Memorial Day

May 30, 2022

Once a year, on the last Monday in May, we set aside a day to honor our fellow Americans who made the greatest of all sacrifices so that the rest of us could continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty and security. Although this has been an especially tragic month, with many innocent victims to mourn, we can’t let this day pass without paying our respects to those who gave their lives for our freedom and security, both recently and long ago.

Memorial Day was born after the Civil War, when families would take a day to tend and decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers. It soon spread to the North, and became known as Decoration Day. Eventually, it became a national holiday to honor all American military veterans who gave up their homes, their families, their very lives -- everything they had, or ever dreamed of having – all in sacrifice for their country. And just how many have made that ultimate sacrifice? Brace yourself:

From the Revolutionary War to the War of 1812, the Civil War and Spanish American war, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other wars, police actions and rescue missions around the world since 1776, over one million, three hundred and eight thousand Americans have died in uniform.

Imagine if all those soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen could come back to life for a Memorial Day parade. Picture them marching past in rows of ten, each row taking just 10 seconds to pass. That parade would stretch on and on, row after row, 360 rows per hour, for hour after hour, 24 hours a day, for over 15 straight days. That is the enormity of the military casualties America has experienced since 1776. That doesn’t even include the millions more who sacrificed their limbs, their sight, their peace of mind, and the best years of their lives, all for us.

Makes you realize just how ignorant and slanderous it is to claim America's history is built on slavery, racism and selfishness instead of freedom, compassion and sacrifice.

Today's military members, like those before them, risk their lives to protect the cherished American principles of liberty, equality, democracy, fighting tyranny and defending the weak. Previous generations guarded these bedrock principles so that they could be passed down to us. It is now our sacred duty to preserve them for future generations.

Every year, the American Legion sells poppy pins to support veterans and their families. May 27th was National Poppy Day this year ( I hope you bought one and are wearing it proudly. If not, you can still go to the website, buy their merchandise and support them.

The poppy became the symbol of Memorial Day, thanks to the famous poem, “In Flanders’ Fields,” by Canadian Lt. Col. John McCrae. He wrote it in memory of his friend Alexis Helmer, whom he watched die in battle in World War I.

The poem starts, “In Flanders’ fields, the poppies blow,

Between the crosses, row on row…”

Read the poem at the link. It's very short, but it conveys a powerful message of the depth of those soldiers' sacrifice and the debt we owe them all.

With the pandemic receding, we can once again gather in most places to show our support for veterans and our gratitude to those who gave their lives to protect our freedom. But even if you can’t, you can still proudly fly the American flag today. And we can all offer support to some of the many great veterans’ organizations, such as the VFW and the American Legion.

Another great new organization with an especially timely mission is Code Of Vets, founded by Air Force Veteran, Gretchen Smith. She and a staunch supporter, the late Charlie Daniels, once appeared on “Huckabee” on TBN to talk about the group’s efforts to provide support to veterans struggling through the pandemic. You can learn more and donate at It’s tax-deductible, and with their 1% operating costs, you can rest easy knowing that 99 cents of every dollar given goes directly to help veterans in need.

And of course, one more thing we can all do from wherever we are is stop for a moment and think of all the rows and rows of crosses in veterans’ cemeteries…say a prayer of thanks to them…and remember that each and every cross represents a genuine American hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for all of us.

McCrae’s poem ends, “To you, from failing hands, we throw the torch. Be yours, to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders’ fields.” If you really want to memorialize these greatest of American heroes, then take up the torch they passed to us. Hold it high, and never let it drop.

With the lockdowns finally over, and in spite of record gas prices, many Americans are desperate to get out of the house and go to beaches or parks to celebrate Memorial Day weekend as the unofficial start of summer. But let’s not forget that Memorial Day means far more than that. It’s a day set aside to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to provide for us the unprecedented freedom that we so often take for granted as Americans.

In a story that appeared last year in the Epoch Times, veterans talked about the meaning of Memorial Day, and all of them made it clear that it isn’t about them, but about their comrades who never made it back home. One explained the meanings of our military holidays by saying, “Veterans Day is for those who survived and retired. Armed Forces Day is for those who are still serving. Memorial Day is reserved for those who never got to take off their uniform.”

Despite the distortions of America’s history that so many people want to force into our schools, the fact is that no people in the history of the world have experienced the liberties, opportunities or prosperity that we have enjoyed as citizens of the greatest country on God’s green earth — the United States of America. I don’t say that as a biased American, but as one who has traveled the world and who can scour the pages of human history and say definitively that no nation has ever given its inhabitants the degree of freedom, security, and pursuit of happiness as has this extraordinary experiment in government called the United States.

Our Constitution is a simple, yet profound, blueprint for a government in which the ultimate power rests with the people and not with a king, a tyrant dictator, a military general, or even an elected official. The genius of our nation is that the people have been vested with the highest power, and while we temporarily grant it to those we elect, we don’t give it away (even during a pandemic.) Sometimes, our leaders need to be reminded of that, which is what free speech and elections are for.

This great system of self-government with its separation and balance of powers and its accountability to the people has been and continues to be protected against both foreign and domestic threats by those who trade their clothes of choice for a uniform and who trade their personal liberties to accept orders from someone who outranks them.

In the process of providing that protection, in wars and other police actions over more than two centuries, more than one million of those in our military have given their lives for those of us who will enjoy this long weekend. No American should take this for granted nor ignore it. It shouldn’t be left to the Gold Star families alone to take a pause for a somber reminder of the price of our benefits of citizenship. We all owe it to them to show respect in some way for those whose deaths gave us our lives.

This year, May 8 was the 77th anniversary of World War II’s VE Day (Victory in Europe) and August 15 will be the 77th anniversary of VJ Day (Victory over Japan.) Even if there are no commemorative events near you, parents should use the Internet to teach kids about VE Day and VJ Day.

For kids who’ve heard derogatory comments about the military, these anniversaries are a golden opportunity to teach them that the rights, freedoms and comforts they enjoy were paid for with the blood of patriots: over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. To cite just one war alone, many people today unconscionably water down the meaning of the term “Nazi” by hurling it thoughtlessly at political opponents.

This Memorial Day, especially in light of the shocking rise of anti-Semitic attacks by those who are ignorant of what World War II was about, please teach your children about the real evils of Nazism and the tens of millions who died because of it. Fly your flag, be proud to be an American, and give thanks and prayers for the 16 million Allied military members in World War II – over 405,000 of them Americans – who heroically gave their lives to stop it.

Closing statements were given Friday morning in the Michael Sussmann case, and the jury started their deliberations that afternoon. Since this is Memorial Day weekend, they’ll come back Tuesday to continue deliberating.

The jury will determine whether or not to convict Sussmann of lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when he told him in his office –- never mind the incriminating text we’ve all seen from the day before –- that in meeting with him to discuss the (phony) Alfa Bank story, he wasn’t representing any clients. As FOX News reported Friday, Sussmann’s attorneys slammed Durham’s case against him as “misdirection.” On the contrary, his evidence that Sussmann lied to Baker is as direct as it gets.

Tammy Bruce, sitting in as host on Friday’s HANNITY, talked with FOX News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and Trump attorney Alina Habba about the case. Jarrett jokingly referred to the defense’s argument as “A lie is not a lie if the recipient of the lie realizes it’s a lie.” He said that was the most outrageous rationalization for a lie that he’d ever heard.

In paraphrasing the defense’s argument, he showed how they contradicted themselves and actually incriminated Sussmann, their own client, “by saying, first, he really wasn’t representing Hillary Clinton during that FBI meeting, and then in the next breath...‘But because the FBI figured out he was representing Hillary Clinton in that meeting, it’s not really a lie.”

Jarrett seconded Jonathan Turley’s comment that this is the worst jury he's ever seen in his life. “This is a jury that is stacked with Hillary Clinton supporters,” Jarrett said, “[including] three Hillary Clinton DONORS… The problem is, there really are no Republicans in Washington DC, from which the jury is drawn. You’d have a better chance of spotting a unicorn than a Republican in Washington DC. And so...the defendant is hoping they will acquit him simply because he hates Donald Trump and they do, too.”

The way this case is being tried certainly supports President Trump’s argument about the two systems of “justice.” And Habba, Trump’s attorney in the case he’s filed against many (including Hillary) who damaged him by spreading the fake Russia Hoax, said he was well aware of that. “I mean, the man knows how corrupt it is,” she said, “and that’s why he’s so passionate about defending this country, and ‘correcting’ the country.”

(By the way, she mentioned that he attended the NRA convention at this sensitive time “because he cares about this country.” Trump, from the podium, said the name of every child killed in Uvalde and rang a bell for them.)

As for the Sussmann trial, she said, “I feel like I just sat through two weeks of the soap opera about the demise of America. It was despicable. And to see a jury that --- I hope they come to their senses. When you have a text message that so obviously states, ‘Hey, I’m about to lie to you” can you not call that a lie?

She said the defense spoke of this case as “a David Copperfield trick,” adding with a laugh, “That was the best they had. If I ever as an attorney have to do that, please, Gregg, come get me and tell me to step down.”

Seriously, though, it could be that Sussmann’s attorneys don’t think they even have to try very hard, given this jury. In a normal case, a person such as you or I found guilty of this charge might easily spend a couple of years behind bars. As Jarrett pointed out, Sussmann is “actually very lucky that he wasn’t charged with conspiracy to defraud the government by knowingly, willingly peddling phony information to the government.”

Of course, that whole group of disingenuous low-lifes involved in the Russia Hoax, including Hillary, should face that charge. Bruce questioned the fact that they weren’t all charged with conspiracy, but as we’ve said earlier, Durham saw the writing on the wall if he were to bring that case to a DC jury. He didn’t want to put THE big conspiracy case in front of them and lose. Better to use a small case to get the real story out.

Still, as Jarrett said, “Lady Justice peeks beneath the blindfold, and weights the scales of justice. If you’re a Republican, it’s weighted against you. If you’re a Democrat, it’s in your great favor.”

Consistent with that, a couple of days into Sussmann’s trial, Jonathan Turley compared the way Sussmann is being treated in his case by Judge Christopher Cooper with the way Michael Flynn was treated in his, by Judge Emmet Sullivan. Flynn’s case was held in the same Washington, DC, courthouse, but what a difference. This is a must-read.

Recall that Judge Sullivan abused Flynn in his courtroom, suggesting that Flynn should be charged with treason --- which was never on the table --- and saying to him, “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” Recall also that Sullivan tried to continue the case against Flynn even after it had been dismissed by the DOJ, apparently planning to serve as judge and prosecutor rolled into one.

Legal analyst Margot Cleveland posted her update on the case Friday morning, after the judge had issued his instructions to the jury. Her view coincides with that of other jaded trial-watchers: 1) the evidence against Sussmann is overwhelming, incontrovertible proof of his guilt, and 2) he probably won’t be convicted.

She mentions something we hadn’t seen reported that dispels all doubt his meeting with Baker really was on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. Did you know Sussmann even billed the campaign for the two THUMB DRIVES he gave to Baker? Gosh, you’d think that for $800 an hour, he would’ve thrown those in for free.

Cleveland goes on to show how tightly Durham had this case wrapped up, evidence-wise.

But the defense benefits, she says, from the “disinterested approach to justice” exhibited by the witnesses Durham called. He wasn’t “out to get Sussmann,” Baker said on the stand. If the defendant had lied to them and misrepresented himself, the FBI hardly seemed to care. And if those witnesses are going to shrug off the lie, Cleveland reasons, the jury probably will, too. No big deal, right?

Going further, just about everyone in that DC courtroom –- defendant, defense attorneys, witnesses, jurors –- sees Durham as a political enemy. Does that mean the jurors will simply ignore the facts and the law of this case and use the process of jury nullification to say, “hey, we’re Democrats, we don’t give a rat’s behind what this guy did”?

Quite likely. But even if they do,, the case Durham brought was so airtight that we can say, with complete confidence, Sussmann DID this. We also can say that as an attorney for Hillary’s campaign, he did it with her approval. There shouldn't be a need to put the word “alleged” in front of the charge Durham made against him. Whether this jury finds him guilty or not, Durham showed that he criminally lied, in service to Hillary Clinton, and we all know it.

The Price of Gas

May 27, 2022

Triple A reports that as of Tuesday, the average price of a gallon of regular gas was $4.598. As noted by Western Journal, that’s an increase of 35.5% since November 23, 2021, which is when President Biden announced “a major effort to moderate the price of oil, an effort that will span the globe in its reach, and ultimately reach your corner gas station, God willing.”

The global effort doesn’t seem to be going so well. Saudi Arabia just announced that it won’t make any further efforts to increase oil production. They say there’s plenty of crude oil but the problem is refining capacity, so they won’t pump any more than they are now.

November 2021 was also just over three months before Putin invaded Ukraine and gas prices were already high enough to justify a global effort to moderate them, so these aren't "Putin price hikes." What it would really take is a domestic effort: stop waging war on our own oil and gas industries.

Speaking of that, I hate to bring you more bad news, but this story reports that one of the few bright spots for US energy prices is that we pay about one-fourth as much for natural gas as Asia and Europe does. But an industry expert said that over the next six months, our prices are expected to surge and line up with other nations’ prices. That’s more of the “equity” of high fuel prices that Democrats have long argued for as an incentive to force Americans into small electric cars.

So when you hear Biden talking about bringing down gas prices and they only keep going up, remember that someone who really wants to bring down prices doesn’t do everything in his power to make them more expensive.

I generally don’t comment on political statements by Hollywood celebrities. But since Michael Moore seems to have some inexplicable influence over the “progressive” left, and I was on “Hannity” last night when this story was brought up but didn’t get the chance to address it, I thought I’d briefly respond to Moore’s call to repeal the Second Amendment (and he’s hardly the only one doing that.)

As one might guess from its name, the Bill of Rights is not a list of privileges that the benevolent government generously grants us. It’s a list of God-given rights that the government can never take away. You can’t repeal the Second Amendment any more than you can repeal the First Amendment. Now, somebody please tell this Administration that they can’t repeal the First Amendment.

It’s also beyond irritating to hear the same people who sided with teachers’ unions on keeping schools closed despite the growing evidence of stress and mental illness it was causing children, and who have promoted a culture that undermines families and erodes respect for the sanctity of life, and who backed “progressive” DA’s who’ve sparked violent crime waves that forced law-abiding citizens to buy guns to protect their families, now blame Republicans for youth violence and demand to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Kevin Downey Jr. at PJ Media has more inconvenient truths about school shootings that demolish many of the talking points.

Frankly, I resent being forced to talk about politics at a time like this, but I can’t let outrageous false attacks just pass unanswered. However, this time should be reserved for prayer, mourning and comforting the families, and for coming together to talk about real solutions that would help prevent these senseless assaults on innocent children from ever happening again.

There are things that can and should be done to make schools safer, but leftists actively oppose them. As former Boston, L.A. and New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton pointed out, the “Defund the police” movement included demands that safety officers be removed from schools because somehow, having a police officer on school grounds allegedly made kids feel “unsafe.”

The left accuses Republicans of having an “irrational love of guns.” I certainly don’t love guns, but I love the Constitution, and I don’t see the point of laws that violate the rights of innocent people while doing nothing to prevent crime (we had an “assault weapons” ban for a while; it was allowed to lapse because it made no difference.) But why can’t the left acknowledge that it has an irrational hatred of police?

The father of a school shooting victim has proposed a three-point plan that could actually help prevent such horrors. It could be implemented with some of that “COVID relief” money that was showered on schools that are still trying to find something to spend it on.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr agrees with him…

The points don’t include useless new gun laws, but they do include having an armed guard at schools, the same sort of armed guards that liberal celebrities and politicians rely on for their own security. Would they agree that our children deserve the same level of security that they enjoy themselves? If so, then let’s talk.

PS – Matt Vespa at offers some concrete examples of how school resource officers have prevented potential school shootings.

Before we get started on the Sussmann trial update, there’s one piece of business that needs to be addressed. Yesterday, I wondered how much the high-powered Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann was charging Hillary For America for his consequential little FBI visit. Those fancy DC lawyers cost a pretty penny --- I was thinking $500-600 an hour. That kind of money adds up fast, into the millions, and it’s why Michael Flynn had to sell his house to defend himself against limitless malicious prosecution.

But I have to admit, we were wrong. A top DC lawyer is apparently even pricier. As Miranda Devine at the NEW YORK POST put it, “[Sussmann] is hoisted by his own petard because he couldn’t help but charge the Clinton campaign $800 per perpetrate this dirty-tricks campaign against Donald Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton.”

That’s right, folks, $800 per hour. But, hey, Sussmann billed just 3.3 hours for the day, and given the events he set in motion with his visit to FBI general counsel James Baker, Hillary must have thought it was money well spent! As Devine said on “FOX & Friends” Thursday morning, “She sanctioned, she approved this attempt to dirty-up Donald Trump and paint him as an agent of the Kremlin. The ramifications of that dirty trick went on, crippled the Trump presidency, did great damage to this country, [and were the] source of a lot of the rancor and division that we see now.” What a bargain!

And it was a drop in the bucket, considering the millions Perkins Coie was already receiving to fund Fusion GPS and, through them, the Steele “dossier.” Fusion GPS only paid Christopher Steele $168,000.

Devine summarized: “It may seem that the charge [against Sussmann] is small, but actually, the ramifications and the report that will come from John Durham are momentous. And we should all pay very close attention to it.”

Now, let’s catch up on Day 9 of the trial. First, we learned that closing arguments will begin Friday morning because Sussmann is not taking the stand in his own defense. (Too bad, but did anyone seriously think he would?) On Thursday morning, he declined to testify, and the defense rested.

Also, Durham has just been handed a potentially serious problem. In a couple of rulings Thursday, the Obama-appointed and heavily conflicted judge in this case, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, erected some huge obstacles for the special counsel. As legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy wrote for FOX News, they are a “predictable but damaging blow to the prosecution” that make his case against Sussmann much harder to prove to the jury.

First, even though the text Sussmann sent to Baker is THE smoking gun –- ironclad proof that he lied to Baker –- Judge Cooper ruled that prosecutors must rely not on that text but on evidence that he actually told the lie the following day, while meeting with Baker, in Baker’s office at the FBI. That’s the insane degree of hairsplitting that is going on.

It stems from a legal technicality. McCarthy explains it in detail, but in a nutshell, it’s because at the time of Sussmann’s indictment, prosecutors didn’t have the text, so he wasn’t charged for THAT lie. Why, then, didn’t Durham create a superseding indictment that included both lies as separate counts? The problem is that the five-year statue of limitations was about to kick in when Durham charged Sussmann with lying in Baker’s office. The text to Baker didn’t come to Durham’s attention for another six months –- when Baker says he found it and turned it over –- and by then the statute of limitations had lapsed. Even just altering the original charging document to include anything about that text would invite legal objections. So Durham was stuck.

But, as McCarthy explains, the text isn’t out of the trial completely. It’s been presented in court, and Judge Cooper is permitting prosecutors to say it’s strong evidence that Baker’s memory is correct when he says Sussmann told him in his office that he wasn’t there on behalf of clients. What prosecutors can’t do is tell the jury that the Sussman’s text alone provides the proof he was lying (EVEN THOUGH IT DOES). Got that?

