Democrats Aren’t Losing Faith In Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like It

Democrats Aren’t Losing Faith In Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like It

Many liberals see 'the system' as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of idealistic values.

By David Harsanyi

In the liberal imagination there are only four ways to lose elections — and none have to do with their increasingly leftist turn, their hysterics, or their one-dimensional identity politics. Democrats lose because of “gerrymandering,” “voter suppression” (sometimes known as “asking for ID”), Russian mind-control rays deployed by social media, and our antiquated and unfair Constitution.

The final one of these excuses is becoming increasingly popular among liberal pundits who continue to invent new crises to freak out about.

Take Vox’s Ezra Klein, a longtime champion of direct democracy: “I don’t think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority,” he tweeted before the midterms. “After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so).”

The “House popular vote” now joins the “national popular vote” and “Senate popular vote” (a particularly dishonest one considering California didn’t have a Republican on the ballot) as fictional gauges of governance used by Democrats who aren’t brave enough to say they oppose the fundamental anti-majoritarianism that girds the Constitution.

Otherwise, why would Democrats lose faith in a “system” that is doing exactly what was intended? The Constitution explicitly protects small states (and individuals) from national majorities. The argument for diffusing democracy and checking a strong federal government is laid out in The Federalist Papers and codified on an array of levels. This was done on purpose. It is the system.

I mean, do Democrats really believe the Electoral College was constructed to always correspond with the national vote? Do they believe that the signers of the Constitution were unaware that some states would be far bigger than others in the future? If the Founders didn’t want Virginia to dictate how people in Delaware lived in 1787, why would they want California to dictate how people in Wyoming live in 2018? If you don’t believe this kind of proportionality is a vital part of American governance, you don’t believe in American governance.

You can despise Brett Kavanaugh all you like, but why would Democrats lose faith in “the system” that saw Republicans follow directions laid out in the Constitution for confirming a Supreme Court nominee? Why would Democrats lose faith in “the system” that elected Donald Trump using the same Electoral College that every other president used? Why would they lose faith in a system that houses a Supreme Court that stops the other branches from banning political speech? When the Supreme Court affirmed the election of George W. Bush, it turned out to be the right call.

It’s because they see the system as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of politically neutral idealistic values.

It’s not a civics problem, either. One hopes liberal activists like Ken Dilanian, who wonders “how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority,” understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn’t give “disproportionate weight” to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea “disproportionate” because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.

Also, rural America doesn’t “bully” people like Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. The non-“forward moving” America—those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington—doesn’t very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.

It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions Americans aside to make this argument. We don’t know how a national majority would vote. There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don’t involve themselves in the futility of state politics. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.

But as you can see on Election Day, liberals have made “democracy”— a word mentioned zero times in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence—into a sacramental rite. Getting more votes in an election outweighs the inherent rights of liberty that are laid out in the document. Unless, of course, that right happens to incidentally intersect with some advantageous partisan idea, like birthright citizenship; then Democrats become strict originalists. Everything else is up for discussion. Well, up for discussion now. It wasn’t a big topic for the hundred or so years Democrats were vastly overrepresented in the House.

The only reason these folks, who claim to want to save Constitution from Trump, see crisis in the “system” is that it fails to deliver for them politically. They’re not losing faith in the system. They just don’t like the system.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

Constitution democracy Democrats Electoral College institutionsmajoritarianism partisan hacks partisanship Senate the left

The Lessons of the Failed Armistice of 1918

COMMENTARY BY

Victor Davis Hanson

The First World War ended 100 years ago this month on Nov. 11, 1918, at 11 a.m. Nearly 20 million people had perished since the war began on July 28, 1914.

In early 1918, it looked as if the Central Powers—Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire—would win.

Czarist Russia gave up in December 1917. Tens of thousands of German and Austrian soldiers were freed to redeploy to the Western Front and finish off the exhausted French and British armies.

The late-entering United States did not declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary until April 1917. Six months later, America had still not begun to deploy troops in any great number.

Then, suddenly, everything changed. By summer 1918, hordes of American soldiers began arriving in France in unimaginable numbers of up to 10,000 doughboys a day. Anglo-American convoys began devastating German submarines. The German high command’s tactical blunders stalled the German offensives of spring 1918—the last chance before growing Allied numbers overran German lines.

>>> Watch Victor Davis Hanson’s talk at The Heritage Foundation on the lessons of World War I.

Nonetheless, World War I strangely ended with an armistice—with German troops still well inside France and Belgium. Revolution was brewing in German cities back home.

