• 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

Jewish Left Accuses Sam Harris of Racism

Ezra Klein’s Intellectual Demagoguery

by Kyle Smith  at  National Review:

He accuses Sam Harris of being racist — for thinking that Charles Murray isn’t.

Ezra Klein wants you to know that he doesn’t think Sam Harris is a racist. “I’m not here to say you’re racist, I don’t think you are,” Klein explains in a two-hour debate with Harris on the latter’s podcast, Waking Up. “We have not called you one.” No, not at all. Klein is telling the truth here. Why so touchy, Sam?

Klein’s site Vox, in a piece by scientists Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett, merely tagged Harris as participating in “pseudoscientific racialist speculation” and peddling “junk science” while being “egregiously wrong morally” and implied he’s on the same side as eugenicists, claiming that the burden of proof is on Harris to demonstrate that he isn’t. The piece was listed as one of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hatewatch headlines” of the day, right alongside news about neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Klein himself then chimed in with an attack piece saying Harris was carrying on with “America’s most ancient justification for bigotry and racial inequality.” All of this because Harris had a podcast conversation with Charles Murray, the co-author of The Bell Curve, which contains a chapter about race and IQ.

For Klein to maintain that he and his site didn’t call Harris a racist is dishonest. In so many words, they did. His dissimulation reveals something important about him: He’s in the business of intellectual demagoguery. He debases the tone of good-faith debate. He whips up crowds using smears. Then he denies he did any such thing.

Associating hate with Harris is bizarre. I’ve grown fond of his preternaturally composed, hyper-rational style on the Waking Up podcast. But when he talks about Klein, he is not quite himself. He can’t disguise his bewilderment. He sounds like Spock discovering his shorts are on fire. “Captain, I have detected . . . flames and singed flesh . . . in the vicinity of . . . my perineum.” His tone remains steady, but the words are uncharacteristically pointed. During the debate, as Klein keeps delivering lectures to Harris on the history of racist injustice and repeatedly accuses him of having a “blind spot,” you can hear Harris sighing. Does Harris — does any intelligent person —  really need to be told that blacks have been victimized by racism? Of course they have been. It’s a different conversation from the one about what we do and don’t know about IQ scores.

Harris, who has to his credit a philosophy degree from Stanford, a Ph.D. from UCLA in cognitive neuroscience, and several well-reviewed books, has described himself as on the left on virtually every issue. How disorienting it must have been to find himself reclassified as a neo-Mengele and besieged by the social-media mob because he spoke with Murray. His reputation, he says on another episode, was severely damaged. He believes the bloodlust Klein successfully instigated on social media would have gotten him fired if had been on staff at a mainstream media outlet or university. People go bananas if someone cries racism, regardless of whether the charge is founded.

Because of The Bell Curve, Murray has long been demonized on the left as a racist and a white supremacist. Harris hadn’t paid much attention to the book in the quarter-century since it was published but said in the debate with Klein (this is the transcript) that he had been under the impression that “it must be just racist trash, because I assumed that where there was all that smoke, there must be fire.” After reading The Bell Curve, though, he came to think that Murray “was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime” because “the most controversial passages in the book struck me as utterly mainstream with respect to the science.” Harris doesn’t necessarily agree with Murray’s policy ideas, but wouldn’t rule them outside the boundaries of discussion.

If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither on your side, call your opponent a racist.

The core of the disagreement between Klein and Harris is that Klein thinks Murray should be treated as radioactive, and name-calling is his method for making that happen. Harris thinks Murray’s science is sound and that the attacks on the two of them in Vox were misleading, vicious, and ad hominem. Harris cites, for instance, a recent New York Times op-ed by Harvard professor David Reich that says “as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races,’” as well as an essay by Richard Haier, a psychologist and editor in chief of the journal Intelligence, which directly charges Turkheimer et al. with misrepresenting what The Bell Curve says, adds that some of their assertions about race and IQ run contrary to the weight of evidence, and note that its core arguments have been challenged many times by experts. Haier offered the piece to Vox, which rejected it. New York magazine’s Andrew Sullivan, a friend to both Klein and Harris, took Harris’s side in a column, saying Klein didn’t have a satisfying response to the scientific argument and “seems to back a truly extreme position: that only the environment affects IQ scores.” What’s even more troubling, Sullivan writes, is Klein’s “attempt to smear legitimate conservative ideas and serious scientific arguments as the equivalent of peddling white supremacy and bigotry” via “stigmatization and demonization.”