Unlike the text, Sussmann’s verbal lie is one man’s word against another’s. It was said with no witnesses and no notes taken. Baker said under oath that he’s 100 percent sure Sussmann said it, but other statements have been inconsistent, and Sussmann has pleaded ‘not guilty.” If it’s just a matter of who’s more believable, this jury is filled with DC Democrats who want to believe Sussmann. After all, he was just trying to save us from Trump!

Nick Arama at had a similar take on what the judge did, even linking to McCarthy’s analysis. This judge has taken a case that should be simple and cut-and-dried, with the proof RIGHT THERE, and made it as hard to convict as he can. He wouldn’t even allow the tweets from Hillary that show how she capitalized with lightning speed on the Alfa Bank hoax. Judge Cooper was wrong not to recuse himself from this case; we’ve addressed his conflicts before and they are staggering.

Then there’s the jury. As Jonathan Turley has noted, “I mean, he [Durham] is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury.”

Between this judge and this jury, one might be reminded of the O.J. Simpson trial, except with Judge Ito replaced by Al Cowlings.

The media no doubt sense that this jury will acquit Sussmann no matter how strong the case against him, and that’s why they’re laying low right now. If he’s acquitted –- and the verdict might come as early as today –- they’ll spring into action and use the verdict to trash the whole Durham investigation, never mind what it has found.

And Durham continues to find a lot. Testimony from Wednesday revealed that Rodney Joffe was actually the same source for two separate “tips” that falsely connected Trump and Alfa Bank. So he needed Sussmann to lie and say he wasn’t approaching Baker on behalf of clients, so he, Joffe, could still hand off his phony evidence to other people in the FBI. Joffe himself was apparently (surprise) an FBI confidential human source. This is one more reason for Sussmann to lie.

It came out through cross-examination of a defense witness, FBI Special Agent Tom Grasso, one of the people to whom Joffe had given “white papers.” For when you have time, Margot Cleveland will tell you all about it.

Finally, while we wait for the verdict, here’s an excellent review of the Sussmann trial thus far. It calls the trial “part of a three-ring circus, showcasing sleazy political enablers, malfeasance by public officials and biased reporting.” We have to “walk behind the elephants with a huge shovel.”

My friend Mike Rowe is the latest to allegedly be targeted by the government for his political beliefs – even though he doesn’t even talk about his political beliefs!

Mike says he was all set to shoot an episode of his show “Dirty Jobs” on boilermakers when the Government Services Administration suddenly yanked permits they’d had for months, claiming vague “security concerns.” It ruined months of costly preparation, caused his freelance crew to lose work and have no time to line up other jobs, and kept the boilermakers from being able to show America what they do.

Mike said he’s shot shows in all sorts of sensitive government environments, from the Capitol to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and never had a problem. Then he said he got a call from someone high up in the GSA, telling him that another GSA higher-up didn’t like his “personal politics” and deliberately strung him along just to yank the permits at the last possible second.

If true, this is not only yet another example of politicized bureaucrats arrogantly abusing their power, it’s also stupid. Mike Rowe doesn’t discuss his personal politics, and he pointed out that his foundation is “aggressively nonpartisan” and gives scholarships to liberals and conservatives alike. All he can figure is that the petty tyrant doesn’t like the fact that his show “How America Works” airs on Fox Business.

I’ll add that his great show “The Story Behind the Story” airs right after “Huckabee” Saturday nights on TBN. Maybe that’s why the GSA jerk’s nose was out of joint. I spend too much time telling you the sleazy stories behind how Washington works. And now, we have another one.

This Memorial Day may be a good time for Americans to ask ourselves: Do we still deserve our freedom? I’m not talking about our slumping economy nor even descrying our media’s unblinking distortion of issues from our porous southern border to the perfidy of Hillary Clinton. But today we are seeing the tumultuous confluence of two basic decisions reached nearly 50 years ago: the “right” of abortion decided by Roe v Wade in 1973; and the adoption of the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1974. While each choice was made separately, their protagonists could hardly have imagined how those separate choices would evolve to create twin challenges to our way of life.  

 Barely a year apart, two fundamental norms of American life had changed. The right of an unborn infant to live was now outweighed by the right of the mother to choose life or death for her baby. The historical obligation of the American citizen for wartime service had also changed, now becoming a career choice like pursuing orthodontics or agri-business. The rationales were correspondingly different. Abortion, whether or not guaranteed by the Constitution, needed to be safe and legal; the Vietnam-era draft simply needed to end. Fifty years later, we have an expensive, professional military in which less than half of one (>0.5) percent of Americans defend the other 99%. The death toll since Roe v Wade: at least 60 million infants although no one knows for sure.

As one of the last draftees, my reprieve came too late. But ten years into the AVF experiment, I served on the West Point faculty, once moderating a campus-wide debate on the role of women, The contending advocates: conservative doyenne Phyllis Schlafly versus Sarah Weddington, victorious counsel in Roe V. Wade. Even in West Point’s disciplined environment, the debate was a raucous affair; but at least our cadets witnessed the emotions and intricacies of the constitutional process they would soon defend.

 But for me that argument was settled forever the next year, when our newly adopted 4-day-old daughter wrapped her entire hand around my little finger. I was thankful beyond words that her birth mother, finding herself “in trouble,” decided to protect this new life, choosing to set aside every lesser consideration.  Thirty years later, a father’s emotions still run strong looking into her eyes and each of my three grand-sons!

Meanwhile, the Army kept getting smaller, post-Cold War reductions leaving the active force with a half-million soldiers. But then came the shock of 9/11. The voluminous memoirs of President George W. Bush, his vice-president, and his secretaries of State and Defense reveal a stunning omission: None of them apparently asked whether the AVF could sustain a long conflict. Rather than mobilizing the nation for war, the National Guard and Reserves were dragooned for extended overseas tours. Ordinary Americans were encouraged to return to the shopping malls or college campuses. “So your kid goes to Kandahar while mine goes to Yale. So what’s your point?”   

With the War on Terror dragging  on for almost 20 years, manpower became even more scarce and expensive. Meeting combat requirements meant sending the troops back for multiple combat tours to various hell-holes. Not only were our soldiers running exponential risks of PTSD, but they were also becoming increasingly isolated from American society as a segregated warrior caste. And what happened when these Other People’s Kids returned home as veterans? Although the Veterans Administration is unsure of the exact numbers, they estimate that 17-20 veterans commit suicide each day.·

As you may have noticed, the United States is now involved in two separate Cold Wars but is seriously outmanned in each. (Air Force pilots describe this condition as “discovering you’re out of airspeed, altitude and ideas.”) Making matters even worse are our internal contradictions, voices from the left made even more strident by the prospect that Roe v Wade may be reversed. Listening to them, one ponders our national responsibility for the Holocaust of the Unborn, those Other People’s Kids now being aborted.

As I write these words, my friends and neighbors in Uvalde Texas are grief-stricken by the senseless slaughter of 19 elementary school students and 2 teachers by a gun-toting monster quickly dispatched by local law enforcement. Might this latest outrage finally move our secular, prodigal nation to lower our voices, bow our heads and pray for God’s forgiveness? 


If Special Counsel John Durham hadn’t obtained the Perkins Coie billing records showing attorney Michael Sussmnn billed Hillary’s campaign for his FBI visit, he might not have had a case. Those billing records prove Sussmann was indeed working for a client when he pointedly told the FBI he wasn’t.

On Wednesday, Durham's prosecution team introduced them into evidence.

In the entry for September 19, 2016, the date of Sussmann’s meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker, Hillary For America is listed as the client. The time allotted is 3.3 hours, and the description is “work and communication regarding confidential project.” He’d originally logged it as 4.5 hours but scaled it back.

I wonder how much this top DC attorney was billing by the hour for such a shady bit of business. We know Perkins Coie pocketed nearly $12 million from the DNC, Hillary For America, and (yes) from Obama’s group Organizing For Action to hire Fusion GPS to create faux-Russian dirt. With so many middle men to hide the source of the “dossier,” all of them taking their cut, ex-spy Christopher Steele was paid a measly $168,000 for his determined gossip-gathering and fiction-writing. Here’s that story from AMERICAN THINKER; notice it goes all the way back to November 2017. You and I have known the real story behind the fake “dossier” for SO LONG.

By the way, guess who else was paying Fusion GPS for fake evidence against Trump? The hilariously-named Democracy Integrity Project, funded by...(drum roll, please)...George Soros. I am not kidding –- here’s the story from last year. This group is run by Daniel Jones, former intelligence staffer for California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He’s the one who contracted with Fusion GPS and Steele.

Bonchie at RedState says the billing statement obtained by Durham proves Sussmann lied when he said –- and texted –- that he was a concerned citizen rather than a paid advocate, but he goes further to say “it shows that Clinton herself, as leader of her campaign, didn’t just approve the false story going to the media, but also to the FBI.”

As we discussed yesterday, there’s a huge difference, legally, between taking phony evidence to the media and taking it to the FBI, and witnesses have been careful to link her only with the media campaign. Presenting fake evidence to the FBI to frame someone is a crime. And we just didn’t buy the idea that Sussmann would’ve gone to the FBI behind Hillary’s back and then billed her for the meeting! In other words, Hillary had to know.

The candidate is ultimately in charge of his or her own campaign. (“I’m so-and-so, and I approved this message.”)  Robby Mook, as campaign manager, answered to Hillary. Sussmann, as attorney for the campaign, answered to Hillary. And we know, if anyone insists on running everything she can get her hands on, it’s Hillary Clinton. The jury might be too biased to even care, but you and I know she approved Sussmann’s FBI visit.

Bonchie concurs, and says, “...the fact that the Hillary campaign hatched a false conspiracy theory and fed it to the FBI for political gain is overwhelming.”

He sees Sussmann as “the first shoe that must drop” on the path towards Hillary. This step is “another direct link to Hillary herself,” he says. Of course, with a jury stacked in Sussmann’s favor, conviction is far from assured, no matter how strong the evidence. But what Durham is really doing is putting a story together, and all the major thoroughfares and interesting side routes lead back to Hillary.

Yesterday, we reported on FBI official Curtis Heide’s testimony that the ‘Justice’ Department was listed in the opening document as the origin of the Alfa Bank “evidence,” not just an “anonymous third party” (Sussmann), and that this was due to a “paperwork error.” Legal analyst Andrew McCarthy told the WASHINGTON EXAMINER, “This investigation opening document is totally outrageous. It not only claims that the information came from the Justice Department. It suggests that the Justice Department commissioned and may even vouch for the ‘white paper,’ when they hadn’t.

Nick Arama at RedState does not believe it was a “paperwork error.” He says, “So, the excuse is that he [Heide] doesn’t even know the basic structure or breakdown of the FBI and the DOJ? What do these guys take us for, fools?” Arama suggests we “grab the popcorn,” as there is more to come.

As for Wednesday, after addressing the billing records and whether they indeed reflect that meeting, the prosecution rested its case, and it was time for the defense to call witnesses. The defense wants to show that the FBI was well aware Sussmann was representing Hillary For America. The FOX News story linked to below has details on the witnesses they called to create doubt in the jurors’ minds.

Example: A project assistant at the firm representing Sussmann --- Democrat legal powerhouse Latham and Watkins --- was called to the stand and asked to comment on a chart that showed various internal FBI documents that referred to Sussmann as working for the Hillary campaign, the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Of course, they could be well aware of his Democrat connections and still be lied to by Sussmann about the purpose of that particular visit. But that’s about all the defense can do.

The claims the defense is making now are in direct conflict with what James Baker testified last week. Baker said he remembered with 100 percent certainty that Sussmann told him he was not there on behalf of any client. And, of course, Sussmann had already texted him the same thing. Why would Sussmann say that if he knew the FBI already believed he was working for Hillary?

We still don’t know if Sussmann will take the stand in his own defense. FOX News has reported that it depends on whether the judge will bar prosecutors from questioning him about pre-indictment negotiations between his counsel and Special Counsel John Durham’s office. They don’t want prosecutors asking him about materials that were submitted to the government before charges against him were filed. These probably would have been materials submitted to try to persuade Durham not to indict Sussmann. Apparently, these did not work, and now our curiosity is peaked.

If Sussmann chooses to testify, that will likely be Thursday, with closing arguments to begin Tuesday, after Memorial Day. If he decides not to testify, closing arguments would likely begin Thursday, and the trial might even be over this week. I have the sneaking suspicion that this judge will rule whichever way leads to the choice Sussmann prefers to make.

In the meantime, law professor Jonathan Turley has an excellent question for us to ponder: Given that researchers were practically ridiculing the bogus data that Sussmann gave to the FBI, why were James Comey and the rest of the 7th Floor so “fired up” (agent Joe Pienkta’s testimony) that they demanded a FULL INVESTIGATION! I think we know.

Tuesday, there were primary elections in Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama, runoffs in Texas and a House Special Election in Minnesota. Let’s begin with the most important news of all:

In their infinite wisdom, the good people of Arkansas voted for Sarah Huckabee Sanders to be the GOP Gubernatorial candidate by over 83%. (By the way, as an indicator of how reliable polls are this year, she was at 56% going into voting day.) I’m sure she’ll be the best Governor of Arkansas in a generation. She still has to beat Democrat Chris Jones in November. I don’t want to jinx it, but I feel good about her chances, especially considering that in their primaries, Sarah got nearly 288,000 votes to Jones’ 69,000.   

And now, for the less important races…

In Georgia, former President Trump saw a rare loss for one of his endorsements with Gov. Brian Kemp easily defeating Trump-backed David Perdue by about 3-1. But Trump-endorsed NFL legend Herschel Walker won a 69% landslide to challenge uber-leftist Sen. Raphael Warnock.

In Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, Democrats have tried everything from deplatforming Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to accusing her of insurrection to trying to keep her off the primary ballot. Yet, her race was called when she was in the lead by over 70% with 44% of votes counted. There’s virtually no chance she will lose that seat in November, which means Nancy Pelosi will likely be looking up at her as she works on fixing America as part of the House majority. Incidentally, I notice that even a conservative-leaning paper like the New York Post refers to MTG as “far-right.” Isn’t it funny how we never hear any Democrats described as “far-left,” even if they’re openly socialist?

In Texas, Trump-endorsed Attorney General Ken Paxton crushed a challenge from George P. Bush, winning his primary by over 2-1. The media had framed this as a test of whether the “Bush dynasty” still reigned in Texas. I suspected that the “Bush dynasty” has long been something that lives only in the imaginations of media yakkers who haven’t actually talked to a Texas Republican in 20 years, and this proves it.

In Texas’ 28th Congressional District runoff, incumbent Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar declared victory, even though with 94% of the vote counted as of this writing, it’s too close to call yet. He’s slightly ahead of genuinely far-left challenger Jessica Cisneros, who is endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC and various radical left groups, and would be the latest “Squad” member if elected. Cuellar is a DC dinosaur: the last remaining pro-life House Democrat, and he spoke up against open borders. For that reason, “progressives” want him replaced with another looney leftist.

The closeness of the primary vote shows how out of touch activist Democratic primary voters have become with the general population, since that district has been trending red with most thinking people rejecting the crime, drugs and devastation wrought by Biden’s willful failure to secure the border. If Cisneros does somehow eke out a win, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cuellar runs an independent or write-in campaign. But that would split the Dem vote in what’s looking like a red wave year, good news for Republican Cassey Garcia, who won her runoff with 57% of the vote. Hopefully, the angry leftists will have delivered a safe Dem seat to the GOP. 

In Alabama, Katie Britt and Mo Brooks (who had Trump’s endorsement but lost it) will have a runoff for the GOP nomination for Richard Shelby’s Senate seat.

For the latest numbers on other Tuesday races, click this link:



Uvalde Tragedy

May 25, 2022

At this writing, at least 19 school children and two teachers are confirmed dead in the horrific school shooting yesterday in Uvalde, Texas. The 18-year-old shooter is also dead, thanks to the heroic efforts of law enforcement, particularly one unnamed member of an elite Border Patrol tactical unit called BORTAC. He was injured in the leg while exchanging fire with the shooter, who was barricaded and in body armor.

This is a breaking story, so here’s a link to Fox News’ continually-updated news reports:

I know that you will join me and others around the world in praying for the victims and the grieving parents who are experiencing the worst nightmare any parent can face. This is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, and all our attention should be focused on the victims and their families.

Unfortunately, as is always the case, many people rushed to cameras to exploit the tragedy by trying to blame it on their political opponents or use it to push their existing agendas before they even knew who the shooter was, what his possible motives might be, what his politics were or what kind of weapon he used (early reports said a handgun and possibly a rifle, but that’s one of many things we don’t yet know for certain.) Also, as is the case too often, it appears that the killer left red flags on social media that were ignored.

There are those calling for ending the Second Amendment, despite the fact that it’s been around since 1791, and these kinds of cold, conscienceless mass murders have only come in recent years, in an era of family breakdown, rejection of God and moral teachings, desensitizing graphic violence as entertainment, and the erosion of respect for the sanctity of human life. As I wrote recently after the tragic shooting in Buffalo, we have welcomed evil in our midst, and we refuse even to acknowledge its existence. I can make a better case for those things being contributing factors than for “the gun did it.”

But this isn’t the time for political arguments. It should be a time to come together, grieve, offer prayers and comfort to the families, and send a message to the entire world, and especially any would-be future attackers, that every one of those victims was a gift from God and the loss of their lives is an unspeakable tragedy for all of us. Stressing that message to everyone in society – that every life matters and is precious -- would do more to end these horrific attacks than passing more ineffective laws or blaming people who had nothing to do with it.

Related: This is a very good commentary by Darvio Morrow on some things that could be done that really would make our schools safer.

On Tuesday, Day 7 of the Michael Sussmann trial, FBI agent Curtis Heide shed light on how Bureau officials got the idea that Sussmann’s “evidence” about the phony Alfa Bank scandal came from the ‘Justice’ Department.

He said it was his own fault.

In a document drafted the day of Sussmann’s visit by Heide and fellow agent Allison Sands, he said “the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE provided the FBI with a white paper that was produced by an anonymous third party.” This document served as confirmation that an investigation had been opened into the later-debunked allegation.

Heide said the DOJ reference was “a mistake in our paperwork.”

Quite a mistake. When asked by the prosecution how it could’ve been made, Heide said, “I honestly don’t know.”

Recall Monday’s testimony, in which another agent, Ryan Gaynor, testified that the Bureau was shielding Sussmann’s identity from investigating agents, in a procedure called “close hold.” Though this is often considered appropriate, field investigators for this case were frustrated that they couldn’t know the identity. So for all they knew, it WAS the Department of ‘Justice’ that delivered the goods, not just some “anonymous third party,” and such a misinterpretation surely influenced the way they handled the evidence.

Text messages introduced by the prosecution underscore this problem. “We really want to interview the source of all this information,” Heide wrote to Gaynor on October 3. “Any way we can track down who the guy is and how we’re getting this information?”

There wasn’t. They were flying blind. Gaynor told him only that headquarters was looking at it.

Heide happens to be the subject of an internal FBI “investigative inquiry” for allegedly “not identifying exculpatory information as it pertained to one of the Crossfire Hurricane investigations.” His case is still pending. The allegation involves classified information that was left off a FISA application for a warrant to spy. When asked by the prosecution on Tuesday if he’d intentionally withheld such evidence from the Crossfire Hurricane team, he denied that.

