• 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

Time to Repeal Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act!

Time to Repeal the Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act

by Selwyn Duke  at American Thinker:

Question: If someone sells you on something with false advertising and it does the exact opposite of what was promised, are you not entitled to return the product and get a refund?  In fact, if the product caused you harm, should you not in addition be compensated for damages?

Consider that when Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was pushing the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 (S.500) on the Senate floor, he said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Actually, he was right.  We now absorb more than a million immigrants annually.

Kennedy next stated, “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.”

The average yearly number of immigrants prior to ’65 was 250,000.  Even with Common Core math, that’s still less than one million-plus.

Kennedy also claimed, “Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”  His brother, Senator Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), chimed in, “In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.”

Yet as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) wrote in 2015, “[i]n 1965, whites of European descent [constituted] 84 percent of the U.S. population, while [h]ispanics accounted for 4 percent and Asians for less than 1 percent.  Fifty years on, 62 percent of the U.S. population is white, 18 percent is [h]ispanic, and 6 percent is Asian.  By 2065, just 46 percent of the U.S. population will be white, the [h]ispanic share will rise to 24 percent, Asians will [constitute] 14 percent – and the country will be home to 78 million foreign[-]born, according to Pew projections.”

Kennedy again: “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.  In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Since the 1965 act took effect, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World.  Moreover, the MPI tells us, “Compared to almost entirely European immigration under the national-origins system [prior to ’65], flows since 1965 have been more than half Latin American and one[] quarter Asian.”

Kennedy summed up, saying the charges he was refuting above were “highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact.  They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship.”

They were actually something else: true.

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a short statement containing more untruths than what the real Lyin’ Ted packed into his immigration bill defense.  It’s not just that he was wrong – it’s that the outcomes were the precise opposite of what he’d promised.  If Kennedy had been a doctor performing a medical procedure, he’d have been sued out of the business.  If he’d been an auto-manufacturer and his pet bill a car model, he’d have had to issue a recall.

So can we finally recall this horrible 1965 immigration act?  Note that even Kennedy tacitly admitted that the act’s ultimate outcomes are undesirable.  He didn’t say, “Flooding the country with one million people per year from economically deprived areas and radically changing the ethnic mix of the U.S. is great.  Let’s do it!”  He passionately claimed that those things wouldn’t happen.

By the way, Kennedy punctuated his prevaricative defense by saying that the charges against the immigration bill “breed hate of our heritage.”  Of course, the balkanization the immigration bill bred is part of the reason our heritage is now so hated.

Speaking of hatred, much is currently directed at President Trump because on Thursday he questioned why we have so much immigration from impoverished nations such as Haiti, as opposed to more newcomers from Norway.  Since this raised many leftists’ ire and with my being the reasonable man I am, I propose a compromise: no immigrants from the Third World or the Old World.  In other words, no immigration, period.

With a population 330 million strong, we have enough people.  With 95 million not in the labor force and robots taking over low-skilled jobs, we don’t need more workers.  With America being balkanized, we don’t need more diversity.  So what does today’s immigration provide?

Oh, yeah – Democrat voters.

Depending on the group, 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants vote Democrat after being naturalized.  Leftists don’t in principle love immigrants or immigration, but they do love electoral domination – and importing foreigners to achieve it suits them fine.

In fact, if 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants voted GOP, the Democrats would be clamoring to admit those reliably socialistic Norwegians.

Advertisements

PHANTOM OF THE OPRAH

Phantom of the Oprah

by Daniel John Sobieski  at American Thinker:

“There was Oprah Winfrey at the Golden Globes, with her big glasses and 2020 visions of a presidential run, speaking to the greatest collection of sexual predators and their enablers pontificating about the rights of women in an industry where not long ago these same people, led by the pompous and condescending Meryl Streep, gave a standing ovation and an award to director Roman Polanski, child rapist.

Oprah didn’t mention Polanski, or Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Clinton, or why she didn’t use the show that made her rich and famous to condemn predators such as these and the Hollywood culture that demeans women and exploits them for fun and profit.  If Oprah wants to run for president as a champion of women, she has a lot of explaining to do.

Triggered by remarks made by Oprah Winfrey at the Golden Globes in which she pontificated to women who have been sexually harassed or abused, “You get a voice.  You get a voice.  Everybody gets a voice,” Juanita Broaddrick, who was allegedly raped by former president Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas, and is only now being believed by leftists who were doubtful before, fired back with a blistering pair of tweets.

