• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

“The Federalist suggests Special Counsel John Durham botched the investigation of a second Russia collusion hoax…”

Exclusive Doc Indicates Special Counsel Failing To Bring Collusion Hoaxers To Justice

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

SEPTEMBER 15, 2022

Michael Sussmann

John Durham’s team has known of these discrepancies for years but has failed to hold responsible those who used the CIA to target a political opponent with false smears.

Author Margot Cleveland profile

MARGOT CLEVELAND

A whitepaper obtained first by The Federalist suggests Special Counsel John Durham botched the investigation of a second Russia collusion hoax, the one concerning Yota cellphones.

In a scandal linked to the Spygate operation, Hillary Clinton cronies peddled to the CIA fake evidence they claimed established Donald Trump and his associates were using the Russian-made Yota cellphones in the vicinity of the White House and other key locations. The news of this operation broke during the special counsel’s prosecution of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. However, the just-obtained Yota whitepaper that was supposed to undergird Sussmann’s claims differs substantially from the memoranda documenting what Sussmann supposedly said to the CIA.

Durham’s team has known of these discrepancies for years but has failed to hold responsible those who used the CIA to target a political opponent and the then-president of the United States with false smears of corruption with a foreign power. Now with the news that the special counsel’s office has let the grand jury expire, suggesting a winding down of the investigation, Durham’s failure to seek charges related to the Yota phone hoax is appalling. Durham offered the only apparent opportunity for justice in this entire collection of major scandals.

Sussmann Trial Unveiled Another Collusion Hoax

One year ago, almost to the day, Durham charged Sussmann with one count of lying to the then-FBI general counsel James Baker. According to the indictment, during a September 19, 2016, meeting with Baker, Sussmann provided the FBI’s general counsel information that purported to show the existence of a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russian Alfa Bank.

“The indictment charged that Sussmann told Baker during that meeting that he was not working on behalf of any client, when, according to the indictment, Sussmann was actually acting on behalf of ‘a U.S. technology industry executive at a U.S. Internet company’—later identified as Rodney Joffe—and ‘the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.’”

While a jury acquitted Sussmann of the charged offense, the prosecution of the former Clinton campaign lawyer revealed several previously unknown details related to the Russia collusion hoax, including Sussmann’s peddling of a second Trump-Russia connection to the CIA.

According to court filings, beginning in December of 2016, Sussmann sought to score a meeting with the CIA. Then on January 31, 2017, Sussmann previewed the information he hoped to hand off to the agency, telling a former CIA employee that he represented a client who had discussed “some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian made phone around President Trump.”

During his January 2017 conversation, according to a memorandum summarizing the exchange, Sussmann said the activity began in April 2016 when then President-elect Trump was working out of the Trump Tower on its Wi-Fi network. After his move to the White House, Sussmann stressed, the same phone surfaced on the Executive Office Building network.

The Narrative Web Sussmann Wove

Sussmann also relayed that his client, later identified as Rodney Joffe, claimed the phone at issue was the extremely rare Russian “Yota phone,” of which only about a dozen or so are used in the United States. Joffe also claimed Russian government officials often received Yota phones as a gift.

The memorandum then summarized the many specifics Sussmann relayed about the supposed connection between Trump and the Yota phone. After the cellphone that first surfaced in April 2016 on Trump Tower’s network, according to Sussmann’s briefing, it was also used on the Wi-Fi at Trump’s Grand Central Park West apartment.

Also, “when Trump traveled to Michigan to interview a cabinet secretary the phone appeared with Trump in Michigan,” the memorandum reported. Then, according to the memorandum, Sussmann claimed that “in December 2016 the phone disappeared from Trump Tower Wi-Fi network and surfaced on EOB network.” Sussmann added that “the phone was never noticed in two places at once, only around the President’s movements.”

Sussmann reportedly also told his contact that from April 2016 forward, the Yota phone was used to make several calls to Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, and obtained systems upgrades.