In short, it appears that it’s Klein’s Vox, not Murray, and certainly not Harris, that is pushing views outside the mainstream of scientific research about intelligence. Klein’s central role in this is repugnant. To adapt the legal adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither on your side, call your opponent a racist. This was also O. J. Simpson’s strategy.

It worked for Simpson, and to an extent, it worked for Klein. At least Simpson did it to save himself, though. Klein does it because he’d rather destroy the reputation of a fellow liberal than acknowledge being on the losing side of an argument.


While the Zuckerbergs Rake In Their Billions, Are American Citizens Going Bankrupt?

Americans Owe More Than $930 Billion In Credit Debt

from the April 22nd New York Post:

“People have been feeling optimistic and, when they do, it is tempting to use credit cards,” said Kimberly Palmer, a NerdWallet card analyst.

Many US consumers have not resisted temptation. Debt levels have been rising for years. US households now owe $13.15 trillion in total debt, about $931 billion of it card debt, according to NerdWallet’s 2017 American Household Credit Card Debt Study along with its newly issued quarterly figures.

The average household card debt is close to $16,000. That comes with hefty interest bills.


The Creepy Ugliness of that SPY Robert Mueller Coming to an End?

Is Mueller Done?

by William L. Gensert   at American Thinker:

The American people have turned against Robert Mueller, and that’s the least of his problems.

Late on the Friday afternoon of February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russians for such heinous crimes as creating fake identities on Facebook and Twitter and organizing rallies, both for and against Donald Trump, as well as spending more than $100,000 on political ads — all this, for the purpose of interfering with the United States Presidential Election — keep in mind, not a single indicted person will ever see the inside of an American courtroom since there is no extradition treaty between our country and Russia.

After almost a year of investigating, that’s all he had: fake Twitter and Facebook accounts, some minor rallies and a paltry sum spent on political advertising. The left went bananas ululating at the top of their lungs:

“Smoking gun!”  “Smoking gun!”

It was the first time in years anyone on the left supported guns!  Progressives and their adjuncts, the mainstream media, made it out to be a big deal, but for those of us looking closely, it smacked of desperation.

What has he done lately?

Well, there was…

And then, there is…

Actually, he did ask Rod Rosenstein to give a referral to Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office for a warrant to search the office, home, and pied-à-terre of Michael Cohen. For Mueller, this was an attempt to distance himself from what many see as an abrogation of attorney/client privilege.

Yet, it was something he needed to do, because if he can’t turn Cohen, he’s beginning to realize he has nothing — and there is the added advantage that “taint” team or no “taint” team, every single damaging thing found in those raids will either be leaked to him or leaked to the press.

Well, not “nothing,” he does have loads of prosecutable crimes committed by key Obama administration figures (including the big man himself), Clinton camp figures, FBI agents, active, retired, and terminated, especially, James “the bitch is back” Comey.

In fact, the more Mueller investigates Trump, the more he discovers crimes committed by the people who engineered his own appointment as well as his ideological brethren.

It was a shrewd, if underhanded, move by the special counsel, even if it was a Hail Mary. It looked as if he might finally be able to force someone to tell him what he wanted to hear.

Then, it happened. Donald Trump granted a pardon to Scooter Libby, who was the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney during the George W. Bush administration.