Recall that FBI official Kevin Clinesmith was charged and pleaded guilty to altering a document used in the FISA application for a surveillance warrant on Carter Page. We don’t know if the allegation against Heide applies to the same application.

There’s something important to note in the earlier testimony given by Robby Mook, about Hillary personally green-lighting the plan to break the unverified Alfa Bank story in the media. Jim Trusty, a former ‘Justice’ Department official who’s now a DC lawyer, explained to the NEW YORK POST that this fits with other testimony from Mook and Marc Elias saying they were unaware Sussmann planned to also take it to the FBI. Trusty calls this strategy “Protect the Queen.” As in, Queen Hillary. It goes like this:

First, as we’ve said, taking phony evidence to the FBI to gin up an investigation of a political opponent –- or of anyone –- is very serious. It’s a crime, whereas taking it to the media might just be called “political dirty tricks,” completely unethical but not necessarily leading to a perp-walk. Hillary’s accomplices need to keep her out of jail. So by admitting she knew they leaked to the MEDIA, as opposed to the FBI, they’ve gone just to the line, admitting what they have to, but stopping there.

Trusty said Mook and Elias have suggested Hillary was “shocked, shocked by Sussmann going to the FBI.”

We don’t buy it. It makes no sense for Sussmann to GO BEHIND HER BACK to the FBI and then bill her for the meeting!

Trusty put it similarly: “Legal representation simply does not work that way. You don’t ‘free-lance’ a visit to the FBI while billing your client for the time.”

So Mook and Elias can stick to their untenable story and pretend she wasn’t aware, but we know she was. Still, this tenuous testimony might work, especially if Sussmann’s case is being heard by a custom-made equivalent of the O.J. jury. All they need is one excuse, however feeble, to let him off. Heck, maybe billing Hillary was just a mistake in the paperwork. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Trusty called it “a fig leaf [for] any partisan jurors who want to acquit.”

But only those in an extreme state of partisan denial will still believe Hillary wasn’t behind that little trip to the FBI.

TechnoFog is doing some outstanding summaries of the testimony, and for Tuesday, he starts with Trisha Anderson, who in 2016 was an FBI general counsel reporting directly to James Baker. She’s asked to read her memo from Sussmann’s visit, which says, “No specific client, but group of cyber academics talked with him about research.”

Then Anderson is presented with an email dated June 16, 2016, concerning a meeting to be held later that day and including SUSSMANN, the CEO of the DNC, James Trainor of the FBI’s Cyber Division, and SHAWN HENRY of CrowdStrike. This meeting takes place two days after the June 14 announcement by the DNC that it had been a victim of Russian hacking and over a month before the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) said it, too, had been hacked by Russians.

Soooo...Durham appears to be going somewhere with the story about the DNC’s Russian “hack” and CrowdStrike. As you know, CrowdStrike never turned over the DNC hard drive to the FBI, and the FBI, amazingly, never pressed them about it. To this day, there’s been no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, or the DCCC. Someone gave the emails to WikiLeaks, but Julian Assange maintains it was not Russia, or any “state actor.” Yet the “Russian hack” was used to help validate the false Trump-Russia “collusion” story. Sussmann is a common element.

TechnoFog also has more very interesting detail on Heide’s testimony. Heide said Bill Priestap (he of the curious memory lapses on Monday) had made it clear, the FBI’s 7th Floor –- including Director Jim Comey –- was demanding a full field investigation be opened. Heide viewed this as inappropriate, but it was “not an option.”

“In order to open a full field investigation,” Heide said, “we would need specific and articulable facts that a threat to U.S. national security has occurred or there’s been a violation of federal law.” But they were ordered to do it anyway, when nothing was found to substantiate the allegations in the Alfa Bank “white paper,”

Heide also testified that there was another confidential human source besides Sussmann supporting the Alfa Bank story. But this was apparently a media person (!), not a cyber expert. TechnoFog speculates that it was David Corn.

Next witness: Jared Novich, former business partner of Rodney Joffe. He testified that Joffe called and asked him to research some information regarding Trump and Russia. He did it, but said he’d never been asked to do something “very political” like this –- it “felt like opposition research.” The project was called “Crimson Rhino” and involved a list of names, home addresses, spouses, workplaces and personal email addresses. Carter Page’s name was on it. Joffe wanted “a 90-day history of data.” Spying, straight up.

This is getting more fascinating by the day.

Addendum:  We thought we were through with the Sussmann trial for now, until Wednesday's testimony is over, but then saw this.  A must-read.

Speaking of large organizations that want to go around parents to indoctrinate small children, State Farm’s “Corporate Responsibility Analyst” (and boy, does he have the wrong job title) put out a memo touting the insurance giant’s partnership with a group called the “GenderCool Project.” It was to have 500 State Farm agents and employees donate a three-book bundle about Being Transgender, Inclusive and Non-Binary to their “local teacher, community center or library of their choice.” The goal was to “increase representation of LGBTQ+ books and support our communities in having challenging, empowering, and important conversations with children Age 5+.” Yes, that’s correct: AGE FIVE and up.

The news sparked predictable outrage not only from parents and State Farm customers but from many agents and employees who didn’t appreciate being turned into spreaders of radical LGBTQ propaganda. The story hit the news like a shovelful of manure hitting a ceiling fan, and not desiring to “get woke and go broke,” State Farm rushed to do damage control. They announced that the memo came from “a mid-to-lower level employee in Florida” who doesn’t speak for the company, adding:

Conversations about gender and identity should happen at home with parents. We don’t support requiring curriculum in schools on this topic. We support organizations providing resources for parents to have these conversations. We will no longer support that program.”

Pretty simple, isn’t it? Companies that want to stay in business concentrate on their corporate mission, stay out of radical political and social issues, and let parents raise their own kids.

Take note, Disney Corp. In fact, take a lot of notes.

A "Pandemic Treaty"

May 24, 2022

I’ve been getting a lot of comments wanting to know more about a “pandemic treaty” that’s being hashed out to expand the role of the World Health Organization. This really took off after Tucker Carlson blasted it last week. There are concerns that proposed changes by the Biden Administration would give the head of the WHO sweeping powers to declare pandemics and impose rights-denying measures like lockdowns on sovereign nations without their consent or even over their objections.

This is a complicated issue, so I’m going to link to a couple of stories with more details than I can provide you here. First, Breitbart explains the objections to the proposed treaty and amendments.

And this article that originally appeared in Fortune argues that those concerns are unfounded: that the WHO would only gain enhanced advisory capabilities to deal more swiftly with health emergencies, but not the power to overrule sovereign governments. They say that because “international law” isn’t really enforceable, such nations could just ignore them anyway.

This is all still in a state of flux, and no matter what the original intention, there’s a good chance that the rising scrutiny and anger will have an effect. My personal view: I certainly don’t think the WHO is deserving of being granted any kind of power over sovereign nations, elected governments or individual citizens. But on top of that, I question the wisdom of expanding their part in dealing with emergencies even in a purely advisory role.

What is there about their botched handling of the COVID-19 pandemic that has earned them the right to greater trust and responsibility? Was it their disgusting and dishonest kowtowing to the communist Chinese government? Or their dogged defense of lockdowns and school closures that have done irreparable harm while studies have since confirmed they had little to no effect on the spread of the virus? In fact, researchers have known for years that lockdowns are useless against airborne viruses. I thought the most basic rule of medicine was "First, do no harm." Here’s just one of many examples of the harm that their policies caused:

Until the WHO cleans up its act and thoroughly reforms and de-policizes itself, it doesn’t deserve more power or even more influence not backed by power. To quote the Who that I respect a lot more, we won’t get fooled again.

Monday marked the beginning of Week 2 (Day 6) of the Michael Sussmann trial. As you know, last week ended dramatically, when Robby Mook, Clinton’s own campaign manager, said she’d personally signed off on releasing the (phony) Alfa Bank story to the media, even though her campaign people told her it hadn’t been verified. Two CIA staffers also testified Friday, saying that Sussmann had lied to them, too, about not representing any client.

Also on Friday, a now-retired CIA station chief described meeting Sussmann earlier and being told a variation of the lie; namely, that he did have a client, but it was a Republican. The idea of Perkins Coie representing Republicans is almost as crazy as Trump colluding with Russians.

One thing seemed odd to us on Friday, but we found the explanation later. The prosecution was still presenting its case, but Mook was called as a defense witness. Turns out, Mook had planned to vacation in Spain, and the court ruled he could testify out of order so he could go. (Nice! One hopes prosecution witnesses would have received similar dispensation from this judge.) As it happens, Mook was helpful to Durham, so much so that the defense probably wishes they’d just let him go to Spain.

Anyway, Monday might not have been quite as eventful as last Friday, but there were interesting developments, with Bill Priestap –- Peter Strzok’s supervisor –- called to the stand. Trump attorney Alina Habba and her team were there today, as they have been every day, and in an appearance on HANNITY said Priestap seemed unable to recall much of anything, even with his own notes in front of him. He seems to have taken a cue from Hillary herself, who is known for coming up with almost countless versions of “I don’t recall.”

Two other FBI officials, Ryan Gaynor and Allison Sands, testified. Sands said she’d received a memo the day Sussmann met with Baker about a referral on the case from the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (!!!) It didn’t mention Sussmann as the source. This document was circulated to Peter Strzok as well.

Gaynor testified that top FBI leadership had decided to keep Sussmann’s identity on “close hold.” The Chicago field office wanted access to the source but couldn’t get it. He told the court that had he known the source had a political interest or one that overlapped with the Bureau’s, he might not have ever volunteered to be point person at headquarters.

So, when did the ‘Justice’ Department decide to jump in? The DOJ was even mentioned as the source for the “white papers,” when we know that none of them came from there and at least one came from Fusion GPS, creator of the likewise phony “dossier.”

Gregg Jarrett said on Monday’s HANNITY “that the FBI, James Comey and his minions, were lying to their own field agents, and [Gaynor] said, ‘Had we known the truth, had they been honest with us, it would have changed the equation dramatically. We would’ve recognized the hoax for what it was, a political smear invented by Hillary Clinton, and funded and disseminated by her personally, by the way, as well as her many confederates.’”

Jarrett also noted what we’ve said about the timeline: that by the time Trump had been sworn in as President, the FBI had already debunked both the “dossier” and the Alfa Bank story. Yet Sussmann kept on pushing it, and within the FBI, Comey, Strzok and McCabe went right on investigating Trump, treating the hoax as seriously as ever. They used it, Jarrett said, as a “pretext, to escalate their investigation of Donald Trump, to drive him from office.” Comey even stole government documents when Trump fired him, to trigger the appointment of a special counsel, “who just happened to be his longtime friend and colleague, Bob Mueller.”

Either Mueller and his huge team of lawyers and investigators didn’t know this was a hoax that traced back to Hillary, he said, or “they knew it, and they covered it up.”

So, assuming Mueller didn’t know, how could it be that he didn’t find out? We’ve known Trump-Russia “collusion” was a fabrication since early 2017, when then-House Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes and his lead investigator Kash Patel connected the dots to Hillary’s campaign. Jonathan Turley calls Hillary’s involvement “Washington’s worst-kept but least -acknowledged secret.” A must-read:

Turley reminds us that then-CIA Director John Brennan actually told President Obama that Hillary planned to tar Trump as a Russia “colluder” to distract from her own use of a private email server for classified State Department business. Brennan told Obama this three days BEFORE “Crossfire Hurricane” was opened by the FBI. Turley’s report sums it all up nicely and will make you wish everyone involved in this scheme could be confined to, if not jail, then a very, very hot place for all eternity.

That’s especially true after reading that Hillary tweeted, “it’s now clear that so-called ‘fake news’ can have real-world consequences.” It’s time for the Queen Of Fake News to experience some real-world consequences firsthand.

Of course, it’s not just Hillary. As Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse put it, “The DC politicians, institutions of the DOJ and FBI, and the entire corporate media world have been pretending not to know the truth for almost six years. Now they are in a pretending pickle.”

He asks the question everyone should be asking now: “How did Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann spend 2 years investigating Trump-Russia; with a team of 19 lawyers, $40 million in resources; 40 FBI agents; 2,800 subpoenas; 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses; and not find out that Hillary Clinton created the hoax they were investigating?”

As Turley points out, Mueller’s team originally consisted of the very FBI officials who were given Sussmann’s Alfa Bank “evidence.” But, believe it or not, they apparently never talked to any Clinton campaign people, or Fusion GPS, or Rodney Joffe, or Marc Elias, or...Michael Sussmann.

Finally, we’re gong to make fun of Hillary now, because she deserves it. Victoria Taft has some video of Hillary from a 2019 interview with NBC’s Jane Pauley. Seeing it now gives new meaning to what Hillary said so disingenuously at the time: “I don’t know we’ll ever know everything that happened," she told Pauley, "but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day...I know that [Trump] knows this wasn’t on the level.”

Indeed, Hillary, Trump has always known it wasn’t on the level, but not in the way you were trying to make people believe. He knew YOU weren’t on the level. You assumed we would never "know everything that happened," but, the reality is that “clearly we know a lot [about what YOU DID] and are learning more every day.”
Still, what we know must barely scratch the surface of your dishonesty. As bad as things are in our country right now, we can only get down on our knees and give thanks to God that you were not elected President.

Joe Biden's Worst Week

May 24, 2022

I can’t imagine how you make a call like this, but both Democratic pollster John Zogby and conservative poll analyst Jed Babbin agree that last week was the worst week of the Biden Presidency so far.

The baby formula shortage worsened, the stock market continued its biggest fall in years, inflation kept raging with gas prices setting new records every day, Biden’s new press secretary debuted to bad reviews, his Ministry of Truth scheme imploded amid bipartisan outrage, and a federal judge blocked Biden’s plans to lift the Title 42 COVID protections on illegal border crossers, a decision that critics on both side of the aisle saw as an impending disaster.

That Zogby poll had Biden’s approval rating at 41%, which is actually better than the latest AP/NORC poll, which has him down at 39%.

What’s interesting about these polls is the internal details. As pathetic as 39% approval is, it’s only that high because of the loyalty of Democrats and African-Americans. Biden’s support among Hispanics has crashed to the mid-20s, but blacks and Democrats have adamantly continued to show the kind of monolithic support that can only be explained by sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, “La-la-la, I can’t hear you!”

But lately, things under Biden have gotten so bad that it’s becoming impossible even for his most self-deluded supporters to keep kidding themselves. The AP poll found that his support among Democrats that’s never before dropped below 82% has fallen to 73%. Even those who still support him admit that everything’s going badly but claim he’s not to blame for it (Biden obviously agrees with them on that point.) But at least some are finally starting to crumble under the weight of reality.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that Biden’s support among black voters is down to 64%. More ominous are the numbers of those who want him to run again. His supporters can pretend to think he’s doing a good job, but when asked if they want him to keep doing it, they scream, “NO!!” This poll found that only 39% of blacks, 31% of Hispanics and 26% of women (all among his strongest support groups) want him to run for reelection.

(That same poll also found that in a potential 2024 rematch, Trump leads Biden by 50-36%.)

And a CBS Poll has more bad news for Biden, with staggering numbers of people pessimistic about the economy and about half of black respondents saying he’s “slow to react.”

It seems obvious that the biggest obstacle for Republicans to overcome is the long-engrained, media-defended notion spread by the left that Republicans are scary, racist fascists. But seldom has any group of voters had a starker example of the real difference between Republican and Democrat policies than living in 2018 (pre-COVID Trump America) and 2022 (post-COVID Biden America.)

A good example of how hard this mindset is to counter is Bill Maher, who for all his recent red-pilling still hasn’t shaken off the liberal brainwashing. Last week, he reacted to Elon Musk's decision to vote Republican for the first time by claiming that for all the Dems’ faults, the Republicans are still the most dangerous party.

Really, Bill? And what would happen if Republicans regained power? Would we take away people’s Constitutional rights, create Orwellian government agencies to police speech, jail people without charges, monitor citizens through social media, explode the national debt, crash the stock market, open up our borders to drug dealers and sex traffickers, allow a massive surge of crime in our cities, put violent criminals back on the streets while tying the cops' hands (basically, turn America into Gotham City), empower our enemies abroad, send our troops to places they have no business going, and make the basic necessities of life unavailable and/or unaffordable?

Because in case you haven’t noticed, that’s the Democratic Party’s current platform.

The White House Emergency Hazmat Crew that rushes to clean up President Biden’s toxic verbal spills works harder than firefighters at an arsonists’ convention. Their latest five-alarm call came after Biden flatly stated that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan. Having already hauled him back from the brink of starting World War III with Russia, his handlers had to scurry to prevent him from doing it in Asia.

Aides said that Biden meant only that the US would provide military equipment to Taiwan, not that he’d send US troops. For the record, here’s the exchange that upset China:

Reporter: “You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, if it comes to that?”

Biden: “Yes. That’s the commitment we made. That’s the commitment we made. We agree with the One China policy; we’ve signed on to it and all the attendant agreements made from there. But the idea that — that it can be taken by force — just taken by force — is just not a — is just not appropriate. It will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in — in Ukraine. And so, it’s a burden that is even stronger.”

Obviously, when he said yes to whether he was willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, he didn’t mean he was willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan. Are we all clear now? Good.

You know, one of the main tricks of diplomacy is to learn not to say some things out loud. Maybe America should help defend our free ally Taiwan against communist aggression, which is a stance you could at least make an argument for. It’s just that saying it out loud before there is a reason for it is more likely to enrage China and make them think that if they’re going to attack, they’d be better off doing it soon while Biden’s still in office. Probably a thought that also crossed Putin’s mind as he was deciding what to do about Ukraine.

Remember when we were told that we needed the experienced, seasoned adult Joe Biden in charge because Trump was going to destroy the economy, crash the stock market and say something stupid, that would set off World War III? So glad we don’t have an ignoramus like that in charge!

Gil Gutknecht has a must-read, “From his keyboard to God’s ears” column on the day of reckoning for all those woke corporate CEOs who are putting far-left politics ahead of serving their customer base. In the few months, we’ve seen a number of them suffer crashing stock prices and deep drops in profits, and no, it’s not the fault of the pandemic or Vladimir Putin.

All the media stories about the “unexpected” downturns at Target, Netflix and other companies focused on excuses such as inflation and the supply chain crisis. They mostly avoided the possibility that these companies had ticked off at least half their customer base by embracing radical leftwing political dogma. The media live in a cast iron echo chamber and seldom talk to those peasants in Flyover Country, whom they think are so small in numbers, they can be safely marginalized and ignored. You know, like the 73 million Americans who voted for Trump.

Those folks aren’t like leftists: they don’t tend to “organize,” shout through bullhorns, or threaten and bully those who disagree with them. And they don’t have a complicit mass media to amplify their message and make them sound bigger than they are. They just quietly keep a list in their heads of companies that have ticked them off and that they will NEVER do business with again. And there are a LOT of them (I know, I actually talk to them!)

The talking heads think that because it’s not a loud, organized movement, it makes no difference. There is an organized movement called WalkAway, formed by Brandon Straka, but you don’t have to be a member to simply walk away from companies that spit on your values. If Target or Disney don’t want your dirty conservative money, someone else will gladly take it.

There’s an old saying, “Ignore this at your peril.” These companies ignored half their customers and now they are imperiled. Color me unsurprised.

Speaking of “Get woke, go broke,” when the Fed gets woke, we ALL go broke.

