Vast amount of emails remain unexamined
While we’re all obsessing over serious threats to America like big-mouthed porn stars and Paul Manafort’s 2012 tax returns, here’s a blast from the deliberately-buried past: Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations reports that contrary to what we were assured by then FBI Director James Comey (surprise!), Anthony Weiner’s laptop did not contain mostly just duplicates of already-known Hillary Clinton emails, as determined by “night after night after night” of careful comparisons by FBI agents.
In fact, due to a technical glitch that prevented direct comparisons between old and new emails, the agents had only 12 hours to examine the laptop. They were able to directly examine only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails. They never saw the rest, even though they made up potentially ten times the evidence seen during the entire year-long Hillary email server investigation. Even so, the relative handful they did examine uncovered more classified information sent by Hillary Clinton over her unsecured server, including highly sensitive communications involving Israel and Hamas. (Again: on Anthony Weiner’s laptop – Ick!)
And even though the agents found unique classified material improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, and federal law required that it be referred to US intelligence agencies for damage assessment, the FBI did not do that. FBI sources told Sperry that Comey closed the case prematurely, and the FBI not only did not investigate and clear Weiner and his wife/Hillary top aide Huma Abedin, the FBI didn’t even interview them. I’ll bet Trump’s associates wish they could get that kind of treatment!
This is a very long article, but worth your time. It should definitely leave you wondering why we need an endless, expensive investigation to determine whether President Trump was justified in firing James Comey.
Millennials like socialism, even though they don’t know what it is. But if it means “free stuff,” they like that. At least, they like it until they’re informed how much all that “free stuff” costs and what their share of the bill will be. Odd how they got all the way through all that pro-socialism indoctrination in college without ever being told how much socialism costs.
Turns out running out of other people’s money isn’t the only problem with socialism. There’s also the problem of how much of your own money it runs through.
The animal rights group PETA has finally convinced Nabisco to change the iconic box of Barnum’s Animal Crackers, a product that’s been around for over 110 years, to remove the circus cage bar design. The new box will depict the giraffes, lions and other animals running free and happy on the African Savannah (well, not so happy for the giraffes, since they’ll probably be running from the lions. PETA tends to think of nature as a Disney cartoon rather than Woody Allen’s far more accurate description: “It’s one big restaurant out there.”)
Still, congratulations to PETA for having the guts to expend time, energy and their donors’ money to take on an animal cruelty case nobody else would care enough to fight: the needless, cruel confinement of animal-shaped cookies in drawings of cages on cardboard boxes. Truly, how can any of us say we are completely human if we can ignore the imaginary suffering of defenseless graham cracker creatures?
It is about more than "one girl"
I suspected that the media would prioritize the anti-Trump legal news over the murder of Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts, who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had gamed the system to remain in America for years. But frankly, even I have been stunned at the callous disregard for this young woman’s senseless death as shown by the opponents of immigration law enforcement over the past 48 hours.
As one commentator pointed out, liberal political and media figures bawled and raged over ICE “tearing children from their parents’ arms” to put them in holding centers for a few weeks after their parents tried to enter the US illegally. But when an illegal alien who never should have been in the US at all tears an innocent American like Mollie Tibbetts from her parents’ arms forever, they dismiss her death as mere collateral damage to the greater cause of open borders and abolishing ICE.
I like to think that Juan Williams, the liberal voice on Fox News’ “The Five,” just misspoke when he accused Republicans of exploiting Ms Tibbetts’ murder by saying it was just “one girl.” So the lost of one innocent life isn't reason enough to be outraged? Does anyone on the left even remember the name Kate Steinle? I knew that would be their reprehensible response, which is why, when I reported this story yesterday, I followed it with links to multiple accounts of killings, armed robberies and rapes by illegal immigrants.
To be clear: I’m not in any way suggesting that all illegal immigrants are violent criminals (or as the media usually misquotes conservatives, that "all immigrants are violent criminals." But if we can prevent even one violent crime against an innocent American simply by enforcing immigration laws that are already on the books, so that the people who do commit these heinous crimes would not be here to commit them, then why aren’t we doing it? We can’t predict when an American citizen will commit a crime, but we can prevent crimes by those who have no legal right to be here by preventing them from being here. That's the basic duty of the federal government: to secure the borders and protect the general welfare of the American people.
