The Daily Signal - Everything You Need to Know About What's Happening in Impeachment Process

Episode Date: November 15, 2019

"Democrats are intent on impeaching President Trump for something. It really doesn't matter to them what it is," says Heritage Foundation legal scholar Tom Jipping. He joins the podcast to explain why lawyers, not lawmakers, are doing much of the questioning, what's next for the impeachment process, and what the main takeaways are from the hearing Wednesday. We also cover the following stories: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggests President Trump's actions are worse than President Nixon's offenses. At least two people were killed in another school shooting. Pop star Ellie Goulding has backed down after demanding Salvation Army donate to an LGBT group. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet,iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, November 15th. I'm Rachel Del Judas. And I'm Kate Trinco. Today, we're going to feature Daniel Davis's interview with Heritage Foundation legal expert Tom Jipping about impeachment. What's happening? What's next? And what actually matters. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe.

Now on to our top news. Today, the House Intelligence Committee will help. post its second public impeachment hearing. This one featuring the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yanovich. George Kent, a top state department official in Europe and Eurasia, and a witness in the impeachment hearing Wednesday, specifically mentioned Yonovic and his remarks Wednesday.

Via Reuters, here's what he said. Over the course of 2018 and 2019, I became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani and others, including his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Furr. Truman to run a campaign to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch and other officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. The chief agitators on the Ukrainian side of this effort were some of those same corrupt former prosecutors I had encountered, particularly Yuri Lutsenko and Victor Shokin.

They were now peddling false information in order to extract revenge against those who had exposed their misconduct, including U.S. diplomats, Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, and reform-minded civil society groups in Ukraine. During the late spring and summer of 2019, I became alarmed as those efforts bore fruit. They led to the ouster of Ambassador Yovanovitch and hampered U.S. efforts to establish rapport with the New Zelensky administration in Ukraine. Yovanovitch previously testified behind closed doors. According to the transcript released, Yovanovitch was asked about President Trump referencing her in the July 25th call with Ukraine Zelensky. Yovanovich said, I was shocked.

I mean I was very surprised. that President Trump would, first of all, that I would feature repeatedly in a presidential phone call. But secondly, that the president would speak about me or any ambassador in that way to a foreign counterpart. This week, the Daily Signal interviewed Congressman Greg Murphy of North Carolina, a Republican, and asked him what he thought of Democrats' impeachment probe. Here's what he had to say. Well, it is what it is. I think part of our media bias loves to be able to report things that are very pro for socialism and socialistic policies,

but they're not willing to report the horrible parts of socialism and socialistic policies. And, you know, if only we had a truth meter on every media article and every newscast, it would be wonderful to have that for the American people so they can really find out what the truth is. So we just celebrated Veterans Day, and I know that your district has a very strong military presence, and that's something that's really important to you. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? We had a fantastic experience on Veterans Day. I was in a parade in Moorhead City down on the coast. I celebrated with two cities in Pitt County, one in Greenville and one in Aden on their Veterans Day celebrations, and it was just fantastic.

And just coinciding this, recently, the Marines celebrated their 24th birthday, and it was fantastic to celebrate both with the Marines at Camp Lejeune and then at Cherry Point. We'll feature the full interview with Congressman Murphy in the Daily Signal next week. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trumpeted the impeachment proceedings in remarks Thursday.

Here's what she had to say via C-SPAN. I thought it was a successful day for truth, truth coming from the president's men, people he appointed, a person that he appointed most recently, to the State Department. Again, none of us has come to Congress to impeach a president. We come here to do the work of the American people to make the future better for them to try to do so in the most bipartisan way possible. Pelosi also said, The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry,

and that the president abused power and violated his. his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival, a clear attempt to the president to give himself the advantage in the 2020 election. Doing so, as I've said to the president, jeopardize our national security, undermine our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our electoral system, violate your oaths of office. I salute chairmanship for the dignity and the statesmanship that he brought and the members of the Intelligence Committee, the Democrats, for the showing great patriotism and professionalism with which they are conducting the proceedings. I'm very proud of them. In response to a question from a reporter, Pelosi also threw out this claim. By the way, what President Trump has done on the record in terms of,

acting to advantage his foreign power to help him in his own election and of the obstruction of information about that. The cover-up makes what Nixon did look almost small. A shooting at Zagas High School in Santa Clarita, California on Thursday, left at least two people dead and at least three injured. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva spoke Thursday about the incident. Here's what he had to say. Among those who were transported turned out to be the suspect who was currently in the hospital in grave condition.

