Advertisement

President Trump, during a wide-ranging interview on Sunday’s LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN sparked by the release of his new book OUR JOURNEY TOGETHER, discussed what we know about “Election Fraud 2020” and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, which are linked through the law firm Perkins Coie.

It was Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias, host Mark Levin noted, “who went all through the states, from 2016 to 2020, trying to change the rules and so forth, had all kinds of dark money behind him.”

Trump interjected that Elias “got fired from Perkins Coie,” though our understanding is that Elias’ exit --- Michael Sussmann’s, too --- was part of an overall legal strategy, as The Elias Firm is still affiliated and is dedicated to getting “progressive” Democrats elected. But certainly Elias “was hot,” as Trump put it.

And, as we’ve known for a long time, all roads led back to Hillary. “They made it up in either her kitchen or a law office,” Trump said of the Russia “collusion” story. Hillary spent millions of dollars to hire “nut job” Steele, he said, though more accurately it seems Steele pocketed relatively little of the money that poured in to attorneys at Perkins Coie and dirt-diggers at Fusion GPS.

Trump reminded Levin that then-Sen. John McCain gave a copy of the “dossier” to the FBI, which we’ve noted was bombarded on all sides with copies of the phony document. “If you did a movie,” he said, “nobody would believe it.”

He said people come up to him and marvel, “How you survived is one of the most incredible things.” Had he not fired Comey, he said, “you might not be talking to me right now about a beautiful book of four years at the White House.” Yet he sees that crew coming back again, which he says “shouldn’t be allowed” to happen. That’s presumably what we have a special counsel for, to determine once and for all what the evidence shows about their roles in the hoax and to issue criminal indictments.

Lee Smith, author of THE PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT and THE PERMANENT COUP, has a new article examining how the media are now distancing themselves from the “dossier” –- not to put an end to the Russia Hoax, but to save it. There are some who will NEVER give up the Russia Hoax.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/12/02/investigative_issues_medias_nixonian_dossier_dodge_to_save_russiagate_itself_806294.html

Just because the “dossier” was discredited, The New York Times argues, doesn’t mean the “Russia” investigation is undercut. Really?

As Smith explains, this strategy is right out of the Watergate playbook used by President Nixon’s aides to try to head off looming disaster. It’s a standard ploy called “the limited hangout” that goes like this: When you can no longer maintain a phony cover story, acknowledge a few partial truths and a few “small, albeit honest miscues” in order to keep the most damning parts of the story hidden.

“Just as this strategy failed to protect Richard Nixon and his men,” Smith writes, “chances are it won’t help culpable reporters and news organizations avoid responsibility for their active role in the country’s biggest political crime of the past half-century. But it does show quite plainly what the American press has become.”

Here’s a link to the full article –- very highly recommended.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/limited-hangout-lee-smith

We don’t yet know if Durham has conclusive proof that Hillary was personally aware of her campaign's creation of the Trump-Russia hoax, but we do have circumstantial evidence in the form of her tweet about the fake Alfa Bank story. We also know from then-CIA Director John Brennan in a July 2016 meeting with Obama that Clinton had approved a plan concerning “Trump and Russia hackers hampering U.S. elections as a mean of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Still, it’s crystal clear that, as Smith succinctly explains it, “top operatives in her 2016 campaign used concocted falsehoods to leverage active law enforcement officials who in turn used U.S. government programs and resources to spy on the Trump campaign –- a violation of American political norms whose only real parallel is Watergate."

Actually, we’d say it’s much more far-reaching than Watergate, as Smith points out that under the pretext of investigating the “collusion” story, at least 40 Obama officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, spied on Trump and/or his team.

And even with the circumstantial evidence that President Obama was aware of what was going on, he has never been asked publicly about the Russia story. Not once.

Smith offers a run-down of the various charges in the Sussmann and Danchenko indictments that will be familiar, but then goes on to hypothesize about how Durham will get what he needs on the FBI officials who were willing participants. “Durham now appears to be using well-documented and relatively easy cases to pressure Sussmann and Danchenko to give up accomplices ‘one rung up,’ likely under the threat of jail time.”