Liberals sneer that it’s “only one girl.” Okay, then, give me a number. How many innocent Americans have to killed, raped, robbed or beaten before we reach the magic number that makes it worthwhile for the left to agree that we should have done more to monitor who was allowed to be in this country. Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred? A million?
While we’re tallying up that list of victims, don’t forget the name Dominic Durden. He was killed by a drunken illegal immigrant who was driving an unlicensed truck the wrong way on the highway and was still in the US, despite having two felonies and two DUIs on his record. After permanently ripping Dominic from the arms of his mother, he was sentenced to 35 days in jail.
At the link, you can read what Dominic’s grieving mother had to say about Mollie Tibbetts. Her question is the same as mine: “Just how many more will it take?”
Flush toilet, repeat process
If you thought the Peter Strzok GoFundMe page was the ultimate example of “a fool and his money are soon parted,” then hold on tight, the brazenness just got turned up to 11.
Clinton family consigliere Lanny Davis, apparently concerned that all his hard work to overturn the results of a fair and free election might turn out to be pro bono, has set up a GoFundMe page for people to give their hard-earned money to help his poor, sympathetic client, sleazy turncoat lawyer Michael Cohen. But it didn’t go quite as planned when Davis made an impassioned pitch for donations on Megyn Kelly’s NBC show, and the studio audience cracked up laughing at the very idea, and, I assume, the site’s oxymoronic name.
Those horselaughs should have been a unanimous response, but sadly, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a brain-wasting disease that affects the decision-making process. At last check, the page had racked up over $133,000 in donations (while, it bears repeating, thousands of genuinely worthy charities on GoFundMe languish in need of help.)
I’m not going to share the web address of this unconscionable attempt to fleece the feeble-minded, but I will share the similar address that Davis gave out on NBC and Fox News by mistake. Someone else had already anticipated this cash grab and locked down that URL. Go ahead, click it and see where it takes you (I promise it’s safe for work, unless your boss is a TDS sufferer. And it’s hilarious.)
Manafort Juror speaks out
One of the jurors in Paul Manafort’s trial went public Wednesday, giving an interview to Fox News (she must’ve decided that 8 out of 18 guilty counts was enough to mollify even unhinged anti-Trumpers.)
Some of her inside revelations include the fact that the jury would have found guilty on all counts except for one holdout. Yet, while she voted guilty solely because of the documents, she also thought this was clearly a political prosecution that would have been handled by a tax audit, not multiple felony charges, if the special counsel weren’t trying to pressure Manafort to say something incriminating against President Trump.
And if leftists think that finding someone who worked for Trump’s campaign for a few months guilty on some tax violations that dated back years before then is going to make Trump's supporters abandon him, they should know that it didn’t even work on this juror, who had to sit in the courtroom enduring days of prosecution arguments. Even though she voted to convict Manafort, she says she brought her Make America Great Again cap with her in the car to court every day “just as a reminder.” And yes, she plans to vote for Trump again in 2020.
Listen carefully out the window and you can hear the sounds of heads exploding in New York, L.A. and D.C.
So why won’t Trump voters turn on him?
The juror who voted to convict Paul Manafort and still plans to vote for Trump again in 2020 is a perfect lead-in for today’s Must-Read Column by Salina Zito in the New York Post.
She asks the question that I see on social media all the time: “What will it take for these Trumpkins to abandon Trump?!” (FYI: “Progressives” think derogatory terms for large groups of people are hate speech, unless they’re people “progressives” don’t like, and then they’re “funny.”) Ms. Zito’s short answer: they aren’t going to abandon Trump. And it’s not because, as liberals claim, they’re in thrall to a “cult of personality” and refuse to see Trump’s flaws. Actually, it’s Democrats who constantly fall for cults of personality, repeatedly exalting “charisma” above experience and confusing emotion-swaying rhetoric with actual accomplishments.
