get them back in 2028.