The three major Allied victors squabbled over peace terms. America’s idealist president, Woodrow Wilson, opposed an Allied invasion of German and Austria to occupy both countries and enforce their surrenders.

By the time the formal Versailles Peace Conference began in January 1919, millions of soldiers had gone home. German politicians and veterans were already blaming their capitulation on “stab-in-the-back” traitors and spreading the lie that their armies lost only because they ran out of supplies while on the verge of victory in enemy territory.

The Allied victors were in disarray. Wilson was idolized when he arrived in France for peace talks in December 1918—and was hated for being self-righteous when he left six months later.

The Treaty of Versailles proved a disaster, at once too harsh and too soft. Its terms were far less punitive than those the victorious Allies would later dictate to Germany after World War II. Earlier, Germany itself had demanded tougher concessions from a defeated France in 1871 and Russia in 1918.

In the end, the Allies proved unforgiving to a defeated Germany in the abstract, but not tough enough in the concrete.

One ironic result was that the victorious but exhausted Allies announced to the world that they never wished to go to war again. Meanwhile, the defeated and humiliated Germans seemed all too eager to fight again soon to overturn the verdict of 1918.

The consequence was a far bloodier war that followed just two decades later. Eventually, “the war to end all wars” was re-branded “World War I” after World War II engulfed the planet and wiped out some 60 million lives.

What can we learn from the failed armistice of 1918?

Keeping the peace is sometimes even more difficult than winning a war.

For an enemy to accept defeat, it must be forced to understand why it lost, suffer the consequences of its aggressions—and only then be shown magnanimity and given help to rebuild.

Losers of a war cannot pick and choose when to quit fighting in enemy territory.

Had the Allies continued their offensives in the fall of 1918 and invaded Germany, the peace that followed might have more closely resembled the unconditional surrender and agreements that ended World War II, leading to far more than just 20 years of subsequent European calm.

Deterrence prevents war.

Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 because it was convinced that Britain would not send enough troops to aid its overwhelmed ally, France. Germany also assumed that isolationist America would not intervene.

Unfortunately, the Allies of 1939 later repeated the errors of 1914, and the result was World War II.

Germany currently dominates Europe, just as it did in 1871, 1914, and 1939. European peace is maintained only when Germany channels its enormous energy and talents into economic, not military, dominance. Yet even today, on matters such as illegal immigration, overdue loans, Brexit, and trade surpluses, Germany tends to agitate its allies.

It is also always unwise to underestimate a peaceful America. The U.S. possesses an uncanny ability to mobilize, arm, and deploy. By the time America’s brief 19-month foray into war ended in November 1918, it had sent 2 million soldiers to Europe.

Had the armistice of November 1918 and the ensuing peace worked, perhaps we would still refer to a single “Great War” that put an end to world wars.

But because the peace failed, we now use Roman numerals to count world wars. And few believe that when the shooting stops, the war is necessarily over.

Judicial Watch Update

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/podcasts/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly+update&utm_term=members&utm_content=20181110182604


Clean House at Justice Department
 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has resigned, bringing an end to his controversial tenure as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. He advanced some significant policy advances for the rule of law, but made a terrible mistake in recusing himself needlessly from the so-called Russia investigation. This led to the abusive, unconstitutional Mueller special counsel investigation of President Trump. Frankly, President Trump has been terribly victimized by Justice Department and FBI corruption.
 
And disappointingly, the Justice Department under AG Sessions was a black hole in terms of transparency. It covered up institutional misconduct and, unbelievably, went out of its way to defend misconduct by Hillary Clinton and other Obama administration officials. 
 
I hope transparency and rooting out corruption and abuse becomes the focus of any new attorney general.
 
Now that President Trump has removed AG Sessions and appointed Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, the new DOJ leadership should end the abusive Mueller investigation and finally do a serious prosecution of Clinton’s email crimes and other misconduct.
 
In the meantime, your Judicial Watch will continue its independent oversight of the Justice Department through its myriad Freedom of Information Act lawsuits on Deep State abuses. 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/podcasts/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly+update&utm_term=members&utm_content=20181110182604

 Major New Lawsuit on Awan Brothers Democratic IT Scandal
 
Of the many bizarre corruption stories in Congress, one of the strangest was the IT scandal in the House of Representatives on the Democratic side of the aisle. This scandal is of heightened public interest now that Democrats have gained control of the House.
 
As is often the case when the government refuses to fully investigate itself, we have stepped in, filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records of communications relating to the investigation into former Democratic information technology (IT) staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan and Hina R. Alvi (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).
 
Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran is “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.
 
Imran Awan was Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.
 