Sussmann Pitches the CIA Some Documents

After highlighting these details for his contact, the memorandum notes that Sussmann indicated Joffe would most likely only provide his data to senior CIA officers, and if the agency was not interested he would most likely provide the information to The New York Times. Sussmann’s sales pitch worked, with the former CIA employee passing the information on to the agency the same day. The CIA later agreed to meet with Sussmann.

Then, during a February 9, 2017, meeting, according to a memorandum prepared by the CIA, Sussmann provided the agents “both written documents and thumb drives which he claimed contained data related to potential Russian activities connected to then Presidential candidate/elect Trump.” The memorandum also noted, inconsistently with the January 2017 memo, that Sussmann said he was not representing a specific client.

According to the memo, Sussmann then described generally the data he was providing on the thumb drive, noting it related to “domain name systems.” Sussmann further explained that his “contacts had gathered information indicating that a Russian-made Yota-phone had been seen by them connecting to WiFi from the Trump Tower in New York, as well as from a location in Michigan, at the same time that then-candidate Trump was believed to be at these locations.” Sussman also told the agents that in December 2016 his associates saw the Yota phone connecting to Wi-Fi from the Executive Office of the President.

Durham: Sussmann Misled the CIA

In a pre-trial motion filed in Sussmann’s criminal case, Special Counsel Durham first revealed Sussmann’s efforts to peddle the Yota phone theory to the CIA on behalf of Joffe. The special counsel further explained that the Yota phone internet data Sussmann provided the CIA came from Joffe and his associates’ exploitation of domain name system (DNS) Internet traffic, including at the Executive Office of the President.

According to Durham’s team, Joffe’s employer “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”

In Sussmann’s case, the special counsel also stressed that it had found no support for Sussmann’s claim to the CIA that the DNS data showed Trump or his associates were using the Yota phones. On the contrary, Durham’s team explained that the more complete DNS data obtained by Joffe and his associates “reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States.”

For example, data gathered by Joffe’s team, but not provided to the CIA, “reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups” of Yota phone provider’s IP addresses by U.S. users, and of those fewer than 1,000 originated at Trump Tower. Additionally, the more complete data assembled by Joffe and his associates “reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014,” meaning the connections came during the Obama administration. The data Sussmann provided the CIA on behalf of Joffe omitted these facts.

As I wrote at the time of the special counsel’s filing: “This revelation is huge. It means Joffe had data that disproved the very theory Sussman peddled to the CIA about Trump or his associates using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. Further, the CIA received only the misleading data and not the full analysis Joffe had commissioned.”

Failing to Pursue This Is Inexplicable

Yet Durham did not charge Sussmann related to the Yota-phone hoax and to date Joffe has also avoided an indictment. At the time, those tracking developments in the special counsel’s probe wondered why charges were not pursued. But now, having obtained a copy of a whitepaper supposedly backing up the Yota phone theory, the special counsel’s complete inaction over this hoax proves inexplicable.

In response to an open-records request submitted to Georgia Tech seeking a copy of a whitepaper analyzing Yota-related data, The Federalist on Monday obtained a document entitled “Network Analysis of Yota-Related Resolution Events.” Georgia Tech researcher David Dagon, one of Joffe’s associates involved in mining the DNS data, had identified the document as one responsive to a special counsel subpoena. The metadata of the file shows a creation date of February 8, 2017—just one day before Sussmann provided the CIA data supposedly supporting the Yota phone theory.

Together these facts strongly suggest this document provided the basis for Joffe’s claims—relayed by Sussmann to the CIA—about the Yota phones. But the whitepaper’s claims pale in comparison to the story Sussmann told the CIA, as memorialized in the two memoranda and highlighted above.

Whitepaper Doesn’t Support Sussmann’s Claims

“Network traffic analysis strongly suggests communications between Russian networks and Trump Tower, associated Trump properties, with artifacts also present at EOP,” the paper opens. The whitepaper makes no further mention of the EOP.

The whitepaper is similarly circumspect about the Yota phones moving in tandem with Trump, stating merely: “It is possible that one or more devices is at times traveling between locations as there are sometimes gaps possibly correlated to newsworthy events such as New York, NY to Grand Rapids, MI, lifting of some sanctions on Russia, and the disappearance of the queries from New York in mid-December and from Grand Rapids, MI in mid-January 2017.”