As Ms Zito says, Trump voters knew going in that “he was a thrice-married, Playmate-dating, Howard Stern regular,” and his Tweets often make them wince (I’m getting eye wrinkles myself just from doing that.) I’m only too aware that one of the main ways his bio differs from mine is that it doesn’t say, “Before entering politics, he was a Baptist minister.” Americans voted for Trump knowing exactly what they were getting, and they will not abandon him over some ginned-up scandals or guilt-by-association or outrage over impolitic language that would never have made page 34 of the New York Times if it had involved a Democrat.
Those of us who studied American history back when real history was taught in schools also roll our eyes at all the claims of Trump’s behavior representing one “unprecedented” outrage after another. Why, he’s impolite, rough-edged and combative (Andrew Jackson.) He has sleazy associates who want to use their proximity to power to enrich themselves (Ulysses Grant, Warren Harding, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, etc. etc.) He wants to put immigrants into detention camps (actually, Trump doesn’t, but FDR actually did.) Heck, I could even name you a previous President who cussed like a sailor and threatened to personally beat up a journalist who bad-mouthed his daughter (Democratic icon, Harry “Plain Speaking” Truman.)
So why won’t Trump voters turn on him? First, because unlike the slick professional politicians the political and media establishment prefer, he doesn’t talk pretty and do nothing; he talks ugly but gets things done. And second, because those promises were to take on the bloated, arrogant, power-mad, spend-happy elitist establishment of both parties and the bureaucratic state that is totally out of touch with the needs and concerns of regular Americans. If they abandon Trump, where do they go? Who else is even talking about trying to “drain the swamp”?
Democrats can’t seem to understand that Trump supporters aren’t so much loyal to Trump (although many who voted for him just to keep Hillary out of the White House have expressed delight to me about how faithfully he’s kept his promises to be a pro-business, pro-defense, pro-freedom conservative.) They are against what their government, the mass media and the financial sector had become – that arrogant, insulated and incompetent self-declared aristocracy that would appall and enrage the Founders – and he’s their instrument for dismantling it. This is no surprise to me – as I’ve noted many times, I wrote a book on that exact subject, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” that was published six months before Trump ever came down that escalator and announced his candidacy.
Ms Zito points out that the Democrats could put up their own version of Trump, but I would argue that they can’t. No Democrat who called for reducing government power would get two votes in the primary. The only acceptable revolutionaries among the Democratic candidates are of the Bernie Sanders/socialist ilk. I don't think Americans want a champion who'll fight a bloated, corrupt government bureaucracy by making it much more powerful and five times bigger.
Unemployment in California
With unemployment at record lows, and more jobs being created than there are job seekers to fill them, it takes some real ingenuity for politicians to find a way to keep people unemployed. But if anyone can do it, it’s the leadership of California!
At the link, an account of how California exploited a loophole in the new requirement that able-bodied food stamp recipients do some work, obtaining an exemption from the work requirement for at least another year in 55 of the state’s 58 counties. Incidentally, one of those counties is Marin County, where the unemployment rate is 2.7%, and being unable to find a job must be a full time job in itself.
Smelling an opportunity (or...something), New York prosecutors have subpoenaed Michael Cohen to testify in an investigation of Donald Trump’s now-defunct family charity foundation. Question: Is the Trump Foundation really the charity foundation started by a political family that is most obviously in need of a full-scale investigation of its sources of cash and whether donated funds were given out of more than altruism and used for something other than charitable efforts? Can’t they think of ANY other New York-based political family’s “charity” foundation that might be emitting a stronger odor of corruption? Sniff harder.
Dems ready to launch all-out war on President Trump
One very common question sent to me by readers is this: “WHY hasn’t President Trump fired the whole bunch –- Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller???” (I’m including plenty of punctuation because those comments typically have that.) And yes, readers, you are right about about all those people needing to go. Sessions, by recusing himself from anything “Russia” --- and, it seems, just about everything else in his job description --- has rendered himself worthless in his position as attorney general. Rosenstein has apparently given Mueller unlimited power to investigate anyone for anything using any tactics. He actually signed off on the last renewal of the warrant application that misled the FISA judges who granted permission for the FBI to spy on Trump associates. And he’s in the untenable position of being a potential witness in a case that he himself is supervising. As for Mueller, he’s obviously on a highly partisan fishing expedition that will destroy as many lives as necessary to catch the big fish.