But as the media now scramble to put as much distance between themselves and the Steele “dossier” as possible, the “limited hangout” ploy is in full swing, even though there is no Russia Hoax without the “dossier,” which was the main piece of evidence presented to the FISA court. Smith offers a history lesson on how the Watergate story was broken by the Washington Post, as depicted in ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, and how Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were rightfully “lionized” for uncovering very real criminal wrongdoing. But when it comes to criminal wrongdoing related to Hillary’s campaign, we have the opposite situation today. WAPO and other major outlets were (and are) actually part of the cover-up.

“The job of these new media outlets was not to speak truth to the powerful men and women who owned their platforms and paid their bills,” Smith writes. “Rather, it was to serve as a megaphone for their power --- to use the forms of journalism like ‘investigations’ and ‘whistleblowers’ and ‘inside sources’ to protect and advance the interests of an increasingly ambitious oligarchy that employed the country’s corporate, political, academic and cultural elites as their retainers and servants.”

That pretty well sums up what has happened to journalism, seemingly in the past decade. The fact that the Pulitzer committee rewarded “journalists” for working with a government intel operation falsely targeting a U.S. president tells us we’ve entered a sad new era.

Smith’s article is lengthy and detailed but very clearly written. For when you have time, you can’t do better than this report for a comprehensive look, especially at Clinton campaign operatives’ attempt to frame a man named Sergei Millian, a naturalized U.S. citizen who’d dared to come out publicly in favor of Trump. He’d met Trump in Florida, where he’d assisted in selling some units in a Trump property, and liked Trump’s pro-business attitude. Russian name, support for Trump –- that’s apparently all it took.

I’ll leave you with some added perspective on the warped attempt of the media to tie Trump to some kind of Russia threat. While they’re still obsessed with that, here’s the threat Russia REALLY poses. This is VIP content, but the headline alone says it all.

https://redstate.com/andrewmalcolm/2021/12/05/while-biden-sleeps-putin-prepares-to-grab-ukraine-n486415

Stop scaring voters

December 6, 2021

As the Supreme Court ponders its ruling in the Mississippi abortion restrictions case, Democratic strategists are hoping to gin up “OUTRAGE!” over abortion rights to turn around their increasingly dire election prospects for 2022. This was to be expected. When the Democrats are out of power, they can claim they have to be returned so that competent adult leadership can be restored. But when they’re in power, they can’t make that argument, for obvious reasons.

So they have to terrify their base with claims that the eeeeevil Republicans are going to take away women’s rights (actually, Democrats have done that, under the guise of “trans rights”), or bring back Jim Crow laws (a Democrat invention), or do away with the sacred Constitutional right of women to kill their unborn children. But there are signs that scaring people into voting for more incompetent Democrat rule is wearing thin.

For one thing, look around: it’s hard to think of anything scarier than the current situation under Democratic rule. Does the hypothetical loss of the right to kill your hypothetical unborn child really outweigh the very real fear that the violent criminals Democrats have turned loose on the streets will kill you? Besides, Americans have too many other things to worry about.

As Rick Moran at PJ Media points out, outrage over abortion laws may not be the motivating factor for voters that some Democrats think it is.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/12/05/a-post-outrage-world-abortion-wont-be-the-winning-issue-democrats-think-it-will-be-n1539027

Politico reported that it played no factor in the recent elections in Virginia and New Jersey, where voters were more concerned about stopping school boards from assaulting their children than allowing abortionists to assault their children. A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that voters rank abortion behind taxes and government spending, health care, climate change and the environment, immigration, jobs and the economy as an issue of interest. Exit polls in 2016 found that in picking between the pro-life Trump and the pro-abortion Hillary, only one in five voters named Supreme Court nominations as their most important voting factor, and by a wide margin, those voters were Republicans.

As Moran notes, polls show that only about 10-15% of Americans want abortion banned under all circumstances, 25-30% want it legal in all cases, and the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. While I wish more people were pro-life, I know enough about politics to know that you can’t run a successful campaign on only that one issue. We’ll soon find out whether Democrats really believe they can retain power solely on a radical pro-abortion stance that’s shared by, at most, 30% of the country. That's actually lower than Joe Biden's approval rating, and that's the thing that has them genuinely terrified.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court Justices drilled attorneys during oral arguments over Mississippi’s ban on abortion before 15 weeks, the most serious challenge yet to Roe v. Wade.

