• 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

CNN’s FBI Star, Fascist FBI Star McCabe Should Be Indicted!

Time to Indict McCabe, Not Impeach Trump

Perhaps hearing the footsteps of Attorney General Bill Barr, U.S. Atty John Durham, and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz getting closer, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe crawled out from the rock he had been hiding under long enough last Thursday night to appear on CNN with Chris Cuomo. Like his yet unindicted co-conspirator and boss in the Russia “collusion delusion” coup attempt against President Trump, former FBI Director James Comey, McCabe sought to mask his own real crimes while joining the media frenzy over President Trump’s suggestion that he would at least listen to a foreign source reporting to have “dirt” on an opponent, passing the information on to the FBI if warranted.

McCabe was quick to excuse Hillary Clinton and the DNC for funding a fake dossier through a British agent using Russian sources while suggesting that, yes, he would at least pick up the phone and listen. As noted by Ian Schwartz on Real Clear Politics:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said the impeachment of President Donald Trump is “absolutely” warranted in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday. McCabe denounced Trump, saying there is a difference between taking information acquired “illegally” from “representatives” of a hostile foreign government while defending Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo put it, “paying Russians for information to amass a dossier.”…

“Not at all, Chris. There’s no equivalence between those two examples,” McCabe responded. “To openly invite foreign intelligence officers, representatives from a hostile foreign government to steal information, to acquire opposition research in anyway, in any illegal way that they might do that and to present it to you is one thing.”

“For a campaign to hire a law firm, an American law firm who then turns around and hires an American research company that then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal,” McCabe emphasized.

McCabe also commended British operative Christopher Steele for informing them of his dossier because “he was so troubled.”

Uh, the “hostile foreign power” Trump said he might accept campaign “dirt” from was Norway and there is no evidence, except in the dreams of Rep. Adam Schiff, that Trump ever solicited any foreign actor in any way to acquire anything illegally. To receive information in and of itself is not a crime.

It is the Steele dossier, despite McCabe’s obfuscation, that was acquired illegally. Money was laundered through a law firm to a dirt-gathering opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to Russian sources making most of the stuff up. The fact that the transaction went through multiple hands does not make it any more legal. It just makes the upcoming indictment longer.

McCabe, Comey, and the people who worked under McCabe, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, then took this fruit of foreign interference in our election and used it to commit a fraud upon the FISA court to trigger the illegal surveillance of one political campaign by another with the aid of co-conspirators at the DOJ and FBI.

Steele troubled? McCabe’s concern over Christopher Steele’s angst is laughable. Steele was no Hamlet but a co-conspirator in a deep state coup to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. That McCabe himself was a key architect of this coup is found in the texts of FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who speaks of the plan hatched in “Andy’s office” to stop Trump at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:

Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to (Lisa) Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in “Andy’s” (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe’s) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [break]… that there’s no way he gets elected. I want to believe that… But I’m afraid we can’t take that risk… We have to do something about it.”…

“This goes to intent,” Jordan said. “We can’t take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can’t take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He’s saying, ‘we can’t take the risk, we have to do something about it.'”

McCabe testified under oath he could not verify the accuracy of virtually anything in the dossier and has acknowledged that without the “salacious and unverified” document, as Comey once described it, no investigation of Team Trump would have occurred.

Rep. Devin Nunes, as quoted by the Washington Examiner, reports:

“Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information,” a controversial memo composed by Rep. Devin Nunes’ staff claims in regard to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. As noted at Legal Insurrection:

The House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) grilled FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for seven hours over the dossier published against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and the FBI’s investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server…

McCabe told the panel that the FBI worked hard “to verify the contents of the anti-Trump ‘dossier’ and stood by its credibility.” However, he could not tell the lawmakers if “the bureau has been able to verify the substantive allegations in the dossier, or even identify a substantive allegation that has been corroborated.”

The lawmakers asked him which part of the dossier was true and Mccabe only pointed to the part “that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.”

McCabe was one of the signers of the FISA applications based on the fraudulent and politically motivated Steele dossier.

…according to the memo crafted by House Republicans, Comey personally signed three FISA court applications utilizing that same dossier that he labeled “salacious and unverified” eight months later to obtain FISA court warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The memo documents that on October 21, 2016, the FBI and Justice Department sought and received the FISA order against Page, and that the agencies sought the renewal of the order every 90 days in accordance with court requirements.  Renewals require separate finding of probable cause each time, the memo relates.

According to the memo, Comey “signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one.”