And he's a male Asian, 16 years of age, and a student of the school. The other five students, I'll have Captain Wegener provide their demographics. The school was locked down. We did partially evacuation. We also sheltered in place a portion of the school until we established who was a, Who was responsible for this tragic shooting? Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, almost immediately tied the shooting to gun policies.

Here's what he said on Thursday. As I speak, on the floor right now, there is a school shooting in Santa Clara, California. How can we turn the other way? How can we refuse to see that shooting? in real time, demanding our attention, requiring our action. We are complicit if we fail to act. Pop star Ellie Golding is back to singing at the Dallas Cowboys and Buffalo Bills' Thanksgiving game

after threatening to withdraw over the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army will be launching its Christmas campaign at the game, and Golding appeared in an Instagram photo, wearing a Salvation Army apron. However, when a commenter raise concern over the Salvation Army's approach to LGBT issues, Golding responded. Upon researching this, I have reached out to the Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out

unless they very quickly make a solid committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community. However, now the Salvation Army says Golding is definitely on for the show. The National Commander of the Salvation Army, David Hudson, told Fox News in a statement. We'd like to thank Ellie Golding and her fans for shedding light on misconceptions and encouraging others to learn the truth about the Salvation Army's mission to serve all without discrimination. We applaud her for taking the time to learn about the services we provide to the LGBTQ community, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. were committed to serving anyone in need. Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky has conceded his re-election race to Democrat Andy Beshear, who won the election by just 0.5 percentage points.

Bevan congratulated Bashir on his victory and thanked constituents for their support. Here's what he had to say Thursday speaking to press. I truly wish the Attorney General well as the next governor of the state as he assumes these responsibilities. I truly do. I love this state. I love this country. I love the fact that we're blessed to live in a nation where things do transition in ways that much of the world wishes they had. There's not going to be people fighting in the streets. There's a natural exchange of leadership, and we will have that. We've already been working. Our team and his team, conversations have been had. It will continue to, and I think we should continue to. expect to have a smooth transition. Our state does not afford a tremendous amount of time to get these things done. It's tough to come in in just a handful of weeks, less than a couple of months. And so every single facet of our administration that is desired is ready, willing and able, some of whom are already doing this, others of whom are able and willing to, as requested and desired to help in this transition process. So again, I wish Attorney General Meshire, well as he transitions to his next role in this state. It's a big responsibility. Next up, we'll feature Daniel's interview with Tom Jipping about impeachment and what to expect.

What the heck is trickle down economics? Does the military really need a space force? What is the meaning of American exceptionalism? I'm Michelle Cordero. I'm Tim Desher. And every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we break down a hot button policy issue in the news at a 101 level. Through an entertaining mix of personal stories, media clips, music, and interviews, we help you actually understand the issues. So do this. Subscribe to Heritage Explains on iTunes, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcast today. Thomas Jipping joins me now in the studio to unpack the impeachment hearings. He is a senior legal fellow here at the Heritage Foundation. Tom, thanks for your time.