During the George Floyd riots, corporations frightened of being tagged as racist plastered the BLM logo on every available surface and showered millions of dollars on Black Lives Matter, without giving a thought to what it would be used for. I’m sure they had some vague notion that it would help black communities. It’s been reported that BLM took in over $90 million and sent over $21 million to local BLM chapters, but black community leaders complained that not a dime has been given to help neighborhoods destroyed by riots and crime. BLM has come under increasing scrutiny, and it’s not pretty.

BLM’s founders seem to be more interested in buying pricey real estate than helping minority neighborhoods, and their failure to comply with laws governing nonprofits has led to several states launching investigations (even California!) The latest state to demand accountability is Indiana, whose attorney general filed a lawsuit against BLM, saying it’s critical to protect Indiana consumers “from this house of cards.” I suppose they could argue that they’re hardly a "nonprofit," but that’s not a legal defense.

Now, at last, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has finally released its first financial disclosure statement, and it’s only raising more questions. For instance, the group’s largest payout was over $2.1 million to a consulting firm owned by one of its board members. The second-biggest was over $969,000 for “live production, design and media” paid to a company owned by the father of BLM co-founder Patrice Cullors’ baby. Other expenses included $709,190 for “communications, IT and digital,” $696,364 to a Los Angeles-based company for “media planning and placement,” and $504,000 to Resistance Labs in Oakland for “tech support.” I wonder how many black lives those expenditures saved. By comparison, BLM gave only $200,000 to the Trayvon Martin Foundation that helps families of kids who are victims of gun violence.

The director of the watchdog group Charity Watch said BLM “had no whistleblower policy, no document destruction and retention policy, and only one board member during the financial reporting period. It reports having and regularly monitoring and enforcing a written conflict of interest policy, but…one person can’t monitor and enforce a conflict of interest policy over themselves. It’s frightening, isn’t it, to consider that this much taxpayer-subsidized public money was being overseen by only one person?”

While I can abhor BLM’s sleazy financial tactics and condemn the way they’ve exploited and inflamed racial divisions to enrich themselves, I have a hard time working up much sympathy for the people who gladly handed over their money. There are many reputable charities and religious organizations that genuinely help people, and with very low overhead. BLM just understood their target audience: guilty white liberals who think you solve every problem by throwing money at it. They were geniuses at making it appear that they were the place where liberals should throw their money. At least for once, they were throwing away their own money and not the taxpayers’.

Primary Day

May 24, 2022

Today is Primary Election day in Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama, plus there’s a House Special Election in Minnesota and primary runoff elections in Texas. Be sure to vote, and I’ll have a roundup of the results tomorrow (at least, those that are in by tomorrow.)

For a list of my Arkansas endorsements through my political organization, Huck PAC, go here.

For my Georgia endorsements, go here.

For my Alabama endorsements, go here.

A couple of races of particular note: In the Texas Attorney General run-off, incumbent Ken Paxton is facing George P. Bush in a race that’s being framed as a test of the Bush dynasty’s ability to survive in the MAGA era. And in Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp is being challenged by David Perdue, who is backed by Donald Trump because Trump thinks Kemp didn’t do enough to challenge the 2020 vote. 

Here’s some more info on these and other races in these states, plus the potential impact of Trump’s endorsements.

Sadly for Georgia Democrats, they have no choice in the Governor’s race because Stacey Abrams is running unopposed. Just think of that: Stacey Abrams is literally the best the Democrats could do!

Today would be a great time for her to face a challenger because last week, she publicly griped that she was sick of hearing about how Georgia is the best state to do business when it’s the worst state to live in (I guess all the New Yorkers who are fleeing there must be masochists.) Also, as I previously reported, the massive surge in early voting has proven that Abrams’ claims about Georgia’s new election integrity laws being Jim Crow-style racist voter suppression – a claim echoed by the media, President Biden, and major corporations and that cost Georgians hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues – was, as I've said from day one, a scurrilous and very expensive lie.

As of the end of early voting on Friday, over 850,000 Georgians had cast early or absentee ballots, which is more than triple the number in 2018.

And it’s not just white Republicans who are finding it easy to vote. One 70-year-old black woman told the Washington Post, "I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any way possible because of the fact that we didn’t go Republican on the last election, when Trump didn’t win. To go in there and vote as easily as I did and to be treated with the respect that I knew I deserved as an American citizen — I was really thrown back." Shame on the people who made her believe that about her fellow Georgians.

In summation, Stacey Abrams told a “Big Lie” that the 2018 election she lost was rigged; she intentionally inflamed racial divisions; and she frightened the public and undermined our democracy by shattering the people’s faith in the integrity of their elections. Aren’t those all the same charges that the Democrats are falsely making against Trump as an argument for banning him from office for life? Yet Abrams has done them all openly for nearly four years, and it made her wealthy, a Democrat Party/Hollywood celebrity, and now they want her to be Governor of Georgia. Once again, if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

I just hope that in November, Georgians will use their new system of easier but more transparent voting to deliver a well-deserved heavy loss to Stacey Abrams. Maybe if it’s a crushing landslide defeat, it will finally be enough to make her go away – or at least stop claiming she actually won.


While I was in Israel recently, I was asked by Israeli friends how the elections would turn out in America this fall. My response was that Republicans will win in a blowout unless they fail to come up a cohesive message other than, “Hey we aren’t THOSE guys who doubled your gas prices, jacked up groceries by 20%, and who opened the borders to illegals but busted the supply of baby formula.” The policies of the leftist Democrats have finally become untenable for common-sense loving Americans who unlike Joe Biden’s recent nominee to the Supreme Court DO know what a woman is. The Democrats have gone into a wild irrational rage about abortion, calling it “health care for women,” even though at least one person dies every time there is an abortion. They claim that 4 and 5 year old children ought to be taught about gender fluidity before they learn their numbers, colors, and letters of the alphabet. Most Americans know that’s not just bad policy, it’s insanity. And working-class Americans have grown tired of the elitists from Hollywood and Washington lecturing about climate change and carbon footprints when the same hypocritical snobs fly around the globe in fuel-sucking, carbon emitting private jets and upon landing, ride in long black limousines while owning 4 or 5 homes.

The demands to tax more don’t go over well with anyone who owns a business or is trying to get kids to school each day and feed them each evening, but Republicans need to focus on what they will stand FOR if given the majorities in the House and Senate. Keep in mind, that even if the GOP takes both houses, they won’t be able to pass legislation because Joe Biden isn’t likely to sign anything that makes energy cheaper, houses more affordable, or our borders more secure. Biden’s party still wants to pursue truly crazy policies like Critical Race Theory that indoctrinates schoolchildren to believe that all white children are evil oppressors and that our nation is systemically racist and bad, despite it being the ONE place on earth where people of every color risk their very lives to get to because they believe America is still a great country where freedom and opportunity awaits.

Republicans should tell America that if elected, they will pursue the following things and force Joe Biden to either sign the legislation or explain to struggling American why not:

1. We will finish the border wall, enforce immigration laws, and stop the flow of deadly drugs and human trafficking of small children to become sex slaves for the drug cartels.

2. We will support our military by giving them leaders who believe that a military being deadly is more important than being diverse. That means people are promoted because they are the best, not because they are the right color, gender, or sexual identity.

3. We will value all life from conception because we don’t think any human life is disposable or expendable.

4. We will work toward a completely different tax system like the Fair Tax in which we pay taxes on what we consume and not what we produce. We would get rid of the death tax and capital gains taxes because we shouldn’t punish productivity.

5. We will follow the Constitution and allow the states to govern themselves without the federal government mandating the minutia.

6. We will not tolerate violent crime and letting killers and thugs back on the streets to repeat their attacks on the law-abiding public. We all should have an expectation to walk in our neighborhood, ride a subway or bus, or get from their car to the front door of a grocery store without being assaulted.

7. We will renew energy independence by re-starting the Keystone XL pipeline, drilling on federal lands, and extracting the oil and natural gas under our own feet and re-starting a long-term nuclear energy capacity.

The country is in a mess and while Biden and the Democrats blame Putin, Trump, or anyone but themselves, we all know they OWN the results of their policies.

But we the people own the elections with our votes. And the country doesn’t belong to the politicians but the people. Always has; always will!

Ari Fleischer tweeted this on Sunday: “In a 33-paragraph story, the WASHINGTON POST buries in the 27th paragraph, as kind of an ordinary thing, that Hillary approved the dissemination of a ‘dirty trick’ attack to peddle to the press phony collusion info vs. Trump. This should be a feeding frenzy.”

Yes, it should be. But Fleischer is not exaggerating; WAPO did go to great lengths, literally, to bury this bombshell. We’ve linked to the piece; scroll way, way, WAY down to the very end and back up a little and you’ll see the terse, ONE-SENTENCE mention: “The campaign did decide –- and Clinton herself agreed –- to give the allegations to a reporter, he [Robby Mook] said.” Come to think it, the part about Hillary is only part of a sentence, just an aside, really. That is the fleeting consideration they devote to the fact that Hillary Clinton has been directly implicated by her own campaign manager in the most outrageous and shameful political hoax we’ve ever seen --- a monstrous lie that her political opponent was actually an agent of Russia! And never mind what this has done to divide, distract and damage our country.

This joke of a story was written by Devlin Barrett, who, according to his blurb, “writes about the FBI and the Justice Department for The Washington Post” and happens to be one of the so-called “journalists” who share the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, “for coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election.” I am not kidding --- this same person won the Pulitzer for reporting the Russia Hoax as a real story. So burying the true story seems perversely appropriate, like a criminal burying the evidence of his own crime.

He and the other "honorees" should be made to give their ill-gotten prize back. But, gee, maybe they'll just be awarded another Pulitzer instead, this one not for doing Hillary’s bidding and spreading disinformation about her opponent but for doing Hillary's bidding and burying the real story that she wants to see die. Both awards should be given not for Reporting but for Political Hackery.

But this story won’t die –- it’s journalism that is dead. This is just a little reminder of why “we read the news, so you don’t have to!”

As promised, here’s more perspective on what happened last week in the Michael Sussmann trial and its significance going into Week 2.

There were more witnesses called to testify on Friday than just the “stars,” former FBI General Counsel James Baker and Hillary For America chairman Robby Mook. But Mook’s revelation –- that not only was Hillary told of the phony Alfa Bank story and warned it was unverified but also that she personally gave the go-ahead --- garnered so much richly-deserved attention that we’re only now getting to the others.

Two former CIA employees testified on Friday, and they supported Special Counsel Durham’s point that Sussmann’s deception was part of a “pattern.” In other words, Sussmann didn’t just figure on lying that one time to James Baker and the FBI about not representing any clients during his visit. Months later, he told these two CIA employees the same lie.

The two, identified in court only as Kevin P. and Steve M., testified that in February 2017 –- after Trump had become President –- Sussmann came to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, and gave them two thumb drives, just as he had to Baker at the FBI back in September. Kevin P. testified that Sussmann told them he was “not representing any client.” Sussmann said the thumb drives, from a couple of unidentified “contacts,” showed a secret cyber back-channel between a Trump Organization server and one belonging to Russia-linked Alfa Bank.

Steve M. drafted a memo after their meeting, summarizing what had taken place and noting that Sussmann had been there on behalf of a client. The memo was shown to jurors. But Kevin P. edited the memo to change “client” to “contacts.” That version was also shown.

Sussmann also told them he'd taken “similar but unrelated” information to the FBI. (Never mind that the FBI had essentially dismissed his “evidence” the first day and later had found the story in the “white papers” to be unsupported by the data.)

Now-retired CIA official Mark Chadason, who’d been station chief in Europe and North Africa, also testified, saying that Sussmann had reached out to him and told him he had information relating to a matter of “national security” that he'd tried to get to them through the CIA general counsel. Chadason met with him at a Northern Virginia motel on January 31, 2017 –- again, after Trump was President –- at the request of a mutual friend. It appears that Sussmann couldn’t keep his story straight; he told Chadason he did have a client, but that his client was a Republican. Oh, and he wasn’t sure if his REPUBLICAN client would reveal himself to the CIA.

That might be an even more outrageous lie, as I’d be very surprised if “ultra-Democrat” Perkins Coie, the firm that represented both Hillary For America and the DNC, has represented any Republicans at all, EVER. (Well, maybe the Adam Kinzinger- or Liz Cheney-types, but those don't count.) No, Sussmann was just telling another version of the lie. And the lie absolutely was “material” (the magic word in a case about lying), as Baker has testified that the FBI would have subjected Sussmann’s evidence to more scrutiny if he’d told them it was from a client.

In fact, Baker testified that if he’d known Sussmann was pushing the Alfa Bank story on behalf of a client, he would’ve said, “If you’re meeting on behalf of Clinton, you shouldn’t come see me.” He told the court, “I was willing to meet with Michael alone because I had high confidence in him and trust. I think I would have made a different assessment if he said he had been appearing on behalf of a client.”

Jerry Dunleavy at the WASHINGTON EXAMINER has more of his testimony about that very important issue.

As for Chadason, when cross-examined by the defense, he said Sussmann had seemed “frustrated” that he hadn’t been able to interest the feds. Sussmann had said during their meeting that if the CIA didn’t pursue this, he’d take it to THE NEW YORK TIMES. Chadason didn’t take that as a threat, he told the jury, but as more of an act of desperation.

As Nick Arama at RedState reports, the Sussmann defense has tried to portray his lie as just a random “one-off,” not part of a deliberate scheme to mislead. But now we know: lying about not representing any client was part of his plan, because he did it repeatedly.

Friday, Baker said there was something else Sussmann never told the FBI: that a “white paper” he was passing along about Alfa Bank was prepared by Fusion GPS, the same company behind the Steele “dossier.” Baker said this knowledge would’ve caused him to treat the evidence differently, as it would’ve raised fears that “the FBI was being pulled into some kind of political agenda –- a political ploy.” It would have led to “serious conversations,” he said, among top leadership about “what, if anything, to do with this material and how to handle it.”

“It would have raised in my mind the concern about, ‘Wait a minute; he also does, in other matters, represent the [DNC] and the Clinton campaign,’” Baker testified. “‘Is that what’s going on here?’”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL published an editorial on Friday called “Hillary Clinton Did It.” Subhead: “Her 2016 campaign manager says she approved a plan to plant a false Russia claim with a reporter.” The WSJ is by subscription, but even if you don’t subscribe, the link will take you to an excerpt of the “Journal Editorial Report,” featuring Kim Strassel summarizing the “depth and the breadth” of what Durham has exposed and explaining why he might have chosen not to go further with wider conspiracy charges in this DC courtroom. His primary goal, she says, is to tell the story, and he certainly has.

One’s first thought reading that headline might be, “She did it? Did what?" After all, Hillary has done so many bad things over the years. (As Monica Crowley said to Steve Hilton on THE NEXT REVOLUTION Sunday night, “Mrs. Clinton has been a dark menace on the political landscape for 40 years, so the depths of her deceit and corruption know no bounds.”) But thanks to this seemingly interminable investigation that was well worth the wait, we know she personally gave the order to frame her political opponent in 2016.

The “money paragraph” from the WSJ editorial has been thoughtfully passed along by THE DAILY CALLER. A must-read.

Finally, for when you have time, it’s fun to go back and read Paul Sperry’s report from January, detailing what we knew (unofficially) then about Hillary’s role in spreading fake Trump-Russia connections. It wasn’t just the Alfa Bank hoax; it was the “dossier,” too. And Obama had been advised of this. It started as a distraction from Hillary’s own scandal and WikiLeaks’ publishing of those damaging DNC emails, which we still don’t know were a Russian hack, regardless of the Democrats’ insistence. They’ve lied so much; what makes anyone think this particular claim is true?


Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! Today's newsletter includes:

  • Sussmann trial, Day 5: Hillary implicated in bogus Alfa Bank
  • The Democrats' fraudulent claims
  • And much more...


Mike Huckabee


Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:3

If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected].

2. New Warner Brothers boss wants Rowling back

There have been a number of good omens recently that the American people are fed up with a tiny mob of loudmouthed leftists on Twitter terrorizing corporations into adopting their deranged political views, and the customer backlash is forcing CEOs to grow a spine. From the rapid decline of Disney’s popularity to Netflix telling its whiny “social justice warrior” employees that maybe they need to find someplace else to work, things are looking up for a return to common sense, neutral corporations and non-propagandistic entertainment.

And now, here’s another good sign: the new boss of Warner Brothers, David Zaslav, not only canceled CNN+, he’s uncanceled J.K. Rowling. The Wall Street Journal reports that he’s meeting with the author to discuss new “Harry Potter” projects.

This has meaning beyond a simple movie/TV deal. Rowling has been “unpersoned” by the cancel culture mob for daring to oppose the erasure of women and allowing men who “identify” as women to invade women’s private spaces and take over their sports. She’s always been a feminist and supporter of liberal causes, but for that single thought crime against trans dogma, she’s been eviscerated online, and her name and image magically vanished from properties she created. In a disgusting act of betrayal, even the young stars of the “Harry Potter” movies, who owe their fame and fortune to Rowling, joined in on the attacks and shunning.

But Zaslav, who apparently believes it’s his job to produce programming that people want to see rather than what far-left wackos think they ought to see, is ignoring the Internet “OUTRAGE!” and wants Rowling back. This is good news for her, for society in general, and for the chances of there actually being something to watch other than badly-written shows filled with heavy-handed leftist messages. That tends to happen when writers are hired for their talent and imagination rather than how many identity politics boxes they check.

3. The “Federal Firearms Licensing Act.”

In their never-ending efforts to exploit tragedies to pass ineffective legislation, House Democrats on Thursday used the Buffalo shooting as justification to introduce a new gun control bill called the “Federal Firearms Licensing Act.”

It would criminalize every gun owner in America by converting your Second Amendment right to bear arms into a privilege for which you’d have to get a license from the Department of Justice for every gun you buy. The DOJ could reject your application at its discretion, even if you’ve never committed a crime.

This is in spite of the fact that, like almost every other mass shooting used as a pretext to push gun control, there were already gun laws in place that didn’t stop the shooter in Buffalo, and this one wouldn’t have, either.

I’m not too worried about this becoming law because it’s blatantly unconstitutional and it could never garner enough support to pass the Senate. But it is important to talk about because this is what the Democrats are prioritizing and what they’ll be running on in November: that they tried to “do something” to stop mass shootings, but the gun-loving Republicans stopped them because they…like mass shootings?

Translation: They will continue to ignore the real problems that lead to these atrocities and focus on disarming law abiding citizens – who, thanks to their policies of releasing criminals onto the streets while defunding police, need firearms to protect their families more than ever. They will do this while ensuring that they always have plenty of armed security to protect them and their families. And they will never stop pushing the same restrictive policies, no matter how many times they prove useless.

One example: President Biden recently declared that we need an “assault weapons” ban. He said we did it before and we can do it again. He is right that we did it before. But Congress allowed the ban to expire because it made no difference in crime stats. Like so many other Democrat policies, it didn’t work, so let’s bring it back and try it one more time.

4. “Cruel Summer”

In a report titled “Cruel Summer,” J.P. Morgan predicts that by August, the average national price of a gallon of gas could be $6.20.

The only upside of that is that prices will likely be even higher in blue states, so maybe residents won’t be able to afford to drive U-Hauls to red states and will finally start voting out the people who caused this.