McCabe is in legal jeopardy on many fronts. As the Washington Examiner notes of McCabe’s impressive credentials:

McCabe was fired from the FBI on March 16, 2018, after the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General determined he misled investigators about the role he had in leaking information to the Wall Street Journal in October 2016 about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe argued that his firing was an attempt to discredit the FBI and Mueller’s investigation.

In April 2018, it was revealed that the Justice Department inspector general had referred its findings to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington for possible criminal charges, and his lawyer confirmed in February that McCabe was still under investigation.

As National Review reported:

An OIG report released last week confirmed that McCabe had in fact misled federal investigators on four separate occasions by insisting that he did not approve the leak, which was apparently intended to rebut rumors that McCabe had told FBI agents to “stand down” from their investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

Andrew McCabe should not be a national pundit on CNN calling for Trump’s impeachment. He should be preparing his legal defense against indictments that can’t come a moment too soon.



Robert Mueller…..America’s 21st Century Dem’s Bela Lugosi


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Much has been written about Robert Mueller’s appearance before the press today, in which spoke briefly and nervously, repeating points that have already been made ad nauseam in his own report and elsewhere. Why did he do it? And why did he appear so nervous while he did it? Speculation has been rampant.

Scott posted a transcript of Mueller’s remarks earlier today. Much could be said about them, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Mueller’s characterization of his own investigation.

Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

The key word there is “included.” What else did Mueller’s charge include? Nothing, apparently. But we actually know that there were “links” between a presidential campaign and Russians who (if they existed at all) likely were associated with Putin’s regime. The campaign was Hillary Clinton’s, and the Russians were those on whose reports Christopher Steele based his infamous dossier.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign went looking for Russians who could serve up dirt on Donald Trump. In a futile attempt to avoid illegality, the campaign told its lawyers at the Perkins Coie firm to contract with Fusion GPS, run by fervent Democrat Glenn Simpson, who in turn contracted with Christopher Steele to try to find Russians who had (or could make up) useful information on Trump. The Clinton campaign used these multiple cut-outs so it could falsely report the money it paid to Steele as “legal expenses” incurred at Perkins Coie. Maybe somewhere there is a U.S. Attorney who would like to take a look at this.

Just kidding. Christopher Steele obliged the Clinton campaign by finding several Russians who, based on the information they pretended to have, almost certainly were associated with Putin’s regime. Or maybe he didn’t find them at all; maybe he just made up all of the nonsense in the “dossier” and charged the Clinton campaign for his fantasies. Probably neither Steele nor the Clinton campaign cared one way or the other.

If we assume Steele didn’t fabricate the whole thing, then he colluded on behalf of the Clinton campaign with Russian officials or insiders who told him lies. He fed these lies back to the Clinton campaign, which, as Byron York reminds us, did its best to use these Russian fables to win the presidential election.

Here is my question. (I know it has been asked before, but it can’t be repeated too often.) If Mueller’s charge was to investigate “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election…[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” why didn’t he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election–an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians. So why was Mueller’s investigation confined to the wrong campaign?

The question answers itself. Mueller’s mission was the same as Christopher Steele’s mission, and Glenn Simpson’s, and Perkins Coie’s, and Hillary Clinton’s: to destroy Donald Trump, by hook or by crook. That is the only explanation for Mueller’s seeming myopia about his own failure to look for collusion where, in all likelihood, it actually existed.


Robert Mueller, Partisan Fraud

Devious Comey, Clapper, and Brennan Begin Their Dance Trio

He Did It, Not Me!

There is something Kafkaesque about the current round of investigating possible FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, and National Security Council wrongdoing during the 2016 election, Trump transition, and early presidency.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller had been permitted to range well beyond his mandate of “Russian collusion.” He outsourced much of the selection of his “dream team” and “all-star” staff of attorneys to his deputy, Andrew Weissman. In turn, Weissman—who commiserated with Hillary Clinton at her ill-fated “victory” party on the evening of her defeat—stocked the team with Trump-haters, liberals and progressives, Clinton donors, a few who had previously served as attorneys for the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton or Obama aides. Most of these were themselves briefed during the early dissemination of the fraudulent Steele dossier.

Yet after all the bias, prosecutorial leveraging, the process crimes, the perjury traps, and after 22 months, $34 million, and a 440-plus page report, Mueller’s “hunter-killer” team did not establish that President Trump colluded with the Russians to warp the 2016 election.

In fact, Mueller could not find prosecutable “obstruction” of justice by Trump to impair the investigation of what Mueller concluded was not a crime.

The Wolves Turn On Each Other

Now we turn to the real unspoken question: how did it happen that the top machinery of the U.S. government meddled in an election, and sought to sabotage a presidential transition and early presidency?