The unidentified authors then note that the “document summarizes factual observations, so that others may infer activities associated with these Russian phones on Trump’s networks.”

What Sussmann told the CIA, however, included many more extensive details than the whitepaper, raising the question of where the inferences peddled to the CIA originated. Who concocted the theory that the Yota phone traveled with Trump to Michigan or to the EOP? On what basis? Who provided the data supposedly showing the same Yota phone calling Moscow and St. Petersburg? Who culled that data?

Whitepaper Creators Omitted Key Facts

The text of the whitepaper also makes more concrete—and more appalling—Durham’s revelation that Joffe and his associates omitted key details about the number of Yota phone lookups. While Joffe and his associates knew there were more than 3 million lookups of the Yota-phone provider from U.S.-based IP addresses from 2014 to 2017, the whitepaper included an entire section entitled, “Rarity of Yota in US,” that concluded YotaPhones are “rarely seen on US networks.”

While the special counsel’s office highlighted this omission in the Sussmann case, nothing of consequence seems to have come from that discovery. Further, given the gulf that separates what Sussmann told the CIA and the much more milquetoast assertions in the whitepaper, one must wonder what Durham’s team has done to unravel this aspect of the Russia-collusion hoax.

Finally, the evidence is now clear that Joffe shared the EOP data with someone at Georgia Tech, since the whitepaper referencing that data proved responsive to a right-to-know request served on the university. But Joffe’s right to the EOP data was limited.

So the key question becomes: Why has Durham’s team not pursued charges against anyone related to the Yota phone hoax?

(a tip line for students to report potential acts of violence…)

Fearful Students in Pennsylvania

As school violence surges, the state and its school districts refuse to reconsider misguided disciplinary policies.

Michael Torres at City Journal:

September 14, 2022 

Students returning to public schools in Pennsylvania this year are being greeted by unarmed security officers, school police officers, and mental-health-care providers, as well as new security infrastructuresecurity drillswellness rooms, and even nature trails. These changes resulted from a bipartisan focus by state lawmakers on securing schools and addressing a student mental-health crisis. In June, lawmakers sent local education authorities $200 million in grants from the state’s School Safety and Security Grants program, half of which will go to mental-health funding. Missing amid this financial largesse and public enthusiasm is any talk about improving school disciplinary policies. Given that violence in Pennsylvania public schools is possibly worse than it’s ever been, this omission is dangerous.

The state attorney general’s office runs a tip line for students to report potential acts of violence; it received more than 600 calls in its first week of operation in 2018. Now, according to its director Brittney Kline, the line receives 1,500 calls a week. While many of those calls involve mental-health issues, reports from the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Office of Safe Schools confirm another major contributor: students are increasingly fearful of their violent peers.

The increase can be seen in the results reported across two school years: 2014–2015 and 2018–2019. On a range of offenses—knife possession, reports of terroristic threats, reports of possession of explosives, and reports of fighting—the 2018–2019 school year logged substantially more incidences, in some cases increasing more than 100 percent over 2014–2015. Moreover, the 2018–2019 school year saw 3,679 reported assaults on staff, up from about 2,000 in 2014–2015, and a striking 136 reports of rioting, up from just 11 in 2014–2015. (Data after 2019 is inconsistent due to Covid school shutdowns.)

According to testimony at a February House Democratic Policy Committee hearing, these data likely underrepresent the violence in Pennsylvania schools. Five of the state’s top 20 school districts, for example, reported fewer than five incidents of disorderly conduct last year—not a credible statistic. “Under-reported incidents of bullying and violence in our commonwealth’s schools show we have a lot of work to do,” Monroe County representative Maureen Madden said at the hearing.

