When President Trump presided over a business roundtable in Cleveland last weekend, it was one of several events he has hosted in the Midwest since Election Day.

Trump held a raucous victory rally in Ohio just a few weeks after he won the presidency, and has since made frequent trips to Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan: He will visit Elkhart, Indiana today (5/10)

Trump skipped the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month and instead campaigned in central Michigan. The president’s courting of voters in the Heartland is a shrewd political calculation by Team Trump.  The POTUS has this figured out:

Democrats have been counting on the Great Lakes to deliver a Big Blue Wave this November to help win back control of Congress, but with no compelling message aside from impeachment, no policy agenda for the economy or national security, and no tactical strategy to lure swing voters back, Democrats might reverse the historical trend of the out-of-power party gaining more power in the midterm election.

Robert Mueller has plenty of questions for President Trump, and maybe he will get to ask them. Most of them are perjury traps rather than real questions for the president.

Surprisingly, they contain very little that wasn’t in the public domain though prior leaks. In other words, the president is not a target because they have nothing implicating him, and so they want to use the interview to create such material.

But the conduct of the investigation by the special counsel and his team has raised a lot of questions as to its foundation, conflicts of interest, fairness and methods.

If you believe the last Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, much of the public supports Robert Mueller going forward with his investigation, although the Washington Post reported yesterday (5/01), “The number of people who say the Mueller investigation should continue is shrinking.’

That shrinking would no doubt continue if Mr. Mueller were required to answer a few questions himself.  In a deposition under oath with threat of perjury.  Such as:

There are lots of possible counterfactuals to think about had Hillary Clinton won the presidency as all the experts had predicted.

The U.S. embassy would have stayed in Tel Aviv. “Strategic patience” would likely still govern the North Korea dilemma. Fracking would be curtailed. The — rather than “our” — miners really would be put out of work. Coal certainly would not have been “beautiful.”

The economy probably would be slogging along at below 2 percent GDP growth.

China would be delighted, as would Iran. But most important, there would be no collusion narrative — neither one concerning a defeated Donald Trump nor another implicating a victorious Hillary Clinton.

In triumph, progressives couldn’t have cared less whether Russians supposedly had tried to help a now irrelevant Trump; and they certainly would have prevented any investigation of the winning Clinton 2016 campaign.

In sum, Hillary’s supposedly sure victory, not fear of breaking the law, prompted most of the current 2016 scandals, and her embittering defeat means they are not being addressed as scandals.

The end of April was extraordinarily rich in high-profile international events—and Russia was conspicuously absent from all these dynamics.

The president of South Korea and the North Korean dictator planted a pine tree of peace just to the south of the ceasefire line that still divides these two states.

French President Emmanuel Macron paid a state visit to Washington, DC (an oak tree was duly planted), and his overtly friendly talks with United States President Donald Trump on Tuesday (April 24) were followed-up by the visibly less cordial exchanges with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who traveled the same route on Friday.

Foreign and security ministers of the G7 met in Toronto, Canada, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) held a ministerial meeting on Friday, greeting the newly confirmed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Putin had no role in any of this and much much more.

When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Left’s “Resistance” wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.

On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground.

Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its demonic continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.

As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing.  Are we reaching a point in the so-far-failed Resistance where little is left except abject violence in the manner of the French Revolution?

Hell hath no fury than libtards spurned by blacks.

With just seven words, a seismic shift in the cultural and political American landscape this weekend emanated from an unlikely epicenter: superstar rapper Kanye West.

Nothing triggers leftist anger quite like blacks thinking for themselves, and not like they are told to be lefties. So when Kanye tweeted a  endorsement of black conservative commentator Candace Owens, the left erupted with predictable fury toward both West and Owens.

Kanye, whose ubiquitous wife Kim Kardashian was a prominent supporter of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has drawn leftist fire before.  But with those seven words, he may have started a revolution – because he has 22.5 million Twitter followers

If blacks and other minorities start getting the subversive idea that they can think for themselves and thrive on their own off the Democrat plantation that has kept them under the Party’s thumb for half a century, then the Democrat Party is finished.

Russian meddling? Campaign collusion? Forget that. That “did they or didn’t they” story has nothing on the ongoing saga of cybersecurity breaches with the possible involvement of a foreign government taking place in the House of Representatives.

The story has all the features of a political spy novel: stolen servers, access to confidential congressional files, claims of “controlling the White House” and $12,000 in a suitcase.

Compared to the rampant speculation over yet-unproven claims of Russian collusion in the Trump campaign, the events in the House have received minimal attention from the mainstream press (the exception is the impressive level of coverage from the Daily Caller News Foundation’s investigator Luke Rosiak).

Now President Trump has raised public questions about the issue, in the tweet above on April 20.

The unwillingness of major news outlets to devote significant coverage to the story is all the more noteworthy considering the presence of clear indications of wrongdoing by congressional staff, Members of Congress who are actively delaying the investigation, and a number of critical questions that remain unanswered.

Here are the basic facts.