Note well: none of the leveraged targets of Robert Mueller turned state’s evidence to accuse Donald Trump of “collusion,” the object of the special counsel’s investigation, although to have done so would have mightily helped their cause and given them John Dean iconic status among leftists. In contrast, we have scarcely begun to investigate wrongdoing at the intelligence and justice departments and already the suspects are fingering each other.

James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced?

Why would not they still be vying to take credit for warning President Obama that Donald J. Trump was a likely sexual pervert, with a pathological hatred of Obama, as manifested in Trump’s alleged Moscow debauchery—a reprobate who used his subordinates to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and who still must somehow be stopped at all costs?

That entire bought fantasy was the subtext of why Mueller was appointed in the first place. It was the basis for the persistent support to this day among the media and progressives for the now discredited notion of “collusion.”

If our noble public servants really believed all that to be true, would not Comey and Brennan instead now be arguing that each, not the other, was bold and smart enough to have included the seminal dossier into a presidential briefing? Comey in public still insists that the dossier is not discredited, though in all his sanctimonious televised sermons, he never has provided any details that support the supposed veracity of Steele’s charges. Why then is Comey not demanding that the FBI take credit for bringing this key piece of intelligence to Obama’s attention rather than fobbing off such an important feat to the rival CIA?

Why, for that matter, are Andrew McCabe and James Comey at odds?

The commonality of their respective sworn testimonies has been that Trump was and remains a danger to the republic—to the extent that McCabe admittedly staged a comical coup attempt and Comey committed a likely felony in leaking to the media classified documents that had memorialized his versions of his own confidential conversations with the president.

Why, given their protestation of innocence and their cry-of-the-heart leaking to save us, would not McCabe and Comey be heaping praise on each other, as each tried to outdo the other in pursuing extraordinary measures to end the clear and present danger of Donald Trump?

McCabe has testified that the dossier was the anchoring evidence that the FBI presented to the FISA court. Comey denies that fact. But once more why would they disagree? And why would they be at odds over supposedly noble leaking to the press?

McCabe claims Comey allowed him to leak gossip and rumors about Trump’s culpability; Comey says he did no such thing. But should not both still be bragging that they had the guts to seed the dossier and related confidential information to the media to the stop the national threat of Donald Trump?

We know that Comey has no intrinsic objection to scattering classified information, because he has bragged that he did just that after his firing to help appoint a special counsel. We know in addition that McCabe has no problem with divulging confidential information because to the media he has accused Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in a confidential conversation, of volunteering to wear a wire in hopes of entrapping the President of the United States at some incriminating moment.

For the Good of the People?
Why again are McCabe and Comey pointing fingers at each other as leakers and purveyors or ruinous gossip, when both have admittedly leaked and are apparently proud of it, reasoning that they did it for us, the people, in our moment of peril from our president whom the people elected?

Why are McCabe and Rosenstein at odds? The former says the latter was willing to record stealthily his conversations with Trump in an effort to remove him, the latter says it was a joke and that McCabe engineered such a discussion. But why the disconnect? Both in varying ways have tried to obstruct declassification of government documents that might suggest government overreach under the Justice Department and FBI. Both seem at odds with Trump, both the man and his presidency. Why then are not each vying with the other for the greater credit of nearly engineering a coup to remove an existential threat like Donald Trump, a supposedly legal act under their allegedly mutually referenced application of the 25th Amendment?

These are rhetorical questions because we know the answers: our top officials at the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and NSC, as well as James Clapper as director of national intelligence, likely broke federal law, betrayed their agencies, and in general acted in an abjectly unethical manner on the premises that 1) Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their behavior would be rewarded; and 2) in the aftermath of her defeat and after Trump became president, that Trump could either be removed or so discredited that their own prior illegality would either never come to light or would be contextualized as noble resistance.

Until election night, they seemed to have been correct in their assumptions.

Given the subsequent serial efforts of #TheResistance to remove or destroy president-elect and President Trump—the suits to overturn the voting in three states, the attempted subversion of the Electoral College voting, the efforts to invoke the Emoluments Clause, the Logan Act, and the 25th Amendment, the early impeachment vote, the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Mueller investigation, and the brouhaha over Stormy Daniels, the Trump tax returns, Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti—these officials still believed that their prior behavior would either eventually be praised or at least excused. But they bet foolishly against the viability of Trump.

The appointment of William Barr as attorney general has sobered the lawbreakers, and perhaps soon the media, which may not wish to go down the drain with their erstwhile FBI and CIA speaking-truth-to-power heroes.

No longer are Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe along with a host of others insisting that they acted nobly. No longer are they in solidarity in their defiant opposition to Donald Trump.