The general consensus among legal analysts was that the conservative Justices were trying to force the pro-abortion attorneys to offer some kind of concrete rationale for why abortion should be legal, the liberal justices were pushing to maintain the status quo, and Chief Justice John Roberts was looking for some way to split the difference, to allow Mississippi-like restrictions while still preserving the idea of a right to abortion under some circumstances. But even he didn’t seem inclined to defend Roe v. Wade, comparing its arbitrary “viability” standard to those in China and North Korea, which we don’t need to emulate.

https://www.westernjournal.com/normally-moderate-roberts-savages-roe-v-wade-becomes-hero-saying-everyone-else-thinking/

I linked yesterday to an article about four things the SCOTUS had to keep in mind in making their decision, and the liberals' push for maintaining the status quo was one of the logical fallacies mentioned. If a ruling is bad and has terrible consequences (in Roe’s case, the slaughter of over 60 million children in the womb), then saying it’s been around so long and so many people depend on it that we have to keep it is not a rational argument. If a ruling is that bad, then it should have been overturned sooner, not preserved forever. Under that thinking, we’d still have slavery. And preserving a bad ruling doesn't protect the Court's integrity or reputation, it erodes it.

https://www.westernjournal.com/four-things-supreme-court-must-keep-mind-takes-abortion-question/

In this exchange, Justice Clarence Thomas practically had to get his pliers and pull some teeth to get the pro-abortion attorney to admit that they were there to defend the right to abortion rather than just some vague manifestation of the rights to liberty, autonomy or privacy. It appeared that not even the person arguing that there’s a right to abortion in the Constitution wanted to be put in the position of trying to point out where it is.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/justice-thomas-what-specifically-right-here-were-talking-about

Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave a great example of how foolish it was with the original Roe decision to expect lawyers in robes to make medical decisions, such as when a fetus becomes viable. Sotomayor argued, contrary to recent medical discoveries, that it was a “fringe” idea to suggest that babies in the womb can feel pain before 24 weeks, and compared fetuses to “braindead” people.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/01/follow-science-pro-lifers-slam-justice-sotomayor-compared-unborn-babies-braindead-people/

I can think of someone I could compare to braindead people, but that doesn’t mean she can’t feel pain.

For more, this is a good article from PJ Media, summarizing 10 key moments during the oral arguments.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2021/12/01/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-todays-oral-arguments-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-n1538007

Finally, Larry O’Connor at Townhall.com shows how Justice Kavanaugh hit the nail on the head by pointing out that you cannot accommodate both sides, you have to choose. What does the Constitution say? Does it protect the right of humans in the womb to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or does it protect the right of a pregnant woman to abort her child?

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2021/12/01/justice-kavanaugh-just-boiled-the-abortion-debate-down-to-its-most-fundamental-core-n2599912

All I can say is that I’ve read the Constitution a fair number of times, and I’ve never found the word “abortion” in it anywhere.

Where the money is

December 3, 2021

Wondering why leftism and wokeness are poisoning the sciences? Partly because of peer pressure and fear of the Twitter mob, but also because that’s where the money is.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/government-science-grants-increasingly-promote-woke-ideas-study-finds

A Ph.D. candidate in computer science at Northwestern University was studying how to make a grant proposal when he noticed the same woke buzzwords popping up in all the proposals he read. So he did a study and found that nearly a third of the abstracts for grants from the National Science Foundation, the government’s primary science grant distributor, contained highly politicized terms. He found that 30.4% of them included at least one of these terms: “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented” or “disparity.”

This was especially common in education and human resources grants (53.8%), but even 22.6% of math and physical science grants contained them, up from 0.9% in 1990. Wokeism is doing the same thing to science grants that crabgrass does to lawns: rapidly expanding and choking out the good stuff.

The researcher said this is evidence that the NSF is getting increasingly politicized, and the growing sameness of the grants reflects a political litmus test that discourages conservative researchers from applying or being honest on applications. Ironically, this rewarding of woke leftism is resulting in less diversity, as only grants from one viewpoint get funded. In other words, there's a big disparity in grant awards diversity and inclusiveness because conservatives are being marginalized and underrepresented.

But I guess that’s okay, since being woke means you define “diversity” as giving a fair chance to people of every race, gender and skin color, as long as they agree with you 100%.