Thanks for having me. So the House Intelligence Committee so far has heard from two witnesses. is Ambassador Bill Taylor and George Kent, who's a career diplomat. Both of them say they heard suspicious things about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Did we actually learn anything from their testimonies? Well, we learned that they heard things. You know, there was an exchange with a Republican member trying to pin down just what the witnesses knew. And it turns out just what they know is that they heard things.

from other people. They don't have any firsthand knowledge of the events that we're all focusing on, such as the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. They obviously know a lot about Ukraine, the relationship between our two countries, you know, kind of how diplomacy done. But as far as the specific events detailed in the whistleblower complaint that really were all concerned about, They don't have any direct knowledge at all. So this doesn't really prove at all what Democrats are framing it to prove. I mean, what are the takeaways then? Well, one takeaway is it kind of affirms what I think more and more people are feeling about this process,

which is Democrats are intent on impeaching President Trump for something. It really doesn't matter to them what it is. I think if at the end of the day, because of course after the Intelligence Committee has its hearings, the Judiciary Committee will take over and it's the Judiciary Committee that will actually draw up articles of impeachment. If those were blank pieces of paper, the House would still vote to impeach President Trump. So, you know, from that perspective, yesterday's hearing, the hearings that are going to yet take place are kind of irrelevant. I mean, it almost doesn't matter what is said. The fix is in and House Democrats have decided they're going to impeach President Trump. You know, one thing I thought was a little odd was that both the Republicans and the Democrats to use lawyers to ask some of their questions.

What was that about? Well, I don't think that that's unusual in a setting like that. You know, members on both sides are a pretty mixed bag. You know, there's a reason, for example, during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing that they brought in a prosecutor to ask questions with regard to the allegations against him. And I think when you have a narrower, more focused area to explore, the skills that lawyers have can come in handy. And so I thought actually that was a pretty good choice. It's a large committee and the members on both sides come in some, you know, different varieties that the public, I think the public benefited more from the lawyers asking the questions than if the members had. You know, you mentioned that the fix is in for the president.

And something that struck me throughout this whole process is we all have the same facts available to us. And we can all read the transcripts that are available. We can all listen to the testimony. and yet we're drawing completely different conclusions based on those things. When you look at the transcripts that are available and listen to the testimony, is there enough evidence to conclude that President Trump did pressure Ukraine to launch these investigations potentially into the Biden's? Well, I wouldn't agree that we all have the same information. This has been one of the problems with this process.

The public only has information that the Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff chooses to let us know. And remember that hearings up until this point had been in six different committees secret. So we don't know what was done in those committees, what was discussed. We have some deposition transcripts, but again, only those that Adam Schiff has chosen to disclose or to leak or whatever. So that is, I think that's a big problem because even if there was, you know, complete information and we all had exactly the same, you know, stuff on the table, it would still be what you referred to, which is we'd be looking at it differently. But we don't know if we have good information or not. And that's not a good way to run something as important as an impeachment process. Right.

Right. And Republicans are saying that two, you know, these two witnesses, Bill Taylor and George Kent got their information from secondhand, third hand, maybe fourth hand sources. It's just hearsay. And so there's really no reliable evidence. But doesn't that just mean that we need to, you know, maybe have some kind of investigation to actually figure out what happened? I mean, the Democrats are saying. Democrats would say that that's what we're doing. We are having an investigation. Six different committees are investigating. I think one thing that we do need is for the whistleblower to testify, okay? Because, again, the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment, which means at the end of the day, the Judiciary Committee could draw up articles of impeachment about anything. We assume, we anticipate that it'll be about these specific events, about the phone call. There is that memo about the phone call that the public's been able to see. And then there's the whistleblower complaint.

That's the thing that got this whole ball rolling. And it didn't appear from that complaint that the whistleblower had firsthand information or knowledge either. But that's the document filed by that person that really set all of this in motion. So I think it's perfectly fair. And I think necessary for that person to come before the committee and to answer questions from both sides. I mean, if your goal is to find out as much of the truth as you can with respect to this question of impeachable offenses, that's the kind of thing that you do. Right. And that's not a, that's not a mysterious.

That's not something only lawyers can figure out. I mean, that's just common sense. Yeah, it seems like the Democrats almost want to have their cake and eat it, right? They want the claim from the whistleblower to be lodged against the president, but they don't want the whistleblower to be verified as a person. That's correct. I mean, they have scripted a narrative about this impeachment. They've framed it a certain way. They've, you'll see that they don't use the phrase quid pro quo really anymore.