Oprah was quite willing to shill for Bill Clinton; she gave him time on her show to brag how he and Hillary saw a therapist to work out their marital difficulties and also interviewed him for Oprah Magazine in 2004, asking him about how the Monica Lewinsky affair affected him but never asking about the rampant harassment and abuse, not to mention alleged rape, of which he had been accused.

Juanita Broaddrick was never a guest on Oprah’s show and noted that Oprah was a willing participant in the “nothing to see here” Clinton cover-up.  She also promoted the presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton’s enabler, Hillary Clinton, who ignored his predatory activities and covered up his “bimbo eruptions” as she rode his stained coattails to political prominence:

Clinton, who was forced to settle a sexual harassment case with Paula Jones and has been accused of everything from harassment to assault by no fewer than eight women, has a very good friend indeed in Winfrey.  Her gauzy interview with Clinton in 2004 was not only an attempt to rehabilitate his image; Winfrey also set up the idea of his chief[] enabler, wife Hillary Clinton, running for president.

Worse still, as the Daily Wire points out, the only questions Winfrey asked about Clinton’s countless scandals focused on Monica Lewinsky and sounded like this: “What was the most difficult part of that time for you?”

Nothing was asked about Broaddrick, Jones, Kathleen Willey, or the near[] half[-]dozen others[.] …

Included with a photo of a chummy Bill and Oprah together, Broaddrick wondered, “Remember this @Oprah You’ve had so many opportunities to bring up my allegations, which have never been discredited. Why??”

Good question.  The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro told Fox News on Monday night about Oprah’s sham fight for abused women, especially as it applies to the Hollywood elites, who condemned Bill Clinton’s crimes and Hillary Clinton’s enabling only when the Clintons were no longer power-brokers:

Shapiro told Fox News'[s] Martha MacCallum: “She was standing in front of an entire town filled with sexual abusers and harassers.  She said nothing about it for 20 years; she was being cheered by people who said nothing about it for 20 years, and there she is pretending that she’s leading the fight.”

Oprah did not lead the fight against the culture of sexual misconduct in Hollywood, and she cannot use the excuse of “I was afraid of what it might do to my career,” because she is one of the biggest people in media – she has little to fear.

Shapiro continued, “Well, I was under the impression that most of us agreed with that stuff when this stuff first broke and she lauded the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.  Where were they reporting on the sexual harassment and abuse scandal for the last 20 years?  It was literally their job to cover Hollywood and yet it took The New Yorker and Ronan Farrow to uncover all this stuff.  Where was the Hollywood Press Association that was receiving such plaudits at the hands of Oprah Winfrey, again, a woman who was good friends with Harvey Weinstein, being cheered by Meryl Streep, a woman who gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski?”

Oprah has had a chummy relationship with predator Harvey Weinstein over the years, being his guest at a number of awards shows and ceremonies.  She attended numerous Weinstein Company events and also starred in Weinstein’s movies, notably The Butler, about a longtime White House staff member.  Yet she counts herself among the Hollywood elites who say they had no idea what Weinstein was up to.  Her silence made her one of Weinstein’s enablers, as she was with Bill Clinton.

At least one of Weinstein’s accusers, Kadian Noble, claims that Oprah was more than that:

An aspiring actress says Harvey Weinstein used Oprah Winfrey and Naomi Campbell to dupe her into thinking he would help her with her career – only to use her for sex.

British actress Kadian Noble said Tuesday she was head-over-heels impressed when she first met Weinstein at an event in London because he was hanging out with model Campbell and had megastar Oprah “swinging off his arm.”

“I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me,” she said during a teary-eyed press conference in Manhattan to discuss the sex trafficking lawsuit she filed a day earlier against Weinstein in Manhattan federal court.

If she runs for president thinking she can ride recent events in Hollywood and politics as a champion of women, Oprah will have to explain why such a powerful and self-made woman at least sat in stony silence as people like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein preyed on the very women she claims to champion.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/phantom_of_the_oprah.html

Why Do Leftists Flunk Science?

Today’s American noisiest Leftists are collectively  overwhelmingly feminists, especially the angry ditsy male haters, mobish racist blacks, illegal immigrants, devoted fascists, anarchists, and anti- JudeoChristian Jews.

Most are feminized indoor people printing  their hate signs, organizing their  hates and dates to cause America trouble especially at the nation’s  schools, universities, and in the courts,  the streets and parks.