Even if you have to take a staycation at home, it might not be so comfortable. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. is warning of blackouts this summer, especially in the West and Midwest. The predictable reason (predictable for everyone other than the people in the White House who caused it) is that their war on fossil fuels has forced the closure of gas-fueled power plants and there aren’t enough “green energy” sources to replace them.

Some people are saying this Administration is a joke, but if so, it’s this joke: “What did socialists use for light before candles? Electricity.”

5. It isn't all bad news

I sometimes feel as if I should apologize for having to report so much bad news. I know it can be overwhelming to have to read so much of it. Believe me, it’s hard on me and my staff, as well. That’s why we say, “We read the news so you won’t have to!” There’s so much depressing news that it can really get you down if you let it. So we also try to report good news to uplift you and positive signs that things are turning around to help you stay optimistic that better times are ahead.

Like a new Quinnipiac poll showing that all the race-baiting and divisiveness isn’t working, and that Biden’s approval rating among Hispanics has plummeted from 55 to 26%. That’s even lower than his 32% approval among whites. See, there are things that people of all races can agree on.

It’s also important to remember that despite the left’s attempts to politicize everything, most people aren’t obsessed with politics and just get annoyed with people who are. There are many other things in the world to think about.

To help make that point, I’d like to share a new music video with you by a wonderful female harmony bluegrass/gospel/swing group called the Smith Sisters with the Sunday Drivers.

It’s called “Around the Bend,” and it’s not only a catchy song, it also has an important message. I’ll let the writer, Kelli Lewis, put it in her own words that she shared with one of my writers, who is a friend:

“I just wanted to show that although you may lose everything, good things are always around the bend. Good simple of I told my sister the story is simple but it makes your heart happy.

The song on our music video was originally my story. One about losing my job, house and a friend. I suffered depression, but it turned around. I wrote this song with a goal in mind to help others. Fast niece (she is in our video) is a survivor of domestic abuse. This song has now become her story.

She too lost everything, of course in different ways. She can’t teach because of brain injuries, she had to sell her home etc. She is writing a book about her experience…She wants to share her story…

So the next time you look at the video, imagine at the beginning it saying, ‘I am Cayla...I am a survivor of domestic violence...’”

Kelli, it’s a great song, and Cayla, my hopes and prayers are with you. You’re both great examples of how there are Huck’s Heroes all around us working to help make things better for others. You’re the antidote for the depression some people spread by trying to drag us all down.

6. Sussmann trial, Day 5: Hillary implicated in bogus Alfa Bank

“I guess right now, Hillary’s best defense is a DC jury, an Obama-appointed judge, and the media. Otherwise, she’s got a lot of exposure.”

--- Victor David Hanson

Well, that’s exactly what her flak Michael Sussmann has going for him right now, on trial for lying to the FBI. He can thank his lucky stars that his case has been brought before a DC jury and an Obama-appointed district judge, Christopher Cooper –- whose wife, unbelievably, has even represented big-time Crossfire Hurricane player Lisa Page –- and with a media that for the most part are completely ignoring it.

But as of Friday’s testimony by former Hillary For America chairman Robby Mook, Hillary does indeed have exposure. I wish we could’ve been there in the courtroom when he apparently surprised everyone by candidly admitting Hillary had known about the Alfa Bank scam and had personally given the go-ahead to give it to SLATE magazine, though they told her it hadn’t been verified. As always, when it comes to scandal, all roads lead to Hillary.

Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, appearing with Will Cain on Friday’s TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT, said there were two reasons why this trial is so important: 1) upholding the rule of law in holding someone accountable for lying to the FBI, and 2) telling the story of what the Clinton campaign did in spreading disinformation (the actual kind). And now, with Mook’s testimony, it’s not just the Clinton campaign --- it’s Hillary Clinton herself.

As for where the trial goes from here, Whitaker said it goes to a “broader group” of individuals who were involved in creating this fake story to tantalize the FBI and media --- members of the “joint venture” (actually a criminal conspiracy) tasked with executing the “October surprise” plan. He anticipated that it would “continue to go slow” but would “intentionally try to cast a net that’s broader than just Michael Sussmann.”

Will that net be cast wide enough to catch Hillary in it? Whitaker didn’t say she’d necessarily be perp-walked, much as she might deserve it, but in his view, after Mooks’ testimony that Hillary herself told them to share this story with the media, and knowing these are the same media people who bought the “Russian disinformation” lie about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the case Durham is making will be “a statement that this kind of lying to the American people is over.”

We’ve had the impression that this judge was trying his hardest to keep out evidence that might tie Hillary personally to the Alfa Bank scam. Mook’s glib testimony about Hillary’s participation reportedly surprised attorneys on both sides. I’ll bet it surprised the judge, too. Trump attorney Alina Habba, who was there, said it “was amazing.”

“I’ve never heard so many pens click, and start immediately writing,” she told Jason Chaffetz Friday evening. “[Mook] just cut it right to the top.” She’s been really impressed with Durham’s team, calling them articulate and brief. Sussmann’s attorneys, she said, sometimes came across as angry and defensive, trying to intimidate Baker when his testimony damaged their client.

She says “the jury is a Washington jury,” and we won’t know how they’re processing this till the verdict is read. But the story as presented in the courtroom –- “that they misled, they obstructed justice, and the entire FBI was in on it,” along with the campaign and the DNC –- is clear.

As for that jury, Jonathan Turley told FOX News that it is “a nightmare.” Imagine the most politicized jury ever, and then make it worse. It’s the O.J. jury of juries. It actually includes not just Hillary voters but Hillary DONORS. And the judge has denied Durham’s motions to dismiss jurors with other clear conflicts. “So, I think for the prosecutors,” Turley said, “it seems like the only thing that is missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton.”

What, was Chelsea not available?

This doesn’t mean the jurors are necessarily going to be biased. The evidence against Sussmann truly is overwhelming. But now that Hillary has been drawn in –- they’d been told this case wasn’t going to involve Hillary and politics –- some jurors who first thought they could be impartial might not be after all.

Regarding Hillary, Mook testified she didn’t want to go to the FBI with the Alfa Bank story because she distrusted then-FBI Director James Comey. He said that “two or three of the most dangerous days of the campaign” were brought about by Comey. (Note: Remember, though, Comey is also the one who made it possible for her scandal-ridden campaign to continue, with his ridiculous statement on July 5, 2016, that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute her for mishandling classified material.)

Mook made the surprise admission about Hillary in response to a question by the defense, who is from the Democrat-connected firm of Latham and Watkins and obviously is trying to keep Hillary at a safe distance from Sussmann’s FBI dealings. If she could be tied directly to the plan to weaponize the FBI against her political opponent, that would be very serious. Turley wondered why the defense put Mook on the stand.

We have a question ourselves: If Hillary distrusted Comey and the FBI so much, the attorney for her campaign surely knew this. Why did he make such an effort to get them involved against her wishes? It doesn’t make sense. He went behind his client’s back and then billed her for it? Not buying it.

Another thing that doesn’t make sense: Mook cited Comey’s opening of the “Mid-Year Exam” investigation into Hillary on October 28, 2016, as a reason Hillary didn’t trust Comey and the FBI. But that was AFTER Sussmann took the Alfa Bank story to the FBI, so how could it have had any bearing on her reluctance to do that? Sussmann’s meeting with Baker was in September.

Incidentally, that last-minute investigation by Comey is one of many reasons/excuses Hillary has given for losing the election. “If the election were on October 27, I’d be your President,” she said in May of 2017.

Since Hillary’s tweet about the Alfa Bank story is extremely relevant now, the prosecution moved to have it admitted into evidence, despite the judge’s refusal to do so last month. On Friday, Judge Cooper granted the motion. (This is the tweet that includes a statement from Jake Sullivan, complete with outrageously bogus bullet points. Sullivan is the individual we’re supposed to trust now as White House national security adviser.)

On Friday, Mook defended that tweet, saying, “I did not see it as some sort of silver bullet, and I don’t think others on the campaign did, either.” Well, whether they did or not, they sure put a lot of effort into creating and pushing that story. Obviously, though, it was just part of a larger scheme. After all, they had the “dossier.”


We’ll have more analysis leading into Monday’s testimony. As a final note for today, Elon Musk tweeted this about revelations from the trial: “All true. Bet most people still don’t know that a Clinton campaign lawyer, using campaign funds, created an elaborate hoax about Trump and Russia. Makes you wonder what else is fake.”

7. The Democrats' fraudulent claims

President Biden has a tendency to tell the same dubious stories over and over, but that’s not just a typical grandpa thing. He keeps repeating political attack narratives that have long been debunked (no, Trump never said there were “very good people” among white supremacist Nazis.) So I assume he’ll keep on claiming that voter integrity laws are “Jim Crow 2.0,” despite the fact that the early vote totals in Georgia's primaries just blasted that away like someone going crow-hunting with an AK-47.

Remember the Democrats’ hysteria over Georgia passing a law to ensure elections were trustworthy? It was racist voter suppression (based on the racist assumption that black people can’t obtain an ID or sign their names.) Proponents said the laws simply made it harder to cheat, but easier to vote.

Nevertheless, Stacey Abrams railed and Biden ranted that it was “an atrocity” and “Jim Crow on steroids.” Major League Baseball cost Atlanta $100 million by moving the All-Star Game to Colorado, which has stricter voting laws than the ones in Georgia. Back in the (hopefully dying) days of woke corporate activism, the CEOs of Coca-Cola, Apple, Facebook, Merck, American Express, Google, Citigroup, UPS Porsch, Microsoft, Bank of America, Viacom CBS, Alfack JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock and more joined in the condemnation of Georgia for trying to prevent voter fraud.

Now we discover that, ironically, their claims were fraudulent. In a subscriber-only article, Spencer Brown of reports that as of a few days ago, Georgians had cast 422,565 in-person early voting ballots. That’s 150% higher than at the same point in 2020, and 200% more than in 2018.

Brad Slager has more…

Similar hyperbolic claims of “voter suppression” were rained down on Texas’ new voter integrity laws. Their primary turnout also increased substantially.

So it appears that Republicans are as incompetent at “voter suppression” as Democrats are at…well, everything else. And all that whoop-de-doo over “Jim Crow on steroids” was actually just “typical Democrat bull spouting on steroids.”

By the way, I don’t think Democrats will be happy to find that the laws actually make it easier to vote and that more people are doing so because the primary results also show that a lot more people are voting Republican. And I mean a LOT more. Out of the first 10 states, Democrat turnout is up 3% from 2018, and Republican turnout is up…wait, let me clean my reading glasses…yes, that’s correct: up 38%!

I Just Wanted to Say

Thank you for reading my newsletter. 

It isn't all bad news

May 20, 2022

I sometimes feel as if I should apologize for having to report so much bad news. I know it can be overwhelming to have to read so much of it. Believe me, it’s hard on me and my staff, as well. That’s why we say, “We read the news so you won’t have to!” There’s so much depressing news that it can really get you down if you let it. So we also try to report good news to uplift you and positive signs that things are turning around to help you stay optimistic that better times are ahead.

Like a new Quinnipiac poll showing that all the race-baiting and divisiveness isn’t working, and that Biden’s approval rating among Hispanics has plummeted from 55 to 26%. That’s even lower than his 32% approval among whites. See, there are things that people of all races can agree on.

It’s also important to remember that despite the left’s attempts to politicize everything, most people aren’t obsessed with politics and just get annoyed with people who are. There are many other things in the world to think about.

To help make that point, I’d like to share a new music video with you by a wonderful female harmony bluegrass/gospel/swing group called the Smith Sisters with the Sunday Drivers.

It’s called “Around the Bend,” and it’s not only a catchy song, it also has an important message. I’ll let the writer, Kelli Lewis, put it in her own words that she shared with one of my writers, who is a friend:

“I just wanted to show that although you may lose everything, good things are always around the bend. Good simple of I told my sister the story is simple but it makes your heart happy.

The song on our music video was originally my story. One about losing my job, house and a friend. I suffered depression, but it turned around. I wrote this song with a goal in mind to help others. Fast niece (she is in our video) is a survivor of domestic abuse. This song has now become her story.

She too lost everything, of course in different ways. She can’t teach because of brain injuries, she had to sell her home etc. She is writing a book about her experience…She wants to share her story…

So the next time you look at the video, imagine at the beginning it saying, ‘I am Cayla...I am a survivor of domestic violence...’”

Kelli, it’s a great song, and Cayla, my hopes and prayers are with you. You’re both great examples of how there are Huck’s Heroes all around us working to help make things better for others. You’re the antidote for the depression some people spread by trying to drag us all down.

Something I know

May 20, 2022

Let me tell you something I know well:

There is more news than ever before covering topics like: Inflation, Energy prices, Ukraine, the Supreme Court Roe v Wade leak, illegal immigration, the Hunter Biden scandal(s), John Durham's investigation…you name it!

Now is the time to stop watching tv, reading fifteen different email newsletters and let me do that for you. I will watch, read and write about these stories and you can read the news, from my point of view, in my Substack newsletter on a daily basis.

The Substack newsletter combines my morning and evening editions into one morning email AND best of all the email is ADVERTISEMENT FREE.


Get 7 day free trial

The free trial will provide you 7 days of a paid subscription to The Morning Edition, free of charge. After 7 days, you will automatically be charged on an annual basis. You can cancel anytime.

Because you are someone who takes an interest in the news and my thoughts on politics, I knew I needed to email you today. I hope you will try the free trial.

Recall that at the end of the movie MARY POPPINS, it’s time for Mary to leave when the wind changes. Off she goes, head held high, carried on the wind by her umbrella. Well, the wind has changed, and "Information Nanny" Nina Jankowicz is leaving us.

She submitted her resignation as head of the “Disinformation Governance Board” –- what we like to call the unconstitutional DHS Ministry Of Truth –- on Wednesday morning. Apparently, thanks to public exposure and pressure, the board itself has been “paused” by the Department of Homeland Security. That’s not good enough, of course, as this board needs to be permanently dissolved, as with a soothing bath in nitric acid, and prevented from ever returning, by legislation if necessary, just as soon as a GOP Congress can be convened.

For details, here’s the story in TOWNHALL.

This is what we said should happen when news of this board was first reported and the Poppin-esque video by this strange musical theater person with fancy degrees hit social media. We even devised our own song parody, practically perfect in every way, about what the board was really there to do. Consider it our sendoff. Goodbye, Nanny! Sorry, you didn’t work out.

What was probably the last straw: this report about Jankowicz’s past involvement with a group called “Integrity Initiative --- Defending Democracy Against Disinformation.”

As REVOLVER reported Monday, this group was founded in 2015 “under the auspices of the U.K.-government-funded “Institute for Statecraft.” They recruited “clusters” of all those so-called ruling elite types we love: academics, national security bureaucrats, “journalists,” think-tankers, and lobbyists in multiple European countries to engage in dealing with so-called “Russian disinformation.”

This non-government entity was clearly meddling in politics and using covert influence in Western countries to set up “a coordinated response,” with the pretext of “fighting disinformation.” Fortunately, hackers leaked internal documents that showed what they were up to. In a paper leaked in 2018, Jackowicz is listed as a member of the “inner core” of the Integrity Initiative’s U.K. cluster, in the subgroup dedicated to Russia. The REVOLVER piece has excerpts from these leaked documents.

“An effective network is best achieved,” one document reads, “by forming in each European country a cluster of well-informed people from the political, military, academic, journalistic, and think-tank spheres, who will track and analyze examples of disinformation in their country and inform decision-makers and other interested parties about what is happening.”

If you don’t see the inherent dangers of having an essentially secret group quietly doing this behind the scenes as they see fit, I’m not sure I can help you.

We found a fascinating 2018 news report from the U.K., made on the heels of that leak. It tells the whole story of the Integrity Initiative, and we couldn’t help noticing that one of the Brits on their list of key “U.K. cluster” people –- though he denied involvement –- was Sir Andrew Wood, the retired British ambassador to Russia who co-founded Orbis Business Intelligence, also associated with “dossier” writer Christopher Steele, who still runs Orbis with fellow former MI6 spy Christopher Burrows. See, here they are on the Orbis website.

Sir Andrew admitted in 2017 that he’d pushed the “dossier” to John McCain. At the time, he defended Steele as “professional” and said that he personally had not read the “dossier, though he “was aware” of what was in it. For when you have time, this informative article will serve as your personal Way-Back Machine.

So, right, it’s these people who will save the world from disinformation! In reality, they’re the ones peddling it. Anyway, here’s that report on the Integrity Initiative, highly recommended reading.

There’s still a website for something called the Integrity Initiative, but it has no reference to “Defending Democracy Against Disinformation.” We couldn’t find the word “disinformation” ANYWHERE on the site. So, if this is the same group, it appears to have morphed into one that says it deals with ethics in business, government service and, as they call it, “the bigger sphere of society” (there's that word "sphere" again) –- not those sly, behind-the-curtain attempts to influence politics in far-flung nations.

We did find it hilarious, though, that one of their listed projects is something called “The Big Brother Program.” I think (hope!) they mean ‘big brother’ in a different way, but, still, funny!

According to this Executive Intelligence Review press release from this Monday, the Integrity Initiative did in fact wipe their old website, Facebook page and Twitter account.

As many have noted by now, Jankowicz herself is a purveyor of disinformation. Just to cite one example, she completely mischaracterized Hunter Biden’s laptop as disinformation and also “a product of the Trump campaign.” Imagine a behind-the-scenes network of so-called academics, etc., with international reach, busy twisting narratives and doing the opposite of what they claim to be doing. One document is particularly chilling, as it outlines the activities of their “Spanish cluster” to stop the appointment of a particular gentleman to the post of national security director. They claimed success.

Now, we don’t know if this gentleman posed an actual problem to Spain’s national security or not, but it’s not up to a secret board to “coordinate the Twitter response” to prevent his appointment. If this sort of thing can be done under the cover of darkness to derail someone’s appointment, it can be done to anyone --- anyone with whom this “ruling elite” disagrees, or to promote the appointment of someone they want in that spot. This is not “defending democracy,” by any stretch.


Related story: Since an operation of this type is so dependent on manipulating Twitter, it puts Elon Musk’s move to buy Twitter in a new light. Talking about messing with their plans! As noted here in REVOLVER, “Transforming Twitter back into a real free speech platform would represent nothing less than a declaration of war against the Globalist American empire.”

Wednesday, May 18, marked Day 3 of the Sussmann trial. Before we take a look at what happened that day, here’s a brief editorial from the NEW YORK POST shaming the media for not covering the trial. It didn’t take their editorial board many words to do that.

As they point out, THE NEW YORK TIMES and the WASHINGTON POST even split a Pulitzer for advancing “the most successful disinformation campaign in living memory.” I would add that in a profession that valued honesty, both “news” outlets would be made to give it back.

“If it had been Republicans doing it to a Democrat, the press would be losing its mind,” the POST says. Of course, that’s true.

It’s likely a DC jury would be looking at it differently as well.

Wednesday was a big day for testimony, with former FBI General Counsel James Baker taking the stand. Baker’s the central witness in the case, as he’s the one Sussmann allegedly lied to during a September 2016 meeting at the FBI --- and definitely lied to in a text Sussmann sent to try to get the meeting in the first place.