They now talk about bribery and extortion and, you know, those kinds of really dramatic words. Maybe they focus grouped it or something. But they have a narrative that they've scripted. And they're going to try to, they're going to do the things that promote. that narrative and they're going to try to avoid the things that take away from that narrative. This is not a search for the truth. It's not an inquiry in that sort of generic sense. This is a process, kind of a check-the-box process to get to what we all know is going to be the end result, and that's impeachment.

Well, Democrats are saying that the whistleblower has got to be protected because this is, you know, a key check that we have to corruption within the federal government. People have to be able to come forward and, you know, know that they'll be protected. The Whistleblower Protection Act, which is the federal law that provides a process for government workers to get information to Congress about things. You know, that's for situations like, you know, they're misspending, you know, money in my agency or something like that. That's the sort of ordinary way that that's produced.

and you want to protect people's identity because otherwise they might not be willing to kind of step forward about things like that. This is different than anything like that. This is so radically different from any situation that probably will ever happen again that those sort of ordinary ways of looking at it don't apply. This is a completely different situation. And besides, as we've written about here and in the Daily Signal, the whistleblower broke the law. and went to Adam Schiff's staff before he filed his complaint with the Inspector General of the intelligence community. The law requires him to go to the Inspector General as a buffer, as a check. And instead, the whistleblower went to Chairman Schiff's staff first.

So the whistleblower himself isn't following the law. And that's only one of a dozen ways that this is different than any other sort of normal situation. Well, some voices, even some Republicans in Congress have been saying that if Trump did ask Ukraine to open this investigation into the corruption and potentially the Bidens, it could be legal or illegal depending on what his intent was. I want to ask you about that. I mean, is there anything in the law that says the president's intent would be decisive? I'm not sure what law they're referring to when they say that it might. be illegal. This isn't about whether laws have been broken. This is about whether the president abused his power and ought to be removed through impeachment. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

That's what this is all about. Can you explain that distinction because, well, a president's actions can be impeachable, but not be criminal. A president doesn't have to commit a crime in order to be removed from office through impeachment. In fact, impeachment, one of the purposes of the impeachment process is a way to address a public official's misconduct that might well not be criminal and couldn't be addressed by the criminal law. It has to do with a president who's so broken faith with the people, who has so kind of committed offenses against our political system that he has to be removed now. But that doesn't, that actions, those actions don't have to be criminal at all.

So that sounds a bit more subjective. Sure, it is. Congress can just decide what its own criteria are to impeach the president. Well, they can, what they ought to do is take the concept of impeachment. I mean, when America's founders put impeachment into our Constitution, it had been used for two or three hundred years in England. It's been around for a long time. We understand what the concept is. In the particulars, you know, that's where, you know, that's where the D.D.

details are. But we know what the concept is. And by the way, that does not include simply using impeachment as a weapon against your political opponents, which is what Democrats are doing with the president. But then it has to be implemented in an individual case. I'm just saying it doesn't matter whether what the president may or may not have done is criminal. It can still be impeachable. And that's what we have to focus on. So if evidence did come forward showing that President Trump did pressure Ukraine to investigate corruption, you know, corruption which may have been tied to the Bidens, would that be impeachable? Or is that a legitimate thing for a president to ask for? Well, just the way that you described it without more, it's, I would expect a president in a relationship with another country to which we're giving hundreds of millions of dollars.

year to want that country to work on what is a demonstrated history of corruption. I mean, that was brought out at the hearing and the Intelligence Committee. So just that by itself, that's just normal interaction with another country. Right. But what if the president actually cherry picked Ukraine because he knew that the Biden's had some dirt there? And if you asked Ukraine to do a broad investigation, the Bidens would get swept into that. But I think you'd have to do two things.

