Connect with us


The Mueller Report Explained by a Constitutional Law Scholar



“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” – Federalist No. 51.

Robert Mueller did not indict President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, nor could he have even if there were evidence of a crime. This is due to the very design of the Constitution. Moreover it’s dishonest for legal scholars to claim it’s “undemocratic” that a sitting President can’t be indicted.

The Structure of the Constitution and Separation of Powers.

The Constitution vests powers into three separate but co-equal branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The powers of the respective branches of government are enumerated in Articles I, II, and III in the Constitution itself.

Article 2 of the Constitution lists the powers of the Executive branch, and reads, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

The power to prosecute is an executive power. That’s why the President appoints federal prosecutors in each district.

To understand the role of separated powers plays, think of it like this: Congress writes the laws that define crimes, which the President signs. The Executive branch enforces those laws. And the Judiciary interprets them.

If you’re pulled over with a brick of marijuana in your car, you’ll be prosecuted by the Department of Justice (Executive) because transporting marijuana is a crime (as defined in the United States Code, the body of laws written by the Legislative branch). A judge will determine whether the law is constitutional or if your rights were already violated.

“But it’s undemocratic that Trump can’t be indicted,” you might say.

Trump is an elected official. Mueller was not elected. How would it be democratic for an unelected official to disrupt the ability of the highest elected official to govern?

The obstruction of justice paradox.

The power to prosecute resides within the Presidency. How then could you obstruct your own investigation?

Imagine Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS. A US Attorney in Iowa, looking to make a name for herself, decides to indict Clinton for various crimes.

Would that be democratic?

If President Clinton had fired the US Attorney, would that be obstruction? Why? The power gives President Clinton that power.

The democratic remedy against Trump is impeachment.

Article 1 of the Constitution provides:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Democratic officials (Article I) have the power to remove a democratically-elected official (Article II).

The system is functioning exactly as it should be.

By the way, to get a sense for what the United States has lost, and to understand how far into the gutter so-called legal scholars have dragged us, read the full excerpt from Federalist No. 51.

The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Could you imagine such insights coming from any modern legal commentator or observer?

P.S. If you enjoyed this article, listen to the full podcast about Trump and Mueller here.



Will Mushrooms Save Humanity?



Are “magic mushrooms” for filthy hippies who have checked out of life, or is there more to the story? Fantastic Fungi suggests the answer is yes in a wide-ranging documentary on psilocybin.

Loaded with mainstream, normie voices like Michael Pollan (as opposed to say Eckhart Tolle), Fantastic Fungi succeeds as a documentary for skeptics.

All plant medicine faces intense discrimination and bias, with claims ranging that medicine like psilocybin and ayahuasca are “demonic” or will “send you on a bad trip,” despite a lack of scientific evidence that supervised, responsible use of plant medicine has few downsides and updates that include

  • advanced creativity
  • freedom from alcoholism and opioid addiction
  • higher ability to empathize with others and love more

Microdosing psilocybin has been used by names you’d recognize yet never expect, and indeed many people are shocked to learn that I have a decade-long experience with 5-MeO-DMT, ayahuasca, and psilocybin.

The stereotype of course is that people use plant medicine to check out of reality, when in fact the proper use of psilocybin enhances your ability to experience reality.

People wrongly believe that using plant medicine puts your physical body on a spiritual journey, inverting the truth, which is that your spiritual body in on a journey in your physical one.

We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Fantastic Fungi will be enjoyable watch whether you are experienced in these matters or remain a skeptic. To those who are skeptical, grab a cup of coffee or beer (totally not drugs unlike the stuff other people use) and learn about the magic underneath your feet and within your heart.

You can watch Fantastic Fungi here on iTunes.


Continue Reading


Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein Island, Victim Claims



Former President Bill Clinton was seen with two women on Jeffrey Epstein’s “pedophile island,” according to Virgina Roberts.

In newly unsealed documents, Virgina Roberts directly implicated Clinton in an April, 2011 interview. (You can read her full interview here at this link.)

The relevant except says:

When you say you you asked him why is Bill Clinton here, where was here?

Roberts: On the island.

JS: When you were present with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?

Roberts: Ghislaine, Emmy, and there was two young girls that I could identify. I never really knew them well anyways. It was just 2 girls from New York.

JS: And were all of you staying at Jeffrey’s house on the island including Bill Clinton?

Roberts: That’s correct.

He had about 4 or 5 different villas on his island separate from the main house, and we all stayed in the villas.

JS: Were sexual orgies a regular occurrences at the island of Jeffrey’s house? Roberts: Yes.



Bill Clinton is directly implicated by an eyewitness in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking ring.

Continue Reading


Jim Jordan Sells Out Conservatives to Big Tech (Read the Confidential Memo in Full)



Labelled “Confidential,” the Jim Jordan Memo is something you’re not supposed to see.

Cernovich Media has obtained this Memo and is posted it in full.

Read the Jim Jordan Antitrust Memo here:

Highlights of Jim Jordan’s Antitrust Memo

  • The Memo gives Republican talking points needed to defend Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook.
  • The Jim Jordan Memo is clear. Zero antitrust action against Apple, Google, or Amazon will be supported by the GOP, and the memo is loaded with talking points defending Big Tech’s monopoly power.
  • “Even if this hearing suggests that Google, Amazon, Apple, or Facebook have acted unlawfully, that would not necessarily mean underlying antitrust law needs an overhaul.”

Watch my Video Report of the Jim Jordan Antitrust Memo here:



Continue Reading


Read previous post:
Does Mike Cernovich hate Christians?

Gossip mongers and wannabe Internet e-celebrities are claiming I'm "anti-Christian." This is a silly claim but it's catching on, so...