Reports of incidents across the state indicate that the violence has not ebbed. In Pittsburgh last January, for instance, a student was shot in an Oliver Citywide Academy van, two staff members were hurt breaking up a brawl at Carrick High School, and another student had his head smashed into the ground multiple times at Brashear High School. Parents and school employees lambasted school-district officials at a meeting for letting repetitively violent students face only minimal consequences. “Tonight, I speak for the Brashear students who did the right things. They’re asking why nothing is being done, why the disruptive students are permitted to get away with ruining their education, why the disrupters are permitted to terrorize their hallways without recourse,” said Renee Maddex, a school police officer at Brashear High. “Students know they don’t have consequences for their actions, I’ve heard it with my own two ears,” one parent wrote to the Pittsburgh School District.

Pennsylvania state senator Scott Martin, who chairs the chamber’s education committee and previously ran a juvenile intervention center, says that many school-district officials and left-wing activist groups like the Education Law Center seek to avoid punishing dangerous students. “There’s certainly folks who advocate, even in serious circumstances, just slapping of the wrists for incidents in schools or the mindset that we should not have school resource officers or not allow students to be charged for incidents at school,” Martin said. “They believe students should not face any consequences for things that happen after school, and I find that very troubling.”

Martin pointed to how the membership of a state juvenile-justice task force initiated in 2019 was skewed toward the Philadelphia region, home to ideological allies of Democratic governor Tom Wolf. The task force’s 2021 report consequently made several recommendations that, according to Martin, alarmed legislative Republicans, including removing “all requirements for arrest and/or court referral” for students who commit crimes at school; changing the definition of a weapon to ensure that “schools are not required to report possession of weapons on school grounds, with the exception of firearms;” and prioritizing diversionary programs over the juvenile-justice system in all instances. “You can put all the physical infrastructure in place to protect our children from those on the outside who want to do harm,” Martin said. “However, just as important is what kind of culture you cultivate.”

Pennsylvania has spent more than $330 million on the School Safety and Security Grants program since its inception in 2018, after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida—and that amount doesn’t include this year’s $200 million infusion. And Governor Wolf’s administration has allocated another $41.5 million in Safe Schools targeted grants from the Pennsylvania Department of Education since 2015, according to a department spokesperson. A primary goal of those grants is to help local education officials reduce “unnecessary student disciplinary actions,” the spokesperson said.

A culture that detests discipline invites chaos. As long as punishing habitually violent students is considered politically incorrect, Pennsylvania’s violent-crime tip lines and mental-health services will be overwhelmed no matter how much funding they get.

Michael Torres is the deputy editor at RealClearPennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @MindofTorres.

That January 6 Mess…

September 15, 2022

Who was Behind the January 6 Events?

By Leo Goldstein at American Thinker:

The current anti-Trump and anti-MAGA witch-hunt is not about 2024.  The Democrat DoJ is safe for two more years.  It is about January 6, 2021.  The target is not so much Trump as the idea that electoral votes could be legally contested on the joint session of Congress.  Obviously, the DoJ violates core freedom of speech.  It also ignores the clear letter and spirit of the law regarding the joint session for Presidential elections.  3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress clearly provides for raising and debating objections against “all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes.

In the session that commenced on January 6, Trump had a significant chance to be certified as the winner of the 2020 election. Further, it was his only chance. Neither Trump nor any group of Trump supporters wanted a violent disruption of this session. For this reason, such a disruption was in the interests of the Democrat Party.

The narrative that Trump supporters stormed and breached the Capitol appeared in the media in the first minutes of the violence. It was sustained by multiple lies fabricated on that day and on the following days.  Since then, many of those lies have been exposed, and previously hidden facts have been uncovered.

Moreover, the partisan DoJ/FBI investigation of the January 6 events have found no coordination behind the Capitol breach nor any arms, plans, or means to breach the Capitol or to disrupt the joint session.  Only the leads toward Trump/MAGA have been investigated.

Most of those arrested were charged with trespassing or other infractions.  The most dangerous weapon — a spear — was carried by actor Jacob Chansley, a long-time performer of a QAnon Shaman character.  

Only 1,500 unwanted visitors entered the Capitol on January 6, the vast majority of whom were ordinary men and women allowed by the Capitol police (USCP).  The USCP had nearly 1,300 armed officers, more than enough to protect the Capitol building against a few hundred (or fewer) unruly protesters.