Number one, you'd have to really make the case that, you know, the president wouldn't be asking Ukraine to address their corruption problem, were it not for a connection to the Bidens. Ukraine has been corrupt for many years. Again, at the Intelligence Committee hearing, the witnesses talked about not only the corruption that had long been a plaguing problem in Ukraine, but how? how the very company that Joe Biden's son was involved with was part of that corruption. Okay. So, I mean, that's a clear record. Yeah. And then you'd have to show that there was some specific connection that I'm asking you to do that because I want you to investigate Joe Biden because I want him, you know, that investigation to help me under my reelection.

Which the transcripts don't really reflect. Of course not. I mean, that's, but that's really what you'd have to argue. And so much of the interpretations has been reading between. between the lines there. The public has had that memo about the July 25 phone call now. And, you know, you could give it to 10 people and they'd have 14 different versions of what it really says or means. I mean, you can read it legitimately in different ways. And you've got to go with the information that we have. We can't read people's minds. You can say, well, you know,

I just think that that's not a basis to remove a president. What it comes down to is, you should we remove a president from office over things that he said that can be understood in different ways by reasonable people? I mean, I think the answer to that is obvious. In our system of government, we handle things like that through elections. And frankly, I wish the American people, and maybe they are and it's not being reported, but I hope the American people get a little bit perhaps resentful that Congress, Congress, or at least the Democrats in Congress, are trying to take their choice away from them. After all, we have an election in less than a year.

Central to our system of government is the people's participation in choosing their own leaders. And impeachment short-circuits that. Impeachment takes that away from the American people. I mean, Bill Clinton and even Richard Nixon, they'd already been re-elected, right? So it wasn't a matter of, you know, the people could pass. judgment at the next election on what they did because they were going to be out of office anyway. But that's not the case now.

And frankly, I think the American people ought to take that a little bit more seriously, that this will take away from them the choice of who they want to have as their leader. Yeah. Well, let's just say for the sake of argument that it was proven that President Trump did extort or bribe, you know, the Ukrainians. Would that, is that something that should be impeached while Trump? is in office or prosecuted after he leaves office? Well, the Constitution limits the consequence of conviction to removal from office and possibly

in a separate vote, disqualification from holding any other federal office. But the Constitution explicitly says that that doesn't affect the criminal justice system's treatment of someone if what they did was, in fact, criminal. So a public official who's removed through impeachment could very well be. prosecuted later if what they did violated the criminal law. So House Republicans this week have been describing this impeachment process as a media spectacle and a circus. And it's kind of similar to the way Democrats described the impeachment of Clinton in the 90s.

Are you concerned about what all of this might do to impeachment as a constitutional power? Absolutely. When you have a process. of government what provided for by the Constitution and impeachment is there for a reason, when it is morphed into something else, when it's used in a sense for not its intended use. There really isn't any way to put that genie back in the bottle, right? I mean, we have to have consensus on how our government is supposed to work, and then we can have disputes and conflicts over policies or whatever. But if the way the government works, the process of government itself is sort of torn apart and, you know, twist it up and this kind of thing, that I don't know that that can be put back, you know, back in order. And that's the whole ballgame. So I think this is a very serious matter in its impact on our system of government. I realize that that's kind of an academic subject in people's eyes glaze over pretty quickly.

But, you know, that we fought a revolution over a system of government. We, you know, our rights depend upon a system of government. And I think that's one of the legacies of all of this that is not going to be good for our country. Well, the next hearing is set for Friday, and the witness will be Marie Yovanovitch, who served as ambassador to Ukraine up until May of this year. What should we expect to hear from her? It's difficult to say because, again, these witnesses have testified in secret hearings already. For some of them, we have their opening statements from those previous hearings. People can read those. And, you know, we might have, again, whatever transcripts or other information,