In 2007, Libby was convicted of perjury as a result of the investigation into the leaking of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity. President Bush commuted Libby’s 30-month sentence but didn’t grant a pardon. Libby’s alleged crimes happened a decade ago and according to the Washington Post:

“Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby was dealt a severe injustice by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald who knew early on that another official, Richard Armitage, had leaked Valerie Plame’s name. Fitzgerald asserted that Libby had lied to prosecutors rather than mistakenly recalled a phone call with now-deceased reporter Tim Russert. The case should never have gone forward (or, if it had, a memory expert should have been permitted to testify), and President George W. Bush should have granted Libby a full pardon before leaving office.”

Why is that significant to Mueller and his investigation?

As the venerable Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out, the warrant to search Cohen’s offices and homes would probably not been approved had the only crime been a violation of campaign contribution laws (the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about the one night stand she had with the president more than a decade ago), which almost always involve only a return of the donations and a fine, with no jail time. There must have been evidence of other, more significant crimes. As of today, we don’t know what those crimes might be, but it wouldn’t be out of hand to assume they involve potentially substantial prison sentences.

Mueller is smart, because there aren’t many men Cohen’s age, with his money, who would be willing to do time to prevent Donald Trump’s impeachment.

Most would probably say anything to avoid a five, ten, or even twenty-year prison sentence — even something untrue.

Trump’s pardon of Libby was brilliant. It sent Cohen a message that he wasn’t going to go to jail. If the president was willing to pardon someone who worked for Dick Cheney, probably the man most hated by those on the left and the media, at least until Donald Trump came along, he would pardon Cohen as well.

The Libby pardon took all the air out of Mueller’s attempt to “turn” Cohen. I would have loved to be in the room when Mueller got the news — time to hit the Johnny Walker Black heavy or beat his dog or something.

If anything, it shows Mueller that Donald Trump is a different kind of Republican. I like Mitt Romney and I think he would have made a decent president, certainly better than Barack Obama, who admittedly set the bar low. Yet, does anyone believe Romney would play dirty like Mueller plays? Or would he fold his hand and accept impeachment rather than fight?

Then something else happened. Rudy Giuliani joined Team Trump.

Trump and Giuliani together are an entirely different animal; they won’t give up; they will fight to the death. Throw in Inspector General Horowitz’s investigation (the report will drop in May) and U.S. Attorney John Huber’s criminal investigation of the FBI (with grand jury power), as well as the public tiring of his witch-hunt, and Mueller must realize he is not on the winning side and unless he has evidence of something criminal on Trump — and after almost a year that doesn’t seem likely — he can’t possibly win. In fact, he must be wondering whether many of his witnesses are about to be charged with crimes themselves.

I think Mueller realizes this and has had enough. He’s a smart guy and I think he understands it is time to cut his losses and salvage whatever is left of his reputation.



The Fraud Secretary John Kerry vs. the Quality Secretary of State Appointee, Mike Pompeo


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

In Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent, still in print after all these years, the president’s left-wing nominee for Secretary of State has a secret. As a young man — echoes of the Hiss case — he was a member of a Communist cell.

Leffingwell’s Communist past is a secret that must be covered up. Complications ensue, giving life to a Washington novel that is one of our favorites. Novelist Thomas Mallon rendered his considered literary judgment in his fiftieth anniversary tribute to the novel.

Times have changed, big league. By the time President Obama nominated John Kerry as Secretary of State, what were once vices had become habits hardly worthy of mention in polite company (as in this Boston Globe backgrounder).

Kerry had been wrong on just about every foreign policy issue he has addressed in the course of a long public career, stretching back to 1971. As an undergraduate, I saw him in person speaking on campus at the Hopkins Center peddling the vicious lies that turned him into a national celebrity. I believed him because I was credulous and sophomoric, but what excuse did he have?

Like Leffingwell, Kerry had been worse than mistaken. But it was no secret. It was out there in the open, and the guy nevertheless came within a hair of being elected president in 2004. John Perazzo reviewed the record of the man Obama saluted as “the perfect choice” to be his Secretary of State: “The historical record informs us that not only has John Kerry been on the wrong side of every major foreign policy issue for most of his adult life, including Iraq, Nicaragua and most recently in Syria, but he has routinely engaged in deception to conceal his folly. What’s worse, Kerry has a clear record of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, all the while never missing an opportunity to viciously trash our brave forces fighting against them.”