Baker testified that he’d become friends with Sussmann and they’d been in “frequent contact.” Also (this is new), he said he was “surprised” to get Sussmann’s text on his personal cellphone requesting a “short meeting” at the FBI. This is the text in which Sussmann lied by saying, “I’m coming on my own –- not on behalf of a client or company –- want to help the Bureau.”

Sussmann was granted the meeting, during which he presented bogus evidence of a server connection between Trump Tower and Russia-linked Alfa Bank. (One of the agents who examined this evidence has testified that it was debunked that very day.)

Baker will return to the stand Thursday morning. The other big witness for the day was Hillary For America General Counsel Marc Elias, who was partners with Sussmann at law firm Perkins Coie. (As you know, Elias has also been lead attorney for an army of litigators who bombarded the battleground states and got them to remove election safeguards, sometimes without the required legislative approval. Wish we could ask him about THAT under oath.) Elias testified that he personally hired oppo research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump. Fusion GPS called on British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who responded by compiling the bogus “dossier,” consisting of unverified rumor.

Elias said he kept the hiring quiet wisthin the campaign. “Given who I represent,” he told jurors, “I tend to not want more people to know about it than have to know about it.” We’re not sure exactly what he meant by that cryptic comment, but it sounds shady, like the CIA’s “need-to-know basis.”

When asked if he was aware Sussmann was planning to go to the FBI, he said he was not, and that he wouldn’t have approved that if he’d known of it. But law professor Jonathan Turley saw an inconsistency, tweeting: “Marc Elias testified that he would not have approved going to the FBI with the false Russian Alfa Bank claim because he did not trust the FBI or Director Comey. Yet, the campaign associates also aggressively pushed the Steele dossier to the FBI.”

Wednesday night, Sean Hannity did a segment on the makeup of the jury for the Sussmann trial, and

the news was stunning. He passed along reporting from the NEW YORK POST that Judge Christopher Cooper allowed donors to Hillary’s campaign and also to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into the jury pool. Durham objected to the seating of one of them, a man who works in public policy for Amazon and could only say he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Judge Cooper overruled Durham.

Another juror in the pool had written on her questionnaire that she worked for the Sierra Club, thought the criminal justice system was racist and believed “the police should be defunded.”

In Washington DC in 2016, voters favored Hillary over Trump by a staggering 90.0 percent to 4.1 percent. And as we’ve previously reported, Judge Cooper himself is tight with the Democrat Party; his wife, Amy Jeffress, has even represented one of the prime perpetrators of the Russia hoax, then-FBI assistant counsel Lisa Page. The two were married by...Merrick Garland. It’s unbelievable that Judge Cooper didn’t recuse himself and let the case pass to another judge.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said on Hannity’s show that for a trial like this, there shouldn’t be donors to ANY political party. The reports he had heard were “very troubling.”

Devin Nunes, who chaired the House Intel Committee, said that in this trial, Durham is looking at one sliver of the overall conspiracy. He noted the incestuous nature of this Washington DC group and the connections of this judge. And he offered what might be the Quote Of The Day about the trial: “If this case was not brought in DC...there’s no way that Sussmann would not have pled guilty.” In DC, he knows his chances are excellent to get one or two jurors to “hold this up, to let him off scot free.”

Still, for the first time, Nunes said, Durham is able to bring direct evidence, not just circumstantial. “We now know journalists...were meeting directly with the Democrats, taking this horrible story and willing to go and put it out there, just to destroy Republicans and destroy President Trump before the election.”

Nunes also noted that the next trial, of “dossier” collaborator Igor Danchenko, is in Virginia.

Margot Cleveland, in her piece written Wednesday, details how the story told by Sussmann’s defense just doesn’t hold up. In effect, she expanded on what Turley said in his tweet, above. It’s hard to buy the story that the Hillary campaign didn’t WANT Sussmann to share the Alfa Bank story with the FBI. “...The information known to date,” Cleveland says, “plus the modus operandi of the Spygate players through the years they peddled the Russia-collusion hoax, renders this argument laughable.”

Just read what defense attorney Michael Bosworth told the jury and see how inconsistent it is.

The evidence, largely in the form of texts between Clinton’s people and Fusion GPS, contradicts his story. It suggests that Fusion GPS absolutely knew the value of having the FBI investigate the Alfa Bank story; they used that investigation to help “sell” the story to outlets such as Reuters.

Cleveland really picks apart the defense’s story that the Clinton campaign didn’t want Sussmann to go to the FBI. One danger we see is that a jury –- especially a biased one –- might not be willing or even able to follow this if it’s too long or complicated. It seems to me that Hillary’s own tweets promoting the Alfa Bank story disprove the defense’s fairy tale that she wouldn’t have wanted the FBI brought in. That would make the story bigger! Hillary would LOVE it.

Oh, wait, I forgot –- the judge refused to allow her tweets into evidence.

Day 1 of the Michael Sussmann trial was devoted to jury selection, and in Washington, DC, the concern is that it’s virtually impossible to assemble a jury that’s not biased against Trump. Reportedly, there were members of the jury pool who were dismissed because they said they had such negative feelings towards Trump that they’d be unable to be objective. If that’s the case, their honesty is to be applauded.

But we also heard news reports that at least a couple of people who admitted to being very anti-Trump were selected as jurors anyway. The difference must be that they said under oath that they believe they can be objective. Hope they’re right about themselves.

On Monday, speaking with Jesse Watters on FOX News, Mollie Hemingway put this concern about the jury in perspective, saying that the purpose of having a special counsel investigation was to uncover the story of the Russia Hoax, and regardless of whether or not Sussmann is convicted on this one count of lying, that has been accomplished. She’s right; through John Durham’s court filings, we know there really was a “joint venture” involving Hillary For America, the DNC, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, the Brookings Institution, the FBI, Rodney Joffe, his team at Georgia Tech, and others. They all shared a “common interest,” which was to defeat Trump and elect Hillary.

In previewing the evidence that he was trying to get admitted in court, Durham essentially drew a map with all roads leading back to Hillary. And we know that the whole blasted story they pushed –- saying Donald Trump was an agent of Vladimir Putin –- was a monstrous lie, a fraud perpetrated on millions of people, millions of VOTERS. Some actually still believe it, as ridiculous as it is to anyone who is not an idiot.

The charge against Sussmann, though certainly warranted and supported by the evidence, represents something much larger, as it has also offered Durham a vehicle to get more of the story out. Yes, this Obama-appointed judge, D.C. District Judge Christopher Cooper, has ruled to keep the “joint venture” communications away from the jury with dubious rulings on “attorney-client privilege,” but he can’t keep them away from the American public. And he can’t keep them out of Durham’s final report.

Margot Cleveland has a new piece about the trial; it ran Monday as jury selection was getting underway.

The attorney-client privilege argument cuts both ways. As Cleveland points out, when then-Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago refuses to answer on the stand because of Judge Cooper’s ruling that the testimony is “privileged,” (when she’s a “techie” who isn’t actually part of the legal conversation by any stretch), it will just drive home that Sussmann really WAS the attorney for Hillary’s henchmen, and that he was paid to do her dirty work.

On Tuesday, Durham intends to call Georgia Tech researcher Dave Dagon, who was given immunity from prosecution last summer. From Cleveland’s description of his role in the scheme, it appears his testimony is expected to create a timeline and to tie the players together in creating and pushing the Alfa Bank and Yotaphone hoaxes.

Cleveland didn’t mention it, but also on the witness stand, as early as Tuesday, will be none other than Marc Elias, general counsel for the 2016 Clinton campaign and the man most responsible for making election fraud in America easy and profitable (though that is a separate issue). It’s really too bad we don’t have cameras in federal court, especially when you think of the testimony we CAN watch, and I refer specifically to the Depp v. Heard civil trial. I’d gladly take a pass on that (which I already have) to watch Durham at work.

Anyway, first on the stand Tuesday will be FBI agent David Martin, who will be “an expert witness on computer matters,” according to the New York Post.

He’ll also testify about the significance of Sussmann’s lie relative to how it might have affected the FBI’s decision-making. The defense, understandably, has tried to bar that testimony, on grounds that seemed from reading the NYP story to be amusingly vague.

But the most encouraging news comes from Cleveland. Which is to say, as the trial goes on –- it will likely last about two weeks –- she expects a lot more to come out in court in the prosecution of Sussmann that will connect Hillary Clinton herself to Spygate. “The real loser...will be Hillary Clinton,” she says.

President Biden is taking criticism for announcing that he will go to Buffalo to comfort the victims of the horrific supermarket shooting by a deranged racist teenager. It’s not because people don’t think it’s a serious tragedy, but that it smacks of the kind of political exploitation of tragedies that I wrote about yesterday. They accuse the Democrats of wanting to focus a lot of attention on a white racist who killed 10 people and injured three others, most of them black, because that plays into the “racist America” theme that they use to divide people and win votes. Yet this weekend’s shooting in California where a Chinese man attacked Taiwanese worshippers in church was also apparently a hate crime, but of a type that Democrats don’t like to acknowledge.

And when an alleged black nationalist drove into a parade in Waukesha, killing six people and injuring 62, most of whom were white, Biden didn’t visit. (To be fair, Jill Biden did go to Waukesha to meet victims’ families and attend a memorial.)

The reason given for Joe Biden not visiting Waukesha was that local authorities had so much to deal with that a Presidential visit would be an expensive and difficult distraction. But that would be equally true in Buffalo as well.

I don’t like questioning people’s motives for showing compassion to victims of heinous crimes. I think we should all do that. For now, I will reserve judgement and note that it’s become part of the President’s duties to comfort Americans in times of tragedy. If that’s what this trip is about, then I’m all for it. But Biden should rise above using it to cynically promote policy points and attack political opponents.

There are already too many people trying to divide Americans by firing up hatred and suspicion of anyone who’s different from them, and turning one group against another. The master of that was Adolf Hitler, and it’s not surprising that we’ve seen reports he was admired by both the white racist who wanted to kill black people and the black racist who wanted to kill white people. It’s all the same poison, just in different bottles.

For the record, here are the kinds of statements that a President of all the people should avoid when comforting the victims of a racist shooting:

Calling for restricting both the God-given First and Second Amendment rights of people who had nothing to do with it.

Blaming the shooter’s crimes on TV networks and news commentators you hate, and who, incidentally, the alleged shooter also hated.

In general, blaming the shooter’s crimes on a wide range of people that you don’t like and neither did the shooter.

Trying to use the tragedy to accuse your political opponents of believing in some racist conspiracy theory that most of them have never even heard of. This reminds me of when they were accusing Trump voters of being Q-Anon followers, and I had to Google that just to find out what the heck it was. This time, get ready to hear a lot about GRT or the “Great Replacement Theory.” Claiming that you believe in it is a convenient way to falsely brand you as a promoter of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for opposing open borders.

On Day 2 of the Michael Sussmann trial, federal prosecutors under the direction of special counsel John Durham gave an opening statement accusing Sussmann of using the FBI as a “political tool” to create an October surprise against 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump.

As Trace Gallagher on FOX News reported, they said it was “a plan that used and manipulated the FBI. A plan that the defendant hoped would trigger news outlets and trigger an FBI investigation. A plan that largely succeeded.”

It succeeded because, even though the claim was false, Trump and Russia were “forever linked in the court of public opinion.”

Assistant Special Counsel Deborah Brittain Shaw told the jurors, “He told a lie that was designed to achieve a political end, a lie that was designed to inject the FBI into a presidential election.”

Perhaps deliberately using a term that resonates with the left, she said, “This is a case about privilege...the privilege of a lawyer who thought that for the powerful, the normal rules didn’t apply, that he could use the FBI as a political tool...The defendant lied to direct the power and resources of the FBI to his own ends and to serve the agendas of his clients.”

Given that this DC jury is likely biased against Trump, Shaw addressed what she called “the proverbial elephant in the room,” the political context that threatens to influence jurors: “Some people have very strong feelings about politics and Russia,” she told them, “and many people have strong feelings about Donald Trump and Russia. But we are not here because these allegations involved either of them, nor are we here because the client was the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

“We are here,” she said, “because the FBI is our institution that shouldn’t be used as a political tool for anyone --- not Republicans, not Democrats, not anyone.” She urged them to keep their own political views out of the decisions they make in the courtroom. I’ve rarely known a leftist who could keep politics out of ANY decision, but maybe Durham found some.

“Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, whether we hate Donald Trump or love him, we have to believe the government is above politics,” the prosecution said, and that “the government should never be used as a political pawn.”

I would add, “...even though some in government –- Strzok, McCabe, etc. –- were happy to oblige.”

Legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy told Brian Kilmeade on FOX News that in Washington DC, “the most political town in the country,” Durham’s biggest challenge will indeed be this jury. “This is not a home game for him in Washington,” McCarthy said. But Durham had no choice but to bring the case in Washington because that’s where the alleged offense took place.

McCarthy was impressed that they seated a jury in one day, but he does take that as a sign that this judge wants to move things along, not let Durham take time with a lot of “joint venture” testimony. So I suspect we might have to wait for the special counsel’s final report to see all the dots officially connected.

Moving to the defense, attorney Michael Bosworth argued that Sussmann is “a good man, a family man” who never tried to hide anything from the FBI, and that they knew he represented the Clinton campaign. (It appears, though, that they did NOT know he came to them specifically with the Alfa Bank story because Clinton was paying him to do it. He told them the opposite.)

Bosworth said it was known that Sussmann represented the DNC after their servers had been hacked by Russians. (Not that hacking by Russians has ever been proved.)

Bosworth called the charge “nonsensical” and said the lie would be “impossible to prove,” since neither man took notes at the meeting (NOTE: isn’t that, in itself, curious?) and Baker can’t possibly have a strong recollection of what was said after five-and-a-half years. He told the jury that Baker’s memory was “clear as mud.” Never mind that the jury will also see the same lie turn up in Sussmann’s text message to him.

Bosworth also asserted that Sussmann’s action didn’t benefit the Clinton camp in any way.

Now wait just a minute. Hillary still managed to lose the election, but considering that the bogus Trump-Russia story dominated the headlines literally for years; gave Hillary a bogus excuse for losing (one of many); cast a dark shadow on Trump’s presidency; and wasted his administration’s time, attention and money with the Mueller investigation, I’d say it was still a gift to her.

Bosworth insisted that Sussmann was motivated by national security, not politics. He said, “If [Sussmann] wasn’t motivated by an actual interest in national security, why did he go to the CIA, months after the election? He had a genuine interest in national security and doing the right thing.” But this reasoning makes no sense. If someone didn’t like the outcome of an election and wanted to get a President impeached, and he had an “in” with the CIA, he certainly might take them an allegation like this and try to get some action.

Of course, you’re familiar with “the” text that Sussmann sent to FBI general counsel James Baker, who was a friend of his, to get the meeting: “Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company –- want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

If Durham hadn’t obtained that revealing text, and also the Perkins Coie billing records that show Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for that meeting, this would just be a matter of whom to believe. But Durham has the proof he was lying, RIGHT THERE.

He didn’t get to the Marc Elias testimony today, as some observers had thought he might, so we’re still waiting for that, and also for James Baker to take the stand.

But in the meantime, Durham called FBI Supervisory Special Agent Scott Hellman, who testified that it took him and another agent “less than a day to ascertain that data and ‘white papers’ on two thumb drives Sussmann gave Baker did not support the Trump-Alfa Bank ‘secret connection’ allegation.” After examining the materials for evidence of hacking, he did a technical review, he said, and cross-referenced them. He said it became clear that “whoever had written that paper had just come to some conclusions not supported by the technical data.”

Also, “the methodology was questionable,” he said, and it didn’t make sense that a candidate for President would put his own name on a “supposedly secret domain name.”

So –- at long last –- all major news networks led their evening broadcasts with the blockbuster story that the FBI had debunked in ONE DAY the evidence for what turned out to be a coordinated attempt to frame Donald Trump before the 2016 election.

Just kidding; I made that up. ABC, NBC and CBS all ignored the story completely. They did cover the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial, however.

Today is the first day of the Michael Sussmann trial in federal court. He’s being prosecuted by “Russia Hoax” special counsel John Durham for lying to FBI general counsel James Baker when he said he was not speaking to them on behalf of any client. He was, in fact, representing tech executive Rodney Joffe and Hillary For America, whom billing records show he charged for the meeting.

Before we get into the trial, here’s a related item of interest, bearing on another story in the news. You know of Elon Musk’s new legal obstacle in acquiring Twitter and restoring uncensored speech? Guess who Twitter’s lead counsel happens to be? James Baker, one and the same.

No comment for now; moving on…

Former Congressman Devin Nunes, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, and his chief investigator Kash Patel, a former national security prosecutor, are two people who have long known the story that Durham has put together. They appeared with Maria Bartiromo on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES to preview the trial, with Patel saying, “I think John Durham is doing the most methodical prosecution I’ve seen in recent history.”

The best way to convict “is with their own documentation,” Patel observed. As in, follow the money. That’s how Durham connected the Clinton campaign with the Perkins Coie attorneys and Fusion GPS. Last week, we learned that Durham will be using as evidence the actual notes from FBI officials, which, Patel reminds us, were subpoenaed by the Intel Committee long ago but never turned over. These make it clear that Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok knew –- before Crossfire Hurricane was opened –- that the Trump-Russia story was full of lies paid for by the DNC and Hillary’s campaign.

I would add that this might put Sussmann’s defense in a position to argue the FBI knew it was fake oppo research but didn’t care, making their client’s lie seem less consequential. That’s right --- in defending their client, they might need to admit that Durham’s big-picture narrative was TRUE. Wouldn’t that be delicious?

That big picture is what Durham describes as a “joint venture.” (We outlined recently the difficulty Durham’s had getting this Obama-appointed judge to let in anything about that.) Patel said that other indictments from “Clinton World” might be forthcoming, such as for Jake Sullivan, who’s currently Biden’s national security adviser; John Podesta and Robby Mook, who ran Hillary’s campaign; and the infamous Marc Elias, then of Perkins Coie.

Durham, he said, “has put the Clinton campaign and the FBI cabal together, in Andy McCabe’s office, with their own notes, to go and lie to an American public, a federal court, and surveil a President unlawfully. And then Andy McCabe is quoted in the notes, saying, ‘I want this Russiagate investigation to endure a year after it started’ to perpetuate the lie and the criminality of their conduct.”

Nunes went on to talk about the significance of this scandal and its broad cover-up, tying it to the current state of our institutions. “So, it starts as dirty political tricks,” he said. “Five years later, it ends up with...the deterioration over time of every institution in this country...These institutions have to be cleaned up, and Durham is the only guy in the position to get that done.”

As for whether Durham’s case will get a fair hearing from a DC jury, Patel said, “The jury can hear what they want, but they’re gonna see the FBI’s own words, Michael Sussmann’s own tweets and text messages, and that stuff doesn’t lie.”

Let’s hope they care. Meanwhile, the fight has continued over what may be presented to the jury. As Margot Cleveland details, Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that Rodney Joffe may actually assert attorney-client privilege for his conversations with employees of Fusion GPS because those conversations “furthered Joffe’s and the Clinton campaign’s common interests.” What??

Interesting that the argument would be made at all that Joffe and the Clinton campaign HAD common interests. Did those by any chance have to do with Hillary getting elected?