There are two ways Mueller, with no evidence of crimes, can still land his fish. One way is through the courts –- even going after people for activities that AREN’T CRIMES –- to be followed by the report he’ll write to offer some pretense for impeachment. The other way hasn’t been talked about much but needs to be, and that’s for Mueller to use himself as bait. Let me explain...
I had a slap-to-the-forehead moment after seeing a headline on The Drudge Report that said, “Dems worried Mueller getting fired” and going to the story. The link took me to the NBC News website and a story called “In Case Of Mueller Firing, Break Glass: Democrats prep an emergency plan.” But this story isn’t about Democrats being worried that Trump will fire Mueller. On the contrary, I got the impression that the Democrats are hoping and praying (the ones who pray) that Trump will fire Mueller, or Rosenstein, or pardon key witnesses. In fact, they’ve worked up a detailed plan ready to go the minute he does it.
The authors of the piece interviewed nearly a dozen lawmakers, congressional aides, Democratic operatives and attorneys who were involved in the planning. The first step, to be accomplished immediately, would be to prevent any special counsel documents from being destroyed or the team disbanded. Senate Democrats would immediately demand a floor bill to protect Mueller and his materials. Rank-and-file Democrats in both the House and Senate would immediately contact everyone on a list they’ve already put together of Republicans they consider to be sympathetic, some of whom, according to this article, have said privately they would act if Trump interfered in the investigation.
MoveOn.org has already organized and is ready to mobilize 933 rallies in predetermined locations, from big cities like Los Angeles to smaller towns like Bismark, North Dakota. They’ve even got sponsors! More than 350,000 people have already RSVP’d to attend. They’ve planned this down to the hour; if Mueller is fired by 2PM on a given day, the rallies will take place at 5PM the same day.
Democrats are hoping that Republicans will be caught up in the protest and see that Mueller’s firing is so egregious that they’ll go along. (Um, this is where they’re wrong. Millions of Americans would cheer if Trump started firing these people, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t cause huge problems for this White House.)
Documents have been drawn up for every contingency the Democrats could think of, including Trump's pardoning of Manafort and/or Cohen and the possibility of a Nixon-style “Saturday Night Massacre.”
Trump’s decision to revoke ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s top-secret security clearance has apparently signaled to Democrats that they can’t predict what he might do and so must be ready for anything at a moment’s notice.
If Trump fires Mueller or Rosenstein, the Democrats will take to the floor of both Senate and House and demand obstruction of justice hearings and a special Senate committee, similar to the Senate Watergate Committee, to pick up where Mueller left off. Democratic groups are prepared to demand that the Senate shut down until there’s a resolution. Some will call for impeachment proceedings.
Letters have already been drafted from House Democratic leaders demanding hearings (Mueller would be called to testify right away), IG investigations, and information from White House counsel Don McGahn and the DOJ about any communications they’d had with the President before the firing. Demands and more demands, all ready to go.
This has all been in the works for more than a year. A “Friday group” of Democrats meets weekly to discuss the “Russia” investigation and keep the impeachment dream alive, and another weekly meeting includes groups such as MoveOn, Public Citizen, Indivisible, Common Cause, and People For The American Way. “Different Democrats have laid out different red lines for what actions by Trump would trigger a full-blown crisis response,” the article states.
The Democrats obviously don’t care if they wreck America to bring down Trump. It’s for love of country that Trump must not fire Mueller, Rosenstein or Sessions, no matter how much they deserve to go. I’m reminded of a recent tweet from sleazy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti (who’s probably getting money from some of these same groups): “We. Are. Coming. We are going to end this dumpster fire of a presidency one way or another.” It’s their plan that sounds like the real dumpster fire, and potentially much worse.