Now, for the first time, they are pointing fingers at one another, because they have come to realize that their prior criminality may not be rewarded, praised, or even excused, but rather prosecuted.

And so in response, we now hear: “He did it, not me!”


Judicial Watch Opening Pursued Government Documents Relating to DEM-FBI Russian Hoax Scandal!


by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

Judicial Watch has tirelessly pursued government documents relating to the Russia hoax, and has made them public as they have been wrested from the grasp of Washington bureaucrats. Today Judicial Watch released three emails exchanged between Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec, a Hillary Clinton donor, and Bruce Ohr. Ohr was one of the most senior officials in the Department of Justice. His wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, which was hired by the Clinton campaign to fabricate dirt on Donald Trump. Fusion GPS ultimately came up with the Christopher Steele “dossier.” Ohr and his wife were in the middle of the Democratic Party’s effort to bring down candidate, President-Elect and President Donald Trump.

The emails are embedded below. They are all dated November 21, 2016, just 13 days after the presidential election. But it is significant that the emails post-date the election. These Democratic Party bureaucrats were no longer trying to help Hillary Clinton win the election; rather, they were trying to undermine the President-Elect.

The first email is from Kavalec to Ohr, following up on a meeting they had just had. Kavalec refers to “the person I mentioned,” a Russian named Simon Kukes. She refers to “this campaign donation story” and forwards links to an article in Mother Jones and an Open Secrets entry. The story relates to Kukes, an American citizen who was born in Russia and who donated to Trump’s campaign. There is no evident reason why a Russian-born American’s contribution to Trump’s campaign would be noteworthy to Ohr and Kavalec, or would have anything to do with relations between the Department of Justice and the State Department, other than the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was trying to blame her dismal performance on “meddling” by Russia.

Ohr’s response begins with: “Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. I really hope we can get something going here.” Judicial Watch interprets “get something going here” as referring to efforts to smear Trump with bogus Russian connections. That could be right, but the ostensible subject of the meeting between Ohr and Kavalec was the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, which I believe Ohr was in charge of. So he could have been referring to that.

But Ohr’s interest, like Kavalec’s, was principally in how they could disable the incoming Trump administration. Ohr quickly pivoted to that topic: “This is very interesting–I may have heard about him [Kukes] from Tom Firestone as well, but I can’t recall for certain. We will take another look at this.”

Kavalec’s email had said that Tom Firestone “brought [Simon Kukes] in” in 2014. Firestone formerly worked for the Department of Justice in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. He is now a partner in Baker McKenzie, one of the world’s largest law firms. Kavalec may have meant that Firestone brought Kukes into the CIA fold, but that is by no means clear.

The significant question, however, is: who is “we” in Ohr’s email? He says “We will take another look at this,” i.e., the fact that Kukes contributed to Trump’s campaign. There was nothing illegal or even questionable about that contribution. What was it that “we” were going to look at? Is “we” the Department of Justice? Or an embedded team of Democratic Party loyalists trying to discredit the newly-elected president?

Kavalec responded to Ohr the same day with more anti-Trump strategizing:

Just re-looking at my notes from my convo with Chris Steele…

This is the first time Steele is mentioned in the email exchange, but Kavalec evidently didn’t need to explain to Ohr that Steele was a Democratic Party hireling who had been tasked with digging up dirt, real or imagined, on Donald Trump.

…I see that Chris said Kukes has some connection to Serge Millian, an emigre who who is identified by FT as head of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. According to what Chris said to me in early October…

So the State Department was talking to Hillary Clinton’s opposition researcher prior to the election.

…Millian has apparently “disappeared,” i.e., left the U.S., and hasn’t been seen recently. I don’t know anything about Millian but he is referenced in the FT story: “Trump’s Russian Connections.”

This email exchange makes it clear that senior officials in the Department of Justice and the State Department were meeting with Christopher Steele, talking about his absurd allegations against Donald Trump–it is noteworthy that Steele refuses to come to the U.S., where he could be forced to answer questions about the fabrications for which he was handsomely paid by the Clinton campaign–not only before the election, but after it as well.

Why is it the business of the Department of Justice and the State Department to conspire against the President-Elect? We, the taxpayers, pay these bureaucrats’ salaries. They spent our money trying to slander and ultimately bring down the duly elected President of the United States. This is the biggest scandal in American political history. Nothing else comes close.

A postscript: we have written about Kathleen Kavalec before. On October 11, 2016, Kavalec met again with Christopher Steele, just 20 days after her email exchange with Bruce Ohr. This time, she documented her impressions of the meeting. She concluded that Steele was a liar:

In her typed summary, Kavalec wrote that Steele told her the Russians had constructed a “technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the election” that recruited emigres in the United States to “do hacking and recruiting.”