But it’s true: the judge ruled on Thursday that Durham may not show the jury copies of emails previously withheld by Joffe, the Clinton campaign and the DNC. He did acknowledge that of the 38 emails, the Clinton campaign “had no valid reason to withhold 22.” Even so, he said that the Durham team had “waited too long” to file their motion to compel and so it was denied.

The judge decided on his own that these emails were “not particularly revelatory” and would add little to Durham’s case against Sussmann. (Aside: maybe it’s not the case against Sussmann he’s concerned about, but the unofficial one against Hillary For America and the DNC.)

On the other hand, Judge Cooper’s decision might benefit Durham in future litigation, Cleveland said, “because it establishes a precedent for Durham’s team to seek access to other communications withheld on the basis of the Clinton campaign’s claims of attorney-client privilege.” That relates to nearly 1,500 documents withheld by Fusion GPS as “privileged.”

Still, it might not help. Concerning the emails at issue here, Cleveland finds it “strange” that this judge would defer to Marc Elias’s claim that they ALL pertained to legal advice. (Fusion GPS attorney Joshua Levy had argued the same thing.)

Also distressing: The judge said that Joffe’s communications with Perkins Coie were privileged even though they were sent to a third party, Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago, who was involved only in the technical aspects of the data, not legal. She didn’t work for Joffe or Perkins Coie, and so wasn’t involved in the legal aspect. Even so, the court held that attorney-client privilege applied because of the “common interest.”

Say what? I’ll ask again: What was the “common interest” these three shared, other than getting Hillary elected?

And in the judge’s 11-page opinion, he said his court would “apply the principles set forth above to any assertions of privilege during witness testimony at trial.” In other words, if Durham wants testimony from Seago or any other Fusion GPS employee about communications with Joffe, it might not be allowed. This comes after Durham had to grant Seago immunity to get her testimony!

Cleveland says Durham does have a few cards he can play. He can go to the appellate court for a ruling on privilege before the trial starts. (Well, it starts today, and we haven’t heard anything about that.) He can use Seago’s claim of privilege to emphasize that Sussmann was indeed representing both Joffe and the Clinton campaign when he went to James Baker.

One other idea. Though I tell readers often that I am not a lawyer, I personally love the idea of prosecutors emphasizing to the jury this “common interest” claim being made by the defense. Because that sounds a lot like Durham’s “joint venture” claim to me --- the joint venture to smear Trump and elect Hillary President.


Here’s an informative “catch-up” on the case from the New York Post.

And here’s another good pre-trial write-up, quite even-handed, from Courthouse News Service.

In other Russia Hoax-related litigation, former Trump National Security Advisor (for two whole weeks!) Michael Flynn has filed a $50 million claim against the FBI and the “Justice” Department under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for malicious prosecution in their so-called investigation of the Russia Hoax.

Investigative reporter John Solomon has obtained a copy of the filing, known as a Form 95 Civil Claim. Filed quietly on February 22, it claims that Flynn can prove political interference inside the FBI.

The career of this three-star Army general was arguably ruined. Thus, the $50 million represents “compensatory damages including but not limited to lost past and future earnings/revenue, emotional distress, lost opportunity to be President’s National Security Advisor, significant restraints of personal liberty, attorney’s fees/expenses and court costs in defending against malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest.”

One strong piece of evidence of his political prosecution is that now-infamous meeting in the Oval Office attended by then-President Obama, Vice President Biden, and FBI officials. Flynn’s filing mentions that this meeting was held just weeks after Obama pointedly urged Trump not to choose Flynn as national security adviser. Flynn also alleges that former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe had a personal vendetta against him.

“Flynn was the target of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution that had no merit when it began, no merit during its course, and no merit in the end when the charges were withdrawn by the DOJ and ultimately dismissed by the Court after Flynn received a full pardon,” the filing reads. They called him a traitor, it says, acting in concert with a foreign power.

They even threatened to prosecute his son unless he pleaded guilty. (Recall that he did, then withdrew the plea after getting new legal representation.) The filing says, “The federal government’s targeting of a citizen for baseless criminal prosecution and eliciting a plea bargain through threatening of family members is outrageous conduct of the highest order.”

We wish Michael Flynn all the best in his pursuit of this suit. No punishment that could be levied is too great. The government cannot be allowed to get away with this banana-republic-style political intimidation and ruination.

There’s been so much news the past week that it's almost overwhelming, but I can’t let the passing of country star Mickey Gilley go unmentioned. Gilley died last weekend in Pasadena, Texas, at 86 of undisclosed causes.

Gilley was best known for his ‘80s hits that were associated with the “Urban Cowboy” craze kicked off by the John Travolta movie (the country flipside of the disco boom Travolta sparked with “Saturday Night Fever.”) Gilley not enjoyed huge chart success with such pop-country hits as “Stand By Me” and “Don’t the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time,” he also became famous for his Gilley’s club, the “world’s biggest honky-tonk,” with its mechanical bull, as seen in the film. Even after the hits dried up, his name was still associated with the Mickey Gilley Golf Classic and live venues. He had a theater in Branson, and there was a Gilley’s to the west of us in Fort Worth (now Billy Bob’s Texas) and still a Gilley’s to the east in Dallas (not his, but named after him.)

Those who know only his '80s “Urban Cowboy” years might be surprised to learn that he’d been plugging away for quite a while before that. His first record, “Ooh We Baby,” came in 1957 (the label was "Minor Records"); his first charted song was “Is It Wrong” in 1960 (the uncredited bass player was Kenny Rogers); and his first album was "Lonely Wine" in 1964. He overcame a number of setbacks, including two fires that destroyed his venues and an accident that paralyzed him for three months and ended his ability to play piano. But he kept performing as a singer and storyteller.

Mickey Gilley was a member of a famous trio of singer/pianist cousins from Ferriday, Louisiana, that included “The Killer” Jerry Lee Lewis in the rock field, and Jimmy Swaggart in the gospel arena. Both cousins are still alive (yes, even Jerry Lee.)

A few years ago, Mickey Gilley visited the “Huckabee” show along with fellow “Urban Cowboy” star Johnny Lee (“Looking for Love in All The Wrong Places.”) You can relive that moment here.

Rest in peace, Mickey.

* * *

Just a quick note on this year’s inductees into the “Rock and Roll” Hall of Fame. In the performer category, they are Pat Benetar and Neil Geraldo, Eurythmics (both deserved), Duran Duran (not my choice, but okay), Carly Simon, Lionel Richie (wait, wasn’t this supposed to be rock?), Dolly Parton (who unsuccessfully asked that her name be removed because she’s never even made a rock record) and Eminem (okay, this is definitely no longer a rock music Hall of Fame. Some of us would argue that that’s not even music.)

The Hall’s CEO defended Eminem’s induction by claiming he “emits the same feeling” as heavy metal does. If that means he induces headaches, I’ll grant that, but it’s not rock. Actual metal pioneers Judas Priest finally got a “Musical Excellence Award,” but weren’t inducted as performers.

As has become a yearly tradition, here’s my very incomplete list of artists who have NOT been inducted into the alleged “Rock and Roll” Hall of Fame so they can make room for people like Eminem, Jay-Z, Dolly Parton, etc.:

Jethro Tull; The Monkees; Mott the Hoople; The Jam; Ted Nugent; Dick Dale; Herman’s Hermits; Blue Oyster Cult; The Guess Who; King Crimson; Thin Lizzy; Robin Trower; Emerson Lake & Palmer; Iron Maiden; Devo; Paul Revere and the Raiders; Styx; Tommy James and the Shondells; Boston; Steppenwolf; America; The Grass Roots; Jan and Dean; Motorhead; Neil Sedaka; Badfinger; the MC5; The New York Dolls; Grand Funk Railroad; Slade; Joe Walsh; Three Dog Night; Warren Zevon; Link Wray; Meat Loaf; Vanilla Fudge; Blood, Sweat and Tears; Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers; J. Geils Band; Bad Company; neither Johnny nor Edgar Winter; Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels; Peter Frampton, Johnny Burnette; Ten Years After; Johnny Rivers; The B-52s and many more.

Watch outgoing White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki not only NOT condemn the protests outside SCOTUS Justices homes but state that they’ve been “peaceful to date, and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes. And that’s the President’s position.”

So the President’s position is that he encourages threatening mobs to continue to violate both state and federal law (such protests outside judge’s private homes can result in a year in prison on the federal level alone)?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also encouraged the protesters to march and show their “righteous anger.”

The Dems don’t seem to realize that when you build a Frankenstein’s monster and rile it up, you can’t control it, and it will eventually turn on you. In this case, it’s already happening. Rabid (and I suspect that may be literally true) pro-abortion protesters are now targeting Nancy Pelosi’s house in San Francisco. They accuse her and other Democrats of being “complicit” in the overturning of Roe v. Wade by not passing a national pro-abortion law when they had a supermajority in the Senate.

If you think I’m being partisan or hyperbolic when I say these people are so radical they’re unhinged, then click on that link and read the evidence in their own words. This is not the old “safe, legal and rare” pro-abortion crowd. These are nutjobs who revel in the grisly act of abortion. They scorn the very idea of saying you want abortions to be rare. Sample protester quote:

"Hillary Clinton, who started the whole thing like abortion should be legal, but rare, as if abortion is a tragedy. We are here to say abortion is a basic right, a basic human right, and without this right, women are basically enslaved.” She said they want "abortion on demand and without apology… legal and accessible, not rare.” She called overturning Roe a "blatant war on women, and other trans-uterus-bearing individuals." (Trans-lation: “women.”)

These sick, ranting lunatics are now outside Nancy Pelosi’s house with bullhorns. The only upside is that as we’ve learned from experience, Democrats only find angry, violent mobs politically useful until they turn and start targeting Democrats. That’s when law and order tends to make a swift comeback.

In our May 9 report on the judge’s latest rulings in the Michael Sussmann trial, we mentioned the following:

“On the downside, this judge doesn’t want to bring in evidence of the ‘joint venture’ among Sussmann, Joffe and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with the Alfa Bank story, because Sussmann hasn’t been charged with conspiracy. The judge said he doesn’t want to ‘confuse the jury’ and ‘distract from the issues at hand.’”

At the time, we didn’t buy his excuse—I mean, reason. And sure enough, it’s this ruling that has Margot Cleveland concerned about how politics might be playing a part with this judge, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. This judge, she said, “let politics trump the law.” Though she finds his “baseline” to be apolitical, mostly even-handed, sometimes he veers from that. We, too, notice that this happens when the facts at issue tend to get too ‘warm’ –- that is, too close to Hillary and her campaign.

Durham had argued that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were still admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But to rule in Durham’s favor, the judge would essentially be acknowledging that Hillary For America was a co-conspirator.

As Cleveland explains this, a “conspiracy” isn’t necessarily criminal, and that this is why Durham is giving it the more benign term “joint venture. But to make an exception to the hearsay rule, the judge would have to find that “a preponderance of the evidence” supported a conspiracy or joint venture.

Judge Cooper balked at this. He said that for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage of the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”

Cleveland explains why, given the witnesses from Georgia Tech who are slated to testify at the trial, there would be no need for an “extensive evidentiary analysis.” Durham’s office had even suggested in their brief that the judge could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” In other words, just wait and issue the ruling during the trial. She thinks the evidence of the joint venture is overwhelming, “easily satisfying the preponderance of evidence test.

She says Judge Cooper’s unwillingness to do this suggests politics at work. He’s not touching the issue of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax. He’s even questioning the whole “joint venture” theory, saying the “contours” of it and its participants are “not entirely obvious.” Cleveland senses that this case “is political to its core,” just like the entire Russia Hoax.

I forgot my magic mind-reading cap today, but it sure looks as though this judge is protecting the Democrats, and, specifically, Hillary Clinton, the queen mother of scandal.

The Washington Times got the same impression.

A while back, we reported on the stunning conflicts of interest this judge has, including the fact that his wife, Amy Jeffress, has represented one of the people most closely involved with the Russia Hoax, Lisa Page. We thought then, how does this judge get this case? How can this judge NOT be political?

Hollywood attorney-to-the-stars Kevin Morris, a pal to Hunter Biden, is the individual who paid Hunter’s approximately $2 million IRS bill and who funds his extravagant lifestyle in Malibu, including his $20,000-a-month rental. This “sugar brother” reportedly has been developing a legal and media strategy for Hunter and also helped structure the plan for selling his “artwork” to anonymous (“anonymous”?) buyers.

But he’s done much more. When production was going on –- in Siberia –- for a biopic about Hunter’s life, Morris traveled there on a private jet with two associates and got onto the set under false pretenses, apparently to spy on them. According to the New York Post, he told the producer that he himself was working on a documentary that detailed Hunter’s corrupt business practices.

The real production was called MY SON HUNTER, an indie film produced by Phelim McAleer. Morris and his fake “production team” were given full access to the set and interviewed cast and crew over several days, even sharing meals. But…

“They seemed to never switch the camera off,” Mcleer told the Post. “Now I know why. This was an information-gathering exercise by a lawyer and his associates for their client. (Recall that Hunter has a different attorney, Chris Clark, handling the investigation into his finances.)

McAleer is described in the Post as a conservative, so it’s likely Hunter and his generous benefactor are concerned that the film might put the President’s son in a harsh light. Never mind that he's already put himself in one.

You have to give Morris one thing: for whatever reason he has to help Hunter, he’s dedicated. It’s not just that he gave Hunter $2 million and continues to pay his lavish expenses. Would your lawyer leave the beautiful Malibu beach and fly to SIBERIA for you? A place where "hanging ten" refers to the risk of toe frostbite? To go undercover and spy on your behalf? I’ve heard of attorneys lying for their clients, but, until now, not lying AND SPYING.

Last night, Tucker Carlson put together a long, looooong list of people and things that incoming White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has publicly declared to be racist. A small sampling:

Fox News is racist (partly because they called COVID 19 the Wuhan virus, just like CNN and MSNBC used to when they were telling the truth about it); voter ID laws (supported by 69% of black voters and 75% of Hispanic voters) are racist; Brexit (the movement among Britons to leave the European Union) is racist; Republicans who criticized white Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam for being photographed in a KKK outfit are racist for some reason; and most surprising to me, as Tucker put it, “Mike Huckabee. He seems nice…but he’s RAAACIST!!”

This sort of kneejerk accusation of racism appears to be a habit with Ms. Jean-Pierre (she also seems to be, by the Democrats’ own definition, a conspiracy theorist, disinformation peddler and insurrectionist.)

Just as our new Disinformation Czarina likes to sing the score from “Mary Poppins,” I can imagine her warbling the “Avenue Q” ditty, “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” Only in this White House, it wouldn’t be a solo number, it would be a chorus.

Still, I never imagined when I was a young pastor risking a job I desperately needed by telling my church’s biggest donors that they could find another church if they didn’t like me welcoming black people to our congregation that one day, the official spokesperson for the White House would declare me to be a racist. Believe me, after decades of preaching that racism is a deplorable sin against God, in whose image we are all made, it was as big a shock to me as it was to you to discover what a big racist I am.

But then, you have to understand that, like people who refer to every political opponent as a Nazi or “literally Hitler,” the left has shamefully devalued the word “racist” by applying it to everyone they disagree with. This practice is disgusting because there are some words that should retain their powerful, odious meanings and be used only when truly justified. For instance, I don’t go around calling everyone on the left a “communist,” even though the term fits some of them so well that they proudly adopt it themselves.

Sadly, in political circles, toxic words like “racist” (and the rest of the Modern Dem Quartet: “sexist,” “homophobe” and “transphobe”) have become empty syllables to be thrown like custard pies at anyone you want to humiliate in public. I suppose I should consider it a weird kind of reverse honor, like this Administration’s version of a Presidential medal. It means I’m making arguments that they consider to be a threat to their power, but they have no rational or evidence-based response, so they try to hang the “Racist” medal around my neck to prevent people from listening.

No, thanks. I revile the word and reject the allegation, but I do appreciate your acknowledgement of my effectiveness.

Election Results

May 11, 2022

Former President Trump’s perfect record of wins by candidates he endorsed is no more: Tuesday in Nebraska, his pick for the GOP gubernatorial race, Charles Herbster, came in second in a multiple candidate race to University of Nebraska Regent Jim Pillen (33-30%.) Pillen will face Democrat Carol Blood in November. There were almost 261,000 votes cast in the GOP primary and 93,000 in the Democratic primary, so do your own “bloodbath” joke.

But Herbster was Trump’s only miss so far. And Herbster had a lot to overcome, including a late-race accusation of sexual harassment by eight women, which he denies. In House District 1, Republican Mike Flood will face Democrat Patty Pansing Brooks.

Meanwhile in West Virginia, Trump-endorsed Rep. Alex Mooney won in a 66-34% landslide over Rep. David McKinley, in a new 2nd District that pitted two GOP incumbents against each other. McKinley was also dragged down by his record of voting with Democrats on the infrastructure bill and on certifying the 2020 election and investigating the January 6th riot.

In the only other national race in West Virginia, for House District 1, Carol Miller easily won the Republican nomination with 66% of the vote. She’ll face Democrat Lacy Watson, who ran uncontested.

Here are the results of all the races in Nebraska:

And in West Virginia:

And in an unexpected development, New York Republican Rep. Tom Reed announced his resignation. He’d already chosen not to run for reelection, but now he’s leaving office seven months early. Reed has been accused of sexual misconduct by a female lobbyist, but he gave no reason for his leaving early. New York’s Democrat Governor will have to call a special election to fill Reed’s unfinished term.

Recent stories about the investigation in Delaware into Hunter Biden’s finances have mentioned that Hunter paid his huge delinquent tax bill with help from a loan. Until now, however, the details of this arrangement weren’t known. Now they are, at least the essentials.

According to the New York Post, which broke the original laptop story that was suppressed by the media prior to the 2020 election, Hunter has a “sugar brother” –- that’s what Hunter’s friends call him –- who paid it all off. And the bill wasn’t $1 million as first reported, but more like $2 million.

This generous friend is mega-rich Hollywood entertainment lawyer and novelist Kevin Morris. The firm he founded has represented numerous A-list celebrities such as Matthew McConaughey and Scarlett Johansson. This man represented Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of SOUTH PARK, negotiating blockbuster deals for them reportedly worth nearly $1.5 billion, and he also co-produced their hit Broadway musical, THE BOOK OF MORMON.

So out of his pocket change, Morris has apparently been covering Hunter’s $20,000-a-month rent and other living expenses. He lives there in Malibu near Hunter. His office told CBS that he’s helping Hunter with his “legal and image problems.” Reportedly, it was Morris who advised him on how to structure the sale of his “art” so it would be sold to “anonymous” (mm-hmm) donors.

It’s likely that having a paid-up tax bill will cause a grand jury to look more favorably on Hunter, if not on the question of guilt or innocence, then at least on the severity of punishment, and that surely was the idea. Will they assume this reimbursement was done on Hunter's own initiative, or will they be told the truth: that it was a fabulously wealthy friend covering for him by bailing him out?

According to FOX News, Morris is a big Democrat who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat Super PACS and candidates since 2007.

He has even been producing a documentary film on Hunter’s life, which I seriously doubt you'll want to take your kids to. And CBS News reports that Morris is serving as Hunter’s “attorney and trusted adviser” to investigate how his all-too-revealing laptop became public. (Hunter’s criminal defense is being handled by another attorney, Christopher Clark.) Morris reportedly is conducting a forensic investigation of the laptop, while, in interviews, Hunter has seemed utterly clueless about what happened to it, or even if the one being investigated was really his. Why, sure, maybe it WAS Russian disinformation! Golly, who can say?