How Do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways.

by Trevor Thomas  at American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/how_do_liberals_flunk_science_let_us_count_the_ways.html

Why is the GOP Senate Abetting Fascist Schumer’s Sabotaging Trump’s DOJ Appointments?

SCHUMER SUCCEEDS IN OBSTRUCTING KEY DOJ NOMINEES

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

The Washington Post reports that “nearly a year into President Trump’s administration, the Justice Department lacks Senate-confirmed appointees in leadership posts running the national security, criminal, civil rights and other key divisions.” “The problem shows no sign of abating anytime soon,” the Post adds.

The Post is correct. Not only are key leadership posts vacant, but it now appears they will remain vacant until at least the Spring.

Moreover, this creates a serious problem. William Barr, a former Attorney General told the Post that “anyone who has worked in an administration knows how damaging it is” not to have key leadership positions filled.

As the Post’s Matt Zapotosky notes, Republicans control the Senate. So why are these nominations languishing?

The primary reason is obstruction by Senate Democrats. They have used procedural tactics to delay the confirmation of President Trump’s nominees. Chuck Schumer admitted as much to the Post, defending his obstruction by pointing to “substantive concerns,” as if Republicans had no substantive concerns with Obama nominees who were confirmed more swiftly.

Schumer says there is no department that needs more scrutiny than the DOJ. Arguably. But when a nominee who name the president put forward many months ago has received a hearing and a committee vote, the Democrats have had a full opportunity scrutinize him.

Yet, a number of such nominees apparently are months away from confirmation. Why? As I understand it, the reason is because Majority Leader McConnell agreed with Schumer that nominees who cleared committee, without Democratic support must be voted out of committee again — surely, a pointless exercise. Since Democrats declined to vote for most of President Trump’s key DOJ nominees when they were approved by he Senate Judiciary Committee, this means more delay.

Schumer told the Post “there is bipartisan opposition to many of the nominees due to the lack of independence that many of the nominees and appointees have demonstrated.” Rubbish. Most of these nominees cleared committee on a straight party line vote. These nominees are being held up not because of “bipartisan opposition,” but because Schumer has succeeded in stalling the process.

Meanwhile, Chai Feldblum, the main architect of President Obama’s radical LGBT policy, apparently is on the fast track to confirmation for a third term as EEOC commissioner. Naturally, she encountered no Democratic opposition and, I gather, no Republican on the Health Education, Labor & Pensions Committee has opposed her, either.

Thus, as I understand it, Feldblum’s nomination can proceed to the Senate floor without delay. Indeed, she is sufficiently confident about her prospects for prompt confirmation to have removed the obligatory picture of President Trump from her office.

It seems inconceivable that, with a Republican in the White House and a GOP majority in the Senate, a left-wing LBGT activist could be sailing towards confirmation as EEOC commissioner, while a host of Republican nominees to vital positions at the DOJ are cooling their heels, waiting to get through committee a second time with no full Senate vote in sight. Yet, that appears to be the situation.

Chuck Schumer is earning his pay. Senate Republicans, not so much.

The Fascism of today’s American Press

Fascism:  any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition.

Accordingly, name one relatively  well read American  news publication that doesn’t hammer President Donald J. Trump nearly every issue!

The overwhelming majority of national “news” from  newspapers in America today is sold by college-crippled  leftist  professionals from  three fascistic national  American   Obamaling loving,  Soviet-like ‘journals’…… The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

Nearly all of major American television sources from coast to coast  also sell only  college-crippled, Obamaling loving, fascistic Soviet-like,   one Party politics whether news telling or “humor” whether news or for laughs.

Nearly all of our America’s educational institutions have also  become fascistic screamers and atheist preachers “religiously” selling leftism, antiAmericanism,  projecting their anti-truths to destroy the truths of  present and past.   In addition they  sell the arrival of twenty million foreigners, nearly all unlearned,  unskilled, to vote whether legal or not, to secure one Party  fascistic control of our already weakened and poorly educated America already owned in their Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary California, Oregon, and Washington to be…. where the know-better Hillary  “Democrat” neoStalinists can dictate One Party  life at every  level “for the good of the country”.

Our courageous, bright, skilled problem solver, totally American, skilled  builder  President Donald J. Trump, has had to endure leftism’s   poison  and evil from  every Obamaling fascism’s corner in America, about 99% Democrat Party and 30 % Romney type Republican Party aristocrats who apparently  went to school or college to study  how they can best learn to hate honesty, forthrightness, courage,  and white males in four years or less.   Fasicism needs them!