With the currently available evidence, the narratives of insurrection and pro-Trump mob storming the Capitol, led to a conclusion like this: a man with horns and a spear, accompanied by a few hundred unarmed civilians, stormed and breached the U.S. Capitol, and caused the congresspersons to flee and hide.  Yet, Democrats like to compare January 6 to the War of 1812, when Washington D.C. fell to the army of the British Empire.

Thus, these narratives are wrong. Moreover, the Capitol was not breached — the USCP stopped defending it and opened the doors.

The key people overseeing the safety of the Capitol building before and on January 6 were radical Democrats or their appointees: D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser and her appointees MPD Chief Robert Contee and DHS Coordinator Chris Rodriguez; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (this position includes responsibilities of mayor of the Capitol, if there were one), Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Representative Zoe Lofgren. Nancy Pelosi had had overall responsibility for the Capitol police since January 2018.

Prior to January 6, Trump had offered to D.C. the services of 10,000 National Guardsmen.  The above-mentioned Democrats rejected the offer.  On January 5, Mayor Bowser and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) separately wrote nasty letters to the heads of the DoJ and the DoD as well as Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, demanding that neither the National Guard nor any uniformed federal units (including special forces, such as the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team and about a dozen others) should deploy to D.C. on January 6 without Bowser’s permission and in accordance to Schumer-Murphy conditions.  These legally dubious but politically effective letters prevented timely reinforcement of the Capitol police.  On January 6, when requested by the USCP, MPD Chief Contee provided only approximately 100 police officers out of a potential force of more than 3,000. Democrats engaged in other maneuvers that handicapped protection of the Capitol building on January 6; nonetheless, President Trump was ultimately blamed.

The operational command of the USCP on January 6 was in the hands of Democrat favorites Yogananda Pittman and Sean Gallagher. They did nothing to defend the Capitol, per a letter written by a former Capitol police officer.  Ms. Pittman also ordered the Senate and the House dispersed, despite objections of Republican Senators.

Only after dispersing the joint session of Congress and gaining armed control of the Capitol building did the Democrats allow in the National Guard and significant numbers of MPD. Then they had the Congress to immediately resume the joint session, although the law is clear that if this session is put in recess, it can resume only next day at 10am (§ 16).

Since then, we have learned that the FBI WFO have been lying and hiding evidence about the reported pipe bombs, which conveniently disrupted the work of the RNC but not the DNC.  The FBI WFO has framed an innocent person.  This fact alone suggests that those who planted the bombs were affiliated with Democrats.

In connection with January 6, 2021, the Democrat DoJ holds dozens of people detained without trial.  

The hypothesis that the Democrat party and its allies are behind storming the Capitol, violent disruption of the joint session, and its improper resumption and conclusion deserves more consideration.

“How long will it take “the scienceTM” to acknowledge transgender mice.”

 SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at Power Line:

ARE THERE TRANSGENDER MICE?

Apparently there could be. Herewith the opening of an article just out in Nature magazine:

The fraught quest to account for sex in biology research

In 2016, pharmacologist Susan Howlett wrote up a study on how hormone levels during pregnancy affect heart function and sent it off to a journal. When the reviewers’ comments came back, two of the three had asked an unexpected question: where were the tissues from male mice?

Because they were studying high hormone levels related to pregnancy, Howlett, at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, and her team had used only female animals. “I was really surprised that they wanted us to repeat everything in males,” she said.

Nonetheless, they obliged, and their findings were published in 2017. As expected, they found no effect of the hormone progesterone on heart function in males; in females, it influenced the activity of cardiac cells.

Howlett had mixed feelings about the request to add males. “It was a big ask and it was a lot more research.” But in general, she adds, it’s really important to factor sex into studies. “I’m a big proponent of doing experiments in both males and females.”

How long will it take “the scienceTM” to acknowledge transgender mice, who can get pregnant just as readily as human transgender men? How about we just move right away to micex and save everyone a whole lot of trouble?