Has Hunter been feigning ignorance about the laptop all this time, trying to weasel out of answering questions about it? That’s likely. On the other hand, according to computer shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac, Hunter reeked of alcohol when he brought it in, so that might explain his mental blank.

The New York Post has more details on the Hunter documentary. Morris wants to tell the story of Hunter’s life since he came under scrutiny for his lifestyle and controversial overseas business dealings while “dad” was Vice President.

Finally, there’s a senior Department of “Justice” official whose conflicts of interest should, at least in a sane world, keep him far away from the Hunter Biden case. But since the world we’re currently living in is certifiably insane, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have been looking into the issue

Nicholas McQuaid, head of the DOJ Criminal Division, used to work with Hunter’s criminal attorney, the above-mentioned Chris Clark, at...(drum roll, please)...Latham and Watkins.

Last year, Grassley and Johnson wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland three times about McQuaid’s possible recusal from the case, and he ignored all three letters. So they wrote to U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the presiding judge in the Biden financial case, to try to find out if McQuaid has recused himself. They also asked for copies of communications between the office and McQuaid, plus information on whether any employees of the U.S. attorney’s office in Biden’s home state of Delaware had recused themselves.

As of this writing, Weiss has not responded, and AG Garland still ignores them. I expect they'll hear from Judge Weiss, but Garland is much too busy tracking the movements and communications of "domestic terrorists" in MAGA hats to deal with this.

There’s a book and a documentary about the National Lampoon magazine whose title is a quote from the movie “Animal House.” It’s called “A Futile and Stupid Gesture.” If anyone ever writes the history of this era when Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi ran Congress, they’ll have to borrow that title because instead of good, compromise legislation to lift all Americans, what we got instead was a series of doomed futile and stupid gestures. Now, brace yourself for yet another one.

Next week, Senate Democrats plan to force a vote to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law (although as I’ve already told you, that’s not even true. They basically want to make California's abortion law federal law. If they codified Roe, it would ban most abortions past mid-pregnancy, which is what most Americans want, and the Senate Democrats never do what most Americans want.)

This is a futile and stupid gesture because they don’t have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, and they don’t have 51 votes to kill the filibuster, so they already know it’s not going to pass. But it will give them a chance to waste lots of our time and money waving their arms, pointing fingers, calling names and firing up their base with false accusations and utter nonsense. Still, better they should do that than actually pass any more awful legislation, so have at it.

Incidentally, here’s a look at just how radical and unserious the Democrats’ abortion bill is.

To make it look somewhat like an actual law, they had to take out a lot of loaded PC buzzwords like white supremacy, gender oppression and reproductive justice; and to appease their base, they had to add some word salad about protecting the right to abortion for anyone with the “capacity for pregnancy,” including “transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others.” I assume by “others,” they mean “women,” who (pardon my triggering hate speech) are still the only people who can get pregnant.

I’d suggest that they take a Biology 101 course, but these days, it’s not likely students will learn any facts about the birds and the bees there, except maybe that a male bee can give birth to a bird if it identifies as a female bird. Probably a cuckoo. Here’s an example of the kind of Dr. Frankenstein’s Cookbook that passes for medical textbooks these days. I warn you, once you read this, you won’t be able to unread it.

As if common sense and experience couldn’t tell you that CNN would get any story involving conservative views horribly wrong, the network’s claim that Capitol Police were bracing for violence by rightwing extremists over the looming SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision was especially jaw-dropping, It would've been hilarious if the consequences weren’t so serious.

CNN, as usual, had the story completely backwards, and as anyone who isn’t blinded by partisanship could have predicted, the violence over the weekend came from pro-abortion, leftwing extremist groups. Nobody in his right mind thought that authorities were putting up fencing around the Supreme Court for fear that pro-life activists might storm the building. That’s just part of the Democrats’ fizzling narrative that out of all the riots of the past two years, the single one by people on the right in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was the one establishing a dangerous pattern, and not the dozens of deadly riots by the left that have caused billions of dollars in damages -- and that are now flaring up again, thanks to the possibility that the Court might finally hold the Roe decision up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Here’s what the “mostly peaceful” pro-abortion leftists did over the weekend while all those dangerous rightwingers were attending church and celebrating Mother’s Day:

They defaced churches with pro-abortion graffiti and disrupted services with profane, blasphemous, threatening and obscene demonstrations, chants and signs (warning, content is for adults with strong stomachs):

(At least in Virginia, Attorney General Jason Miyares warned that he will come down hard on anyone who tries to interfere with the “fundamental and natural right of all Virginians to practice their religion in peace.)

They also tried to bully Supreme Court Justices into changing their rulings by protesting outside their private homes. They eventually learned that this is a crime in Virginia when police cars showed up, and then they suddenly thought of something else they had to do (also warning: foul language. Such charming and persuasive folks!)

An on-the-scene Daily Signal reporter said the protest at Justice Kavanaugh’s house was an “attempt at intimidation” and one of the scariest things he’d ever witnessed.

Then there were the ones who really showed their true colors by fire-bombing the office of pro-life non-profit Wisconsin Family Action in Madison. The exterior was also spray-painted with the Antifa symbol, a code term for “ACAB (All Cops Are B*****ds”), and the threat, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”

This was so bad that even President Biden’s spokesperson Jen Psaki stopped pussyfooting around about “peaceful protest” and issued a statement strongly condemning “violence, threats and vandalism.”

So memo to CNN, and Attorney General Merrick Garland: This is what “domestic terrorists” look like. Not people who criticize the Administration on Facebook, or complain about what their kids are being taught at school board meetings, or who think you should have to show ID before voting. It’s the people threatening Supreme Court Justices, assaulting churches, throwing Molotov cocktails and threatening the lives of those who disagree with them. I realize this is a difficult nuance for you to comprehend, but do try to discern the difference.

Maybe I should also CC that memo about what an actual “domestic terrorist” is to the FBI. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee report that FBI whistleblowers tell them the agency is trying to fire employees who attended the pro-Trump rally in Washington on January 6, 2021.

To be crystal clear: These employees are not accused of committing any crime. They didn’t take part in the riot. They didn’t even enter the Capitol. They just exercised their First Amendment right to attend a rally and hear what the President had to say. For this, they’re allegedly having their security clearances revoked, which the majority of FBI employees are required to hold to keep their jobs.

The heads of these agencies who are turning them from once-respected impartial law enforcement agencies into political goon squads should be aware that purges can go in two directions. I’m counting the minutes until January 20, 2025, when I hope and pray that a new Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, will march most of the leaders of these agencies to the nearest exit, forcing them to leave behind all their computers and papers for a thorough audit and investigation, perhaps to be followed by indictments. Then return them to their original nonpartisan roles and let the sunlight in for some heavy disinfecting.

There’s just one week to go before the Michael Sussmann trial starts in federal court. Last week, we discussed the material that Special Counsel John Durham wanted to include but that the defense was working to exclude. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on that last Friday; Nick Arama at RedState has a good summary.

He sees Durham as being limited by this in some respects but still able to get most of his big-picture evidence in. On the downside, this judge doesn’t want to bring in evidence of the “joint venture” among Sussmann, Joffe and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with the Alfa Bank story, because Sussmann hasn’t been charged with conspiracy. The judge said he doesn’t want to “confuse the jury” and “distract from the issues at hand.”

On the upside, evidence of the charged offense (the lie about working on behalf of Hillary’s campaign and Rodney Joffe) and also of Sussmann’s motive will be allowed in. That includes “evidence of Mr. Sussmann’s client work.” Joffe hasn’t been granted immunity and will have to testify, though this means the prosecution will have to steer clear of whether his actions were “objectionable or illegal,” and also any questions about the accuracy of his data.

But in another development, just as Sussmann’s attorneys, from the Democrat-connected firm Latham and Watkins, are trying to keep Durham’s evidence out, they’ve got their own “evidence” that they want the judge to let in. And what they want to use it for is essentially to put President Trump on trial for colluding with Russia. I am not kidding.

Think of it: they’re in federal court with a Washington DC jury that is probably very biased against Trump. They want to make this case not about their client but about...Evil Orange Man...and his Russia affiliations. For that, they have “evidence” they want to bring in, including a series of over 20 news articles about Trump and Russia that appeared between mid-May and mid-August of 2016.

News flash: articles such as these are not evidence of anything. Or, in Durham’s more lawyerly way of putting it, they have “no evidentiary or factual basis.” Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sussmann had planted some of those stories himself. That was part of the “circular reporting” strategy used by Clinton’s henchmen and even the FBI to advance the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. It’s even part of how the FBI got their warrant to spy on Trump’s campaign, right along with the phony Steele “dossier.” Hey, how about reading excerpts from THAT to the jury?

As Cleveland describes it, “...the media coverage Sussmann seeks to present to the jury is a tour de force of the press pushing the Russia collusion hoax.” One of the articles she mentions quotes Hillary campaign manager Robby Mook, who generally gets credit for launching the whole fake Trump-Russia story. He did this live on the CNN convention floor, to distract from the breaking story about the DNC sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. These fairy tales are supposed to be evidence...of what?

But Sussmann’s attorneys want to include them to show that their client had genuine concerns that the Alfa Bank story was real. They think that if they can get a DC jury to believe he felt this way, the jury will let him off for lying. Unbelievable.

Cleveland says that even if the judge excludes this “evidence” as prejudicial, Sussmann can still make the argument on the stand, saying that he “approached the FBI out of a genuine concern for our national security.” Oh, brother. But if he shovels it on thick, a Trump-hating jury might just cut him a break.

Roe leak reactions

May 9, 2022

To sum up this past week, Spencer Brown at recaps some of the left’s most ludicrous and hysterical reactions to the leak of the SCOTUS draft ruling on Roe v. Wade. From their reactions, you’d think it was not only going to ban abortion, but also interracial marriage, contraceptives and owning more than five cats. Their bonkers response is perfectly encapsulated in the title: “Did Democrats Even Read the Leaked SCOTUS Draft?

Personally, I suspect they haven’t read most things they get spitting mad over, from “Huckleberry Finn” to the Constitution. If they think all this lunatic behavior will help them in November, they obviously haven’t yet read a new CNN poll, taken after the SCOTUS leak. It found that while the abortion issue has increased voter enthusiasm among Democrats, it’s increased it even more among Republicans, and “the overall picture for the midterm elections is little changed after this week’s news.” Yes, this is actually from CNN:

“The share of registered voters who say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this fall rose 6 points between the first survey and the second, but that increase is about even across party lines. Among Democrats, 43% now say they are extremely or very enthusiastic, up 7 points. Among Republicans, it’s 56%, up 9 points. And voters who say overturning Roe would make them 'happy' are nearly twice as enthusiastic about voting this fall as those who say such a ruling would leave them 'angry' (38% extremely enthusiastic among those happy, 20% among those angry).”

The poll also found that while majorities don’t want Roe overturned, and if it is, want a national law allowing abortion, it’s not the primary issue driving most voting decisions. In fact, the Republican edge over Democrats on the generic ballot actually increased since the previous poll to 49-42%.

I also have a feeling the enthusiasm to rush to vote Democrat to protect abortion will also wane as time goes by and people realize just how much of what they’re currently hearing is groundless hysteria completely unhinged from fact. Even Bill Maher is already pointing that out.

For the record, longtime Democrat strategist Doug Schoen is also trying to warn the Party that they’re deluding themselves about unfettered abortion being a winning issue, but I doubt they’ll listen to him any more than they do me.

Victory Day in Russia

May 9, 2022

Today is Victory Day, a major Russian holiday marking the end of World War II. It’s also usually an occasion for Russia’s military to parade its fearsome arsenal of weapons. But that’s a little curtailed this year because so many of them are either attacking Ukraine or blown to pieces. That didn’t stop Vladimir Putin from giving a speech that sounded as if it were faxed in from Bizarro World.

The man now widely reviled for attacking a neighboring nation unprovoked, slaughtering civilians, destroying entire cities and threatening nuclear retaliation to anyone who tries to stop him claimed that it's the US and other Western nations that support threats of nuclear war against Russia. He said they had "tried to attack our historical territories like the Crimea.” (Putin invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014.) He said, "The enemies of our country have tried to use international terrorism against us." But "Russia has always stood up for an international system of equality. We have always tried to find compromise solutions.”

Is your head swimming yet? As an example of Putin’s belief in compromise, equality and opposing terrorism, while he was emitting that hot gas, rescuers in Bilohorivka, Ukraine, were searching for any survivors in the rubble of a school building that was sheltering civilians and that was flattened by Russian bombs on Saturday.

To wash Putin’s jaw-dropping lies out of your brain, here’s a story about how the G7 leaders marked May 8th, VE Day (Victory in Europe Day), the 77th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s surrender in 1945.

And as a reminder of what VE Day really meant and the heroes who saved the world from the Nazis, here is a gallery of great photos of the celebrations of the very first VE Day.

And for those who don’t know about the war, the heroes, the sacrifice and the victory of the Allies, here’s some background to get you started:

If you live in a city where the prosecutor’s election was backed by money from George Soros or one of his shady PACs, then there’s a good chance crime is running rampant and your standard of living and personal safety have taken a nosedive. Soros is notorious for backing open borders and empty prisons. It’s why there’s now a nationwide movement to “Recall every Soros-backed prosecutor.” But there is one way in which you can avoid all that pain and trouble: Don’t elect anyone backed by George Soros to any office in the first place!

To help you with that, here are two stories to read and remember:

1. Attention, Georgia voters: Soros has donated $1 million to elect Stacey Abrams to be your Governor.

2. Attention, fellow Arkansans: A PAC funded exclusively by George Soros has spent $100,000 so far promoting the election of Alicia Walton as prosecutor of Perry and Pulaski Counties (Little Rock is in Pulaski County.)

Walton says she wants to empower victims, but she also says a lot of other things that Soros-backed DA’s have said, like that she wants to “dismantle the school to prison pipeline,” “provide more diversionary programs for those with mental health and substance abuse challenges,” and “provide a pathway for offenders to seek redemption.” All well and good, but if they want redemption, they should go to church. And too often, promises of "diversion programs" have resulted in simply diverting offenders from jail right back into the streets to prey on the public again and again.

As the Washington Examiner notes, “Soros has contributed more than $29 million in support of over 20 liberal district attorneys since 2016, according to the Capital Research Center. Many of the prosecutors who won their elections thanks in part to contributions by Soros have presided over significant crime waves in their cities after assuming office.”

I and many others worked too hard to help make Little Rock a safe and beautiful city. I don’t want it to turn into the Los Angeles of Arkansas. So here’s an easy rule of thumb for voters:

Think of the backing of George Soros as being the financial equivalent of the skull and crossbones warning on a bottle of poison.

The left does not care about collateral damage to American citizens in its quest to shape the political narrative of this country and destroy its adversaries. A case is point is John Paul Mac Isaac, who came to possess Hunter Biden’s laptop after it was abandoned at his computer repair shop, lost his livelihood and reputation, and is now suing for $1 million, plus punitive damages. These, according to his attorney Brian Della Rocca, “will be the much bigger number and will be determined at trial.”

Mac Issac has also written a book coming out November 22 of this year, called “AMERICAN INJUSTICE: My Battle to Expose the Truth.” It would be nice to see this before Election Day, but that’s the breaks.

“After fighting to reveal the truth,” Mac Isaac told the New York Post, “all I want now is for the rest of the country to know that there was a collective and orchestrated effort by social and mainstream media to block a real story with real consequences for the nation. This was collusion led by 51 former pillars in the intelligence committee and backed by the words and actions of politically motivated DOJ and FBI. I want this lawsuit to reveal that collusion and, more importantly, who gave the marching orders.”

We wish him the best in that endeavor. Especially the part about who gave the marching orders.

He has previously tried to sue Twitter for defamation but didn’t get anywhere that time, ending up on the hook for Twitter’s legal fees of roughly $175,000. But this time, he’s got the backing of a nonprofit, The America Project, founded by retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, his brother Joe Flynn, and businessman Patrick Byrne, who has also been attacked for looking into the 2020 election. Flynn, as you know, has been through an enormous legal and personal hell of his own, due to the intel community and media relentlessly lying about him.

The group said this: “’[We’re] honored to sponsor John Paul Mac Isaac in his fight against the injustice that has been done to him when the political elite coordinated with the leftist news media claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation --- which was a blatant lie.”

As reported by the New York Post --- also a victim of the left’s attempt to keep the subject quiet until after the 2020 election --- Mac Isaac was forced to shutter his business near the Biden family homes in Greenville, Delaware, “after people started throwing vegetables, eggs, and dog excrement at his store.” He left the state, exiling himself in Colorado for a year. He contends that this happened because of the lies told about him by CNN, Politico and other news outlets.

Della Rocca said his client “has suffered immensely at the false statements spread about those who brought the information on Hunter Biden’s laptop to everyone’s attention. He has lost his business, friendships, and his honorable standing in the community. This lawsuit is an attempt to repair a small portion of that damage caused by the defendants in the suit...We intend to show that their actions were intentionally malicious.”

The suit names…

1) California Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff, as we now know, lied his head off about this. As Mac Isaac said, “Without any intel, the head of the intel committee decided to share with CNN and its viewers a complete and utter lie --- a lie uttered in the protection of a preferred presidential candidate.”

2) CNN. Mac Isaac says they knowingly broadcast the “false and defamatory statement” that the laptop was Russian disinformation. This statement “accuses the Plaintiff of committing an infamous crime; i.e., treason, by working with Russians to commit a crime against the United States of America by attempting to undermine American democracy and the 2020 presidential election,” according to the suit.

3) The Daily Beast. Mac Isaac says that in an article called “FBI Examining Hunter Biden’s Laptop as Foreign Op, Contradicting Trump’s Intel Czar,” they lied and said the laptop had been “purloined,” which was an accusation that he stole it.

4) Politico. An article by Natasha Bertrand reported that dozens of former intel officials thought that the laptop was “Russian disinfo.” (Just a thought; maybe this is the article that convinced Nina Jankowicz, head of the new HHS 'Ministry of Truth,' that the laptop was fake. Well, no, come to think of it, she said she thought it was a product of the Trump campaign.)

Newsmax has details as well.

John Nolte for Breitbart News interviewed Mac Isaac in March (shortly after the NY Times finally admitted the laptop was real), and the full transcript appears here. This is highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know the details about how he came into possession of the laptop in April 2019 and what happened to change his life from that day forward.

Mac Isaac appeared briefly on Tucker Carlson’s FOX News show Wednesday night to announce that he was going to court. (The clips in the lead-in do make one wonder why MSNBC wasn’t included in the lawsuit!) “The collusion that took place in mid-October of 2020 just astonished me when it happened,” he said.

“...It was just a unilateral decision to call this ‘Russian disinformation’ without even deciding if there was going to be any collateral damage, which, there was.”

He said that from these false reports, people just assumed he was a hacker or a thief, mainly because Twitter labeled the material as hacked and banned the story. After the now-infamous letter from 51 former intel officials and the condemnation from Adam Schiff on CNN , he was labeled “a stooge of Putin,” someone whom Putin thanked for his service.

His life was essentially ruined. “I had to get out of town before the election,” he told Tucker. “I had to close the shop and leave Delaware.”