Imran Awan was allowed a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to federal bank fraud, but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”
 
Color us skeptical that DOJ conducted a full investigation.
 
In October 2017, I participated in a discussion between House members and experts regarding the Wasserman Schultz/Awan Brothers/IT affair. During this discussion, I stated:
 

“Frankly when it comes to crimes with a political component, I fear the Justice Department is going to fear to tread. And because of the political nature of what went on (with the Awan family) they’re not going to push the House … and I fear that the Justice Department will be fearful of raising these issues with the House for fear of embarrassing the leadership of both parties … and that’s something we need to push the Justice Department on. That they don’t under-charge or under-investigate this for fear of the consequences that will happen if they push further and find something that no one wants to find, which is a national security threat at our breast here in the House.”

 
That is why Judicial Watch sued after the FBI failed to respond adequately to two FOIA requests.
 
The FBI claimed it could neither confirm nor deny records related to the first request, filed on May 26, 2017, seeking:

• All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, and Hina R. Alvi. As part of this request, searches should of records [sic] should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files. 
• All records of communication sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the subjects in bullet item 1. 

The timeframe for the requested records is May 2015 to the present.

Further, the FBI claimed that records related to a July 3, 2018, FOIA request were located in an investigative file and exempt from disclosure. That request sought:

• All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina R. Alvi and Rao Abbas. As part of this request, searches of records should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files. 
• All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages, instant chats or messages on the Lync system, sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the Awan brothers, Ms. Alvi and Mr. Abbas. Records of communications searched should include but not be limited to those between FBI officials, employees and contractors and officials with the Capitol Police, the Office of the Inspector General of the House, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House. 

It’s time for the full truth to come out about the House Democrat IT scandal, especially with the impending change of power in the House. Let’s hope the new leadership at the DOJ will bring transparency to this case, as well as many other pending FOIA investigations.
 
President Trump is aware of this strange situation. On June 7, 2018, he tweeted, “Our Justice Department must not let Awan & Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook. The Democrat I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today. They want to make a “plea deal” to hide what is on their Server. Where is Server? Really bad!”
 
“Really bad” is right and Judicial Watch aims to get more of the truth about this major congressional scandal.
 
Judicial Watch Sues for Docs on Influence Peddling Scandal At Energy Department 

Michael Cohen was a personal lawyer for President Trump from 2006 until President Trumpfired him in May 2018, a month after a federal investigation of Cohen became widely public. On August 21, 2018, Cohen pled guilty to eight counts of campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud.
 
Coincidentally, we have also been looking into a questionable deal involving Cohen, the Energy Department and an investor in a nuclear plant project.
 
We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy for all records of communications relating to Michael Cohen and the application for a $5 billion federal loan guarantee for the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Energy (No. 1:18-cv-02208)). Cohen, who was reportedly offered a $10 million “success fee” and paid a monthly retainer for his efforts on behalf of the Alabama nuclear-power project, never registered as a federal lobbyist.
 
The suit was filed after the Department of Energy failed to respond to an August 22, 2018, FOIA request for:

• All records of communications between the Department of Energy (DOE), including oral communications, and Michael Cohen relating to the loan application for the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant. 
• All records of communications between the DOE and Michael Cohen in relation to any other loan application. 
• A copy of and all records related to the application of Nuclear Development, LLC for a loan application relating to the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant in Alabama. 
• A full and complete copy of DOE’s response to an August 9, 2018, letter to Secretary Perry from Senator Ed Markey regarding Franklin Haney, Nuclear Development, LLC, and Michael Cohen. 

On August 2, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin D. Haney, “a major donor to President Trump agreed to pay $10 million to the president’s then-personal attorney [Michael Cohen] if he successfully helped obtain funding for a nuclear-power project, including a $5 billion loan from the U.S. government …” The contract reportedly was given to Cohen “in early April to assist his efforts to complete a pair of unfinished nuclear reactors in Alabama, known as the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant …”
 
On August 10, 2018, the Washington Examiner reported: 
 

“Cohen was also given a retainer payment for each month of lobbying on top of the $10 million ‘success fee’ for gaining final approval of a $5 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department. Cohen had made calls in the spring to the Energy Department to see if there was any way to speed up the approval process. The agreement between Haney and Cohen was reportedly rescinded, but Markey says the issue warrants further investigation to examine the integrity of the loan guarantee program that Perry oversees.”

Mr. Cohen may have broken basic lobbying disclosure and other laws in setting up a deal to advocate for a loan guarantee from the Energy Department. It is disappointing that the Energy Department is giving us the run around on this simple request, forcing us to go to federal court.
 