Adam Schiff chooses to let us see. So that's hard to say. I do hope that as this narrative sort of moves along and these different witnesses testify to parts of it, I do hope that Republicans don't limit what they're doing to sort of, you know, this is a charade and this is a, you know, a show trial and everything, that they do delve into the substance of what it is that these witnesses have to say and really highlight the fact that we haven't yet. had witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the particular things that we anticipate will be the basis for the impeachment articles. We haven't seen them. And that's the kind of thing where if you'd say, if you were going to do the impeachment process in as nonpartisan and fair away as possible,

what would you do? Those things aren't being done. If you were going to have witnesses to establish allegations of these kinds, what would they say? Witnesses haven't said that. You know what I mean? So I think Democrats are going to stick to the narrative and try to prevent anything from distracting from that. Well, they say they want impeachment wrapped up before the end of the year. We've got one more week of hearings in the House. And then presumably, though, you know, nothing is for certain.

The House will vote to impeach. Well, no, then it moves to the Judiciary Committee. Okay, that's right. House Resolution 660, which was the resolution the House passed a couple weeks ago, setting up the public hearings in intelligence and judiciary made provision for those hearings. And it'll be the Judiciary Committee that actually draws up articles of impeachment. So I think there'll be hearings in judiciary as well. and then they'll have to go through the process of actually, you know, debating and amending or preparing the actual articles, and then it would go to the full House. The wild card here is that there are four other committees who are investigating.

I mean, this is the strangest, and I studied impeachment a lot. In 2010, which was the last impeachment the House did of a federal judge. I was the deputy chief counsel of the Senate impeachment trial committee. when that impeachment came over to the Senate. And in the course of a year, working on that, I studied impeachment a lot. And this is the strangest process I have ever seen where in the past it was only one committee, just judiciary. Now it's six. Only two committees have some rules set by the House. The other four just sort of what, investigate in secret, making it up as they go along. We have no idea what those four committees. which are continuing to, quote, investigate are going to produce and how? We just don't know. It's like everyone just wants a piece of the action. Well, that's an awful lot of spaghetti being thrown at the wall.

And, you know, Democrats chose to do it that way. But if that results in a chaotic process that isn't quite as organized and managed as they'd like it to be, well, that's their fault. So assuming the House passes articles of impeachment, it'll go to the Senate. Mitch McConnell very recently has said that they would have a trial if they got articles of impeachment. What do you think that would look like? Well, the Senate has a set of rules for impeachment trials. The House does not have separate impeachment rules, but the Senate does. And that's the basis on which McConnell said we really have to hold an impeachment trial if there is an impeachment by the House.

Some people criticized him for that, but he was absolutely right. The impeachment that I mentioned, which was of a federal judge, the Senate uses a separate committee of senators to conduct the trial. But if it's an impeachment of the president like it was for Bill Clinton, that trial will take place before the full Senate. And it'll be presided over by the Chief Justice. You know, there'll be a lot of wrangling behind the scenes in preparation for that about, you know, whether motions can be made, whether, you know, questions of procedure can be settled. You know, does the full Senate have to make those decisions? In the impeachment trial, the Senate acts as kind of a combination of the judge and the jury.

The prosecutor is the House. So the House would send some members over to the Senate. They call them impeachment managers. And they play the role of the prosecutor. the defendant would be the president, and then the Senate itself would play the role of judge and jury. But, you know, there's only general parallels between this and the criminal justice process. So all of those questions about procedure, evidence, you know, different sorts of legal standards, things like that, all of that has to be decided or left up to each individual senator. It can be a very chaotic process.

And since there's so much at stake and it's so politically charged, I think former majority leader Trent Lott referred to running the Senate as hurting cats. I think that's going to be docile compared to this. Wow. Well, we'll certainly keep covering it. Tom Jipping, thanks so much for your time today. You're welcome. Tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger government become a part of the Heritage Foundation. We're fighting the rising tide of homegrown socialism

while developing conservative solutions that make families more free and more prosperous. Find out more at heritage.org. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcasts brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or Spotify. And please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us any feedback.

back. Robin Virginia, we'll see you Monday. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, the Leah Rampersad, and Mark Geinney. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.