 

NFL Black Racist Showoffs Cause Empty Seats, Sagging Ratings

NFL Plots A Cure For Sagging Ratings, Empty Seats

We’re quickly approaching New Years, which is traditionally a time for reflection on the events of the past year and plans for how to do better over the next twelve months. That’s particularly true for the NFL, which has seen both its television ratings and live attendance in many stadiums plunge precipitously in 2017. As the Washington Times reports this week, the leadership in the league is busy analyzing precisely what caused all of this and how they might address it in 2018.

SEE ALSO: The Trump prophecies

Your first guess might logically be that the National Anthem protests were a big driving factor. That was definitely part of it, but media analysts and league insiders are also seeing a number of other disturbing trends affecting their bottom line, many of which were entirely of their own making.

NFL plots a cure for sagging ratings, empty seats

Outcry over players protesting by taking a knee during the national anthem isn’t helping, but it’s only one of several reasons fans are turning away from professional football, media analysts say.

Injuries to marquee players such as Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, teams with losing records in the nation’s largest media markets such as New York and Chicago, a glut of prime-time games, and viewers with other options have also taken a toll.

“I’d be stunned if any single factor contributed more than 2 percent to the ratings decline,” said Andrew Billings, director of the University of Alabama’s Sports Communication program.

So how bad were the numbers overall? In week 15, average television viewership was down 9 percent from the same point in 2016. Week 14 was similarly off. That translates into an average loss of 1.6 million viewers for each televised game overall. And it’s been an ongoing problem rather than a case of a single week here or there when the nation was otherwise distracted.

Some of the drivers of this were, to be fair, beyond the control of the league. Two of their biggest markets are New York and Dallas, and if you’ve been following the fortunes of the Giants, the Jets and the Cowboys you can see how people might be less excited to tune in. Ratings for the Cowboys and Giants games are down by 7% while viewership for New York Jets games is off by, er… 37%. Doesn’t that seem a bit unfair? True, my Jets are stinking up the joint at 5-10 going into the final week, but the Giants have only won two games! C’mon, man.

The league couldn’t predict or correct for the implosion of those popular teams in large media markets, but other factors were definitely under their control. The obvious target of criticism is the anthem protests which the league could have shut down as soon as Kaepernick started all of this. They didn’t do that and they’ve paid the price. If a combination of new rules from the top and a tougher line from the owners can eliminate that problem over the offseason they may begin to recover next fall.

But the other big driver seems to have been market saturation. The NFL Network has simply gotten too greedy, trying to have football on for half the days of the week. (That’s in addition to locking off certain games so they are only available on their own cable network, which not everyone has or wants.) We’re up to four different game slots on Sundays when there’s a game in London (another colossally bad idea), with prime time games on both Monday and Thursday, in addition to Sunday night. No matter how big of a fan you may be, there’s such a thing as too much football. Fans primarily want to watch their own team, and if they’re not playing they’ll watch one or two other games. But now the market is drowning in games and fewer people are making the time to watch.

On the bright side, all of these things sound fixable… except for the Jets fielding a winning team, apparently. Now that Roger Goodell has somehow landed himself another plush, five-year contract, will he make the needed course corrections and turn this around? Money is what makes the league go ’round, so I’m holding out hope that he will.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/26/nfl-plots-cure-sagging-ratings-empty-seats/

Democrat Conspiracy at FBI and “Justice Department” to Destroy Donald, Redeem Crooked Hillary?

Gregg Jarrett: Did the FBI and the Justice Department, plot to clear Hillary Clinton, bring down Trump?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

 Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the “deep state,” a popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.

However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.

Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.

As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.

And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.

The Plans

The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.

Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.

“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.

Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.

But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.

And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.

More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.

No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.

But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

The Texts

The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”

At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: “She just has to win now.”

One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.

Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).

Strzok:  “Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…”

It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.

Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard.

This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.”

As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.

Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.

This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings.

Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved?  After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.

If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency.

Strzok:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”

The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.

What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates?  Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.

The Dossier

The “dossier” was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Comey called it “salacious and unverified.”

Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer, which sounds like an implicit “yes.”

Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.

The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.

Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia’s role in the election, but he did not.

Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign.

Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.

This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.

If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted.

The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public’s trust.

It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/15/gregg-jarrett-did-fbi-and-justice-department-plot-to-clear-hillary-clinton-bring-down-trump.html