Government Warning: Narco-Terrorism will Worsen Under New Leftist Leader

Mexico held an election this year, too – on July 1 – and the result is not good for the United States, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports. Our border is about to get a lot more dangerous.
 

The overwhelming majority of illegal drugs in the United States already come from Mexico, and Mexican traffickers are the greatest criminal threat to the nation, but things are about to get worse when Mexico’s new leftwing president takes over. His name is Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known popularly as AMLO), he opposes hardline anti-drug policies and believes in amnesty for drug war criminals.

A State Department document obtained by Judicial Watch warns that Obrador, who takes over on December 1, will seek to decriminalize marijuana and poppy cultivation early in his term. He will also end Mexican military intervention in the drug war and pardon some drug offenders, according to the document which was issued recently by the agency’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and is titled “Mexico’s Drug War & AMLO” and subtitled “Crime; Drug Trafficking; Narco-Terrorism.”

Narco-violence and cartel-associated crime is already one of most dangerous threats against U.S. private-sector interests in Mexico, according to the State Department, and Obrador’s new policies will only worsen the crisis. “The promised amnesty deal with organized criminal groups and the pledge to investigate and prosecute corrupt politicians, many of whom are in business with the cartels, prompts concern about increased impunity for violent offenders,” the new memo states.

It identifies “hot spots” for Mexican Criminal and Narco-Violence and reveals that the drug war and cartel infighting has caused severe, nationwide security repercussions. Five Mexican states (Colima, Guerrero, Michoacán, Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas) have such high levels of violence that the U.S. government warns against travel. Common crimes include homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery. “In these states, gang activity, including gun battles, is widespread,” the State Department writes. “Criminal organizations operate freely and sometimes with impunity. Local law enforcement has limited capability to respond to violence in many parts of these states, as criminal organizations have laid territorial claim to significant portions of the region.”

In 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) handled 116 kidnappings in Mexico, 81 for ransoms, and during the 2018 general elections there were 774 attacks against politicians. More than 150 politicians were killed in the attacks, the State Department reveals, and 371 non-elected officials. On election day alone, 138 assaults were reported in Mexico and seven politicians were murdered, compared to nine during the entire 2012 election season. Clearly, our neighbor to the south is a perpetually unstable, crime-infested cesspool. Intra-cartel violence remains the most prevalent type of crime much like an outlaw society taken over by thugs.

“Although Mexico employs strict gun-control laws, criminals are often armed with guns, which has resulted in the increase of homicide incidents in Mexico,” according to the State Department memo. “While most of these homicides appeared to be targeted, criminal organization assassinations, turf battles between criminal groups have resulted in violent crime in areas frequented by U.S. citizens. Shooting incidents injuring or killing bystanders have occurred. In some states, members of these groups frequently maintain roadblocks and may use violence towards travelers.”

It’s difficult to imagine that the Mexican crisis will worsen in a few weeks. For years a variety of government audits have documented that the overwhelming majority of illegal drugs in the U.S. come from Mexico and Mexican traffickers remain the greatest criminal threat to the country. A recent one that comes to mind is the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment proclaiming that Mexican cartels are in a class of their own, that “no other group can challenge them in the near term.” The government classifies them as Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCOs) and they smuggle in enormous quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana. We’re talking about sophisticated operations that have been smuggling huge amounts of illicit drugs into the U.S. for some time.

It doesn’t end there. The DEA has confirmed that major Mexican cartels are actually operating in the United States. They include the Beltran-Leyva Organization (BLO), New Generation Jalisco Cartel (Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación or CJNG) the Los Cuinis, Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo or CDG), Juarez Cartel, Michoacán Family (La Familia Michoacána or LFM), Knights Templar (Los Caballeros Templarios or LCT), Los Zetas, and the renowned Sinaloa Cartel.

Mexican drug cartels have long benefitted from our susceptible southern border and the situation is more serious than ever because traffickers have joined forces with Middle Eastern terrorists to enter the U.S. Years ago Judicial Watch broke a story detailing how smugglers (“coyotes”) working for the Juárez Cartel help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” also smuggle ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. Judicial Watch’s high-level government sources say these specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

On the Street: Trump Rally Attendees Weigh in on Media Treatment of President

Genevieve Wood 

On Wednesday, journalists at the White House once again displayed their hostility to President Donald Trump. We asked Americans at a Trump rally recently their thoughts on the media’s behavior toward Trump—and they didn’t hold back. We took our camera “On the Street” to find out.

6 Big Moments From Trump’s Epic Press Conference on Midterms

By Fred Lucas The Daily Signal

President Donald Trump put a positive light on the split results of Tuesday’s midterm election, which saw Democrats win back control of the House even as Republicans made gains in the Senate.