Returning to Advise and Consent, I recall recall that a key plot point hangs on the blackmailing of the senior senator from Utah in connection with a youthful homosexual affair. He is threatened with disclosure of the affair if he fails to vote in favor of the left-wing nominee. Rather than submit he commits suicide.

President Trump’s nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to serve as Secretary of State is to be voted on by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week. Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democrats have united in opposition. Given the additional opposition of Rand Paul, observers anticipate that Pompeo will receive a negative recommendation from the committee. Marc Thiessen traces the historic (and disgraceful) nature of such a negative committee vote against a Secretary of State nominee in this column.

One of the Democrats’ points against Pompeo is his disapproval of homosexual sex and homosexual marriage. He is apparently guilty of subscribing to traditional Christian doctrine. If only Pompeo could reveal himself to be a man with a homosexual past proclaiming “correct” thoughts, he might qualify to serve as Secretary of State. Coincidentally, the Democrats would also prefer a nominee who vowed to continue the Obama administration’s love affair with the mullahs who hang Iranian homosexuals for “male to male anal intercourse.”

We are reminded once once again. Democrats, you’ve come a long way from Advise and Consent, from advice and consent, and from the Constitution, baby.


P.S.   A Cause to Remember, by Glenn H. Ray

I am wondering if anyone of any American  party of any kind remembers the profound frauds JFK….that is, John F. Kerry perpetrated while serving and fibbing about his stardom “on military duty” in Vietnam…..the time when he was movie producing about his phony heroism for future political play when he returned to home to enter the lefty  jungles of Massachusetts politics.

Has anyone ever written a book, a page, a paragraph about this contemptible phony  maneuverings in film stardom, directed by the fraud himself?   He became CBS, PBS, ABC, and NBC star playboy at evening news hour playing expert about his false prowess, phony heroism,  absent wisdom and profound fraud on his road to Congress, the Senate   and Presidential contender.

(He did marry into the Heinz fortune, however!)

Why was it likely that the only  human on any  American  air or print wave of that critical election year, 2004, who had the courage, knowledge, the skill,  and honesty to  describe   this  suitless,  JFKerry,   so perfectly as the “creature, fraud and twit” he was came from Our Dennis Prager   that late October radio broadcasting day in 2004……..the first day I,  a lonely conservative, discovered him.

Today’s Ugly, Confused America IS THE INEVITABLE PRODUCT of the Disappearance of its Biblical JudeoChristian Values

How Religious Are You And Your Region? Gallup Knows

The Southwest part of the U.S. is the most religious with the Southeast not far behind, praise the Lord. I would have guessed the Southeast on top.

 As you might also have guessed, New England where the Puritans first settled is the least religious U.S. region followed closely by the Pacific coast. Everybody else is sort of in between and sort of religious here and there.


These results come from a massive yearlong Gallup survey involving nearly 131,000 adults during 2017 with at least 6,000 interviews in each region. (Map of regions here.)

They found that 45 percent of respondents in the Southwest and 43 percent in the Southeast described themselves as Very Religious, meaning weekly attendance at church. While about a quarter of respondents in those regions considered themselves Not At All Religious, meaning never attending services.

As for the you-know-who crowd in New England, the numbers were almost exactly reversed — 26 percent Very Religious and 48 percent not religious. For those anxiously awaiting their earthquake Armageddon on the Pacific coast, 29 percent Very and 43 percent Not at All.

Gallup’s East Central region (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan) was right about in the middle–37 percent Very, 37 Not. West Central (Dakotas down through Kansas and Missouri up through Wisconsin and Minnesota) it was 39/32.

The Rockies were 35/38.

Gallup reported:

Mormons are most likely to be very religious (73%), followed by Protestants (50%), Muslims (45%), Catholics (40%) and Jews (18%).