Here are six key moments from Trump’s 86-minute press conference Wednesday, which included some fiery exchanges with reporters.

1. ‘No Love’ for Vanquished Republicans

The president framed the outcome, in which Republicans increased their Senate majority while losing their House majority, as a “tremendous success.”

Trump compared the results to those under his predecessor, President Barack Obama, who saw Democrats lose 63 House seats and six Senate seats during his first midterm election in 2010.  

“I thought it was very close to complete victory,” he said.

“This vigorous campaigning stopped the ‘blue wave’ that they talked about,” Trump said later. “I don’t know if there ever was such a thing, but could have been. If we didn’t do the campaigning, … there could have been. History really will see what a good job we did in the final couple of weeks.”

Trump said House Republicans who lost failed to embrace him during their campaigns. He called out by name Reps. Mike Coffman of Colorado, Mia Love of Utah, Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Peter Roskam of Illinois, Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, and John Faso of New York.

He also called out New Jersey’s Republican Senate candidate, Bob Hugin, who lost to Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez.

Of Coffman, Trump said, “Too bad, Mike.”

Regarding Utah’s Love, Trump said: “Mia Love gave me no love. And she lost. Too bad. Sorry about that, Mia.”

“Peter Roskam didn’t want the embrace. Erik Paulsen didn’t want the embrace,” Trump said. “I’m not sure I feel happy or sad. But I feel just fine about it.”

“In New Jersey, I think [Hugin] could’ve done well but didn’t turn out too good. Bob Hugin, I feel badly because I think that’s something that could’ve been won, a race that could’ve been won.”

“Those are some of the people that decided for their own reason not to embrace—whether it’s me or what we stand for,” Trump said.

2. ‘Beautiful’ Deals With Pelosi

Trump said he supports House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., becoming House speaker again, even as many new House Democrats have pledged not to support her.

“If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes,” Trump said. “She has earned this great honor.”

The president said those who thought he was being sarcastic, in an earlier tweet, about Pelosi deserving the speakership were wrong and that he was sincere.

Trump predicted: “We can do a tremendous amount of great legislation together.”    

He also predicted the possibility of a “beautiful, bipartisan type situation” between the White House and House Democrats, and “much less gridlock.”

“Now we have a much easier path because the Democrats will come to us with a plan for infrastructure, a plan for health care, a plan for whatever they’re looking at, and we’ll negotiate,” Trump said.

3. ‘Solution’ to Abortion Compromise

Trump, who has had a strong pro-life record since becoming president, said the two parties could reach a compromise solution on abortion, which is perhaps the nation’s most polarizing issue.

“I won’t be able to explain that to you, because it is an issue that is a very divisive, polarizing issue,” Trump said.

“But there is a solution. I think I have that solution, and nobody else does. We are going to be working on that.”

4. ‘Just Sit Down, Please’

CNN correspondent Jim Acosta asked Trump questions about the “caravan” of migrants headed to the U.S.-Mexico border and about the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

After a back and forth, Trump was ready to move on to the next question. When a White House aide went to take the microphone, Acosta clutched it.

This prompted Trump to tell Acosta: “CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.”

NBC’s Peter Alexander, getting the next question, defended Acosta.

Trump responded: “Well, I’m not a big fan of yours, either.”

Acosta stood up to speak again without a microphone, and Trump said, “Just sit down, please.”

The president added: “When you report fake news, as CNN does a lot, you are an enemy of the people.”

When April Ryan of American Urban Radio, also a CNN contributor, tried to ask a question without being recognized, Trump told her: “Sit down, I didn’t call on you.”

5. Democrat Investigations Will Be Met With ‘Warlike’ Response

During the election campaign, House Democrats vowed to leap into exhaustive investigations of Trump’s tax returns, his businesses, the Russia matter, and other issues.

Some House Democrats have called for impeaching Trump.

Trump reminded Democrats in the Wednesday press conference that Republicans still hold the Senate.

“They can play that game, but we can play it better, because we have a thing called the United States Senate,” Trump said. “I could see it being extremely good for me politically, because I think I’m better at that game than they are, actually, but we’ll find out.”

Trump added: “If they do that, then it’s just, all it is is a warlike posture.”

6. Letting Mueller’s Probe Continue

Trump said he won’t interfere in the Russia investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, vowing that he will “let it go on.”

“I could fire everybody right now, but I don’t want to stop it because politically I don’t like stopping it,” Trump said.

“It’s a disgrace. It should never have been started, because there is no crime.”