Religiosity increases with age: Only 28% of those younger than 30 are very religious, compared with 47% of those aged 65 and older. Blacks (48%) are more likely than whites or Hispanics (36% each) to be very religious.

Even the least religious state in the Southeast — Florida with 35/33 — was more religious than those pagans in California 29/42.

In New England, by far the least religious state is Vermont where only 16 percent claim to be Very Religious and a whopping 59 percent are Not At All Religious.

Gallup summarizes:

While the percentage of all Americans who are very religious has shrunk over the past decade, the differences in religiousness between the regions have held firm, with no indication that these regional differences will change in the near future.


Will Hillary’s Latrine in Washington Ever Be Cleaned Out?

Lawmakers Recommend Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe for Criminal Referrals

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday sent a slew of criminal referrals to Attorney General Jeff Sessions for a number of Obama administration officials and senior FBI employees for violations of the law in connection to the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.

(Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

Specifically, they sent criminal referrals to Sessions for: former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, as well as FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, for separate violations.
The criminal referrals, first reported by investigative journalist Sara Carter, were made by Rep. Ron Desantis (R-FL), a senior member of the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees who is leaving the House to run for Florida governor, and ten other colleagues.
Signatories included: GOP Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Dave Brat (VA), Jeff Duncan (SC), Matt Gaetz (FL), Paul A. Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (GA), Todd Rokita (IN), Claudia Tenney (NY), and Ted Yoho (FL).
“Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately,” said the letter.
They said Comey potentially broke the law when he chose not to seek charges against Clinton, for leaking classified memos of his conversations to President Trump to his friend Daniel Richman to give to the press, and for lying to lawmakers.
They said Clinton potentially broke the law when disguising payments to Fusion GPS, the firm that produced the Trump dossier, despite mandatory disclosures to the Federal Election Commission.
Lynch, they said, potentially broke the law when she threatened a former FBI informant, William Douglas Campbell, who had tried to come forward in 2016 with information related to the Uranium One deal that was approved in 2010.
McCabe potentially broke the law when he lied to investigators four times when questioned about a leak that he had arranged, they said.
Strzok and Page potentially violated the law by interfering in the investigation of Clinton’s private email server, they said. The letter cites a Wall Street Journal report that said their text messages to one another revealed FBI officials tried to eliminate evidence that Clinton had compromised high-level communications with then-President Obama.
“The report provides the following alarming specifics, among others: ‘Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President Obama to ‘another senior government official,” the criminal referral said.
Finally, the lawmakers referred all Justice Department and FBI personnel, including Comey, McCabe, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, for potentially breaking the law by using unverified and/or false information to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.
Carter also reported that other recent documents obtained by congressional investigators suggest possible coordination by the Obama White House, the CIA, and the FBI in investigating the Trump campaign.
“According to those documents, the senior Obama officials used unsubstantiated evidence to launch allegations in the media that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election,” Carter reported.
CIA Director John Brennan had briefed Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in August 2016, prompting Reid to send a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey asking him to investigate allegations of collusion. Reid then reportedly stayed in close touch with Comey.

Democrat Collusion Conspiracy Charge Against Trump Dies as A Typical Fascist Democrat Lie!

Fascist Democrats  arrived on the American national political scene by electing  antiAmerican foreigner  Barack Hussein Obama president in 2008.   He had promised to change America forever the very night of his initial victory.    Leftist fascism was to  conquer and deliver a Revolution to establish  Peace to Dictate American Life Forever by creating one Party, one Press, one School, one Leader, one Sex, one Rule, one World…….

He did what he could do by screwing up the economy, the health system, encouraging racial uprisings, colluded with the Russians,  sent hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran to bolster Shiah Islam and its nuclear weapons program in its wars against the West.

Obama failed to deliver his new america after eight years of spying on Americans he didn’t tolerate and weeks of playing golf.     His replacement was chosen to be a she dictator to be elected by demand on November 8, 2016 to continue what needed to be done to dictate a brave new world beginning with the dying America of past freedoms.

(but she lost the election she was  programmed  to win.)

Then the  Fascists at University,  the New York Times, Washington Post and Democrat Fascists turned to Russian Collusion and the FBI to fulfill the demand:

Collusion, Anyone?

by Michael Barone   at realclearpolitics:

“As the likelihood that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia seems headed toward zero, the likelihood of proof of a different form of collusion seems headed upward toward certainty.

The Russia collusion charge had some initial credibility because of businessman Donald Trump’s dealings in Russia and candidate Trump’s off-putting praise of Vladimir Putin.

It was fueled by breathless media coverage of such trivial events as Jeff Sessions’ conversation with the Russian ambassador at a Washington reception — and, of course, by the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel. But Mueller’s prosecutions of Trump campaign operatives were for misdeeds long before the campaign, and his indictment of 13 Russians specified that no American was a “knowing participant” in their work.

Now there’s talk that Mueller is winding up his investigation. It seems unlikely that whatever he reports will fulfill the daydreams so many liberals have of making Trump go the way of Richard Nixon.

Meanwhile, the evidence builds of collusion by Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence personnel in trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat and delegitimize Trump in and after the 2016 election.

The investigation of Clinton’s illegal email system was conducted with kid gloves. FBI Director James Comey accepted Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s order to call it a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” Clinton aides were allowed to keep her emails and destroy 30,000 of them, plus cellphones. They were not subject to grand jury subpoenas, and a potential co-defendant was allowed to claim attorney-client privilege.

On June 27, 2016, Lynch clandestinely met with Bill Clinton on his plane at the Phoenix airport — a meeting that became known only thanks to an alert local TV reporter. Lynch supposedly left the decision on prosecution to Comey, who on July 5 announced publicly that Clinton had been “extremely careless” but lacked intent to violate the law, even though the statute punishes such violations whether they are intentional or not.

Contrast that with the collusion of Obama officials with the Clinton campaign-financed Christophe Steele/Fusion GPS dossier alleging Trump ties with Russians. Comey and the Justice Department used it, without divulging who paid for it, to get a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign operative Carter Page’s future and past communications — the “wiretap” Trump was derided for mentioning.

Similarly, when Comey informed Trump in January 2017 of the contents of the then-unpublished Steele dossier, he didn’t reveal that the Clinton campaign had paid for it. Asked on his iatrogenic book tour why not, he blandly said he didn’t know. And maybe he doesn’t actually realize he was employing J. Edgar Hoover-like tactics to keep his job. Maybe.

In any case, after he was fired, he immediately sent four of his internal memos, at least one of them classified, to a law professor friend to leak them to the press, with the intent of getting a special counsel appointed — who turned out to be his longtime friend and ally Robert Mueller. Collusion, anyone?

Collusion can get complicated and sometimes fails to produce the intended results. Comey’s deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe, reportedly kept to himself for weeks the discovery that Clinton emails had been transmitted over the home computer of her aide Huma Abedin’s then-husband, the disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner. After Comey learned of this, he made his Oct. 28 announcement that the Clinton email investigation was being reopened.

Comey and McCabe have produced contradictory accounts of events, and Comey’s public praise of McCabe contrasts with his referral of McCabe to Justice’s inspector general, who found him guilty of “lack of candor” — a fireable offense for which he was indeed fired. Partners in collusion sometimes fall out.

Longtime Clinton friend Lanny Davis charges that Comey’s statement was responsible for Clinton’s defeat, and Comey, on his book tour, admitted that he may have made it only because he assumed Clinton would win.

Davis may be right, though no one can prove it. But one could also say that the Democratic Party lost the presidency because it nominated a candidate under investigation for committing a felony. And it seems as certain as these things can be that if Hillary Clinton had followed the law and regulations, there would be today no President Trump, no Attorney General Sessions, no EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, no Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The blame ultimately belongs to Barack Obama, who knew of Clinton’s private email system and who could have ordered her to follow the law. But that’s one bit of collusion that didn’t occur.”