She quoted Steele as saying, “Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami,” according to a copy of her summary memo obtained under open records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United. Kavalec bluntly debunked that assertion in a bracketed comment: “It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami.”

Kavalec also commented on Steele’s nakedly political motives:

And, as I reported earlier this week, Kavalec’s memo clearly warned that Steele had admitted his client was “keen” to get his information out before Election Day. In other words, he had a political, rather than an intelligence, deadline.

His client, as Kavalec obviously knew, was the Hillary Clinton campaign.

One wonders: did Kathleen Kavalec tell her co-conspirators that she had hard evidence that Christopher Steele was lying about Donald Trump? So far, there is no evidence of any such communication. The Democrats’ effort to bring down the Trump administration on the basis of Steele’s lies has continued, right up to the present. At this point, it is hard to say whether the Democrats who pursued their anti-Trump vendetta knew that Steele was a liar, or just didn’t care.



IF TRUTH COULD BE TOLD: Scandal, Fascism, Corruption Reek Throughout the Schumer-Pelosi Leftist Empire!

The Media at Their Lowest

by R. Quinn Kennedy at American Thinker:


When Joe Biden claimed this week on The View (see it here) that the Obama administration “had not a whisper of scandal” during eight years in the White House, the audience cheered wildly.  And why wouldn’t it?  It’s a partisan crowd that overwhelmingly leans left.

Those of us on quite the other side of the aisle didn’t bother falling out of our chairs at such an absurd claim.  We know how the game is played: make sure that statements such as this from Democrats are played in front of a partisan audience on a biased show that isn’t about to challenge the assertion.

As a reminder for candidate Biden, let’s review a partial list of the dozens of scandals and all the corruption during the Obama administration:

  • IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(3) nonprofits
  • The $500-million Solyndra scam admitted to by secretary of energy Steven Chu
  • Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt for lying to Congress
  • Mass domestic spying by the NSA
  • Illegal DOJ investigations of journalists
  • Complete mismanagement of the war in Syria
  • Transferring $1.7 billion in cash to Iran
  • The Benghazi cover-up
  • Operation Fast & Furious
  • Secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play scam with foreign governments
  • Falsified Veterans Administration documents after patients died waiting to be seen

The above list could easily be three times as long.  It could specifically include Joe Biden, as vice president, pressuring Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor, who, at the time, was investigating illegal activity by his own son, Hunter Biden (which Ukraine On what other grounds would Joe Biden even care?

When presented with a list of these scandals, the Left scoffs and passes them off as right-wing conspiracy theories.  Yet every scandal and instance of corruption cited is amply documented.

How is it, then, that Joe Biden can make such a claim without being held accountable?  You and I know the answer.  It’s because shows like The View and the national mainstream media aren’t about to hold Biden or any other Democratic candidate accountable.  Rather, they want such falsehoods to resonate as believable.  (With inserted loud claps of approval to validate them.)

Unfortunately, we are at a point in our nation’s history where freedom of the press has reached its lowest point.  Not only do the national mainstream media immorally sweep such contradictory statements under the rug, but they are, as President Trump has stated, “an arm of the Democratic Party.”  Rather than being impartial in news-reporting, their narrative clearly promotes the Democratic Party’s agenda and is hypercritical of Republican Party policies and social stances.  Can any mainstream reporter deny this with a straight face?

The devious relationship between one party and its willing accomplices in the media has moved beyond the point of eye-rolls and shoulder-shrugs.  It has reached a tipping point for our nation.  Joseph Goebbels famously stated, “Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine.”  This has become the incestuous relationship the Left lustfully pursues with increasing reliability.  Through decades of permeation, the media have been given over to the Left, and for leftists, our society has become the herd of swine.

Not surprisingly, the playbook isn’t limited to the national mainstream media.  Media technology group AllSides published a report that Google News results lean heavily toward media outlets with a “left” bias.  The author of the study, John Gable, stated that the bias is a result of “most news outlets and most news consumption online being from a left perspective.”  The purveyors of Google News are well aware of this egregious bias, but because Google’s corporate culture sways heavily left, we can hardly expect the company to create an algorithm that provides a fair and balanced narrative.

Indoctrination of the masses by the Left used to come in the form of opinion pieces.  During the Reagan administration, White House network reporters certainly reported the news.  However, they steadily began introducing the technique of ending each report with strongly worded opposing viewpoints from critics of the administration.  Who were these unnamed critics?  The ones holding the microphone.

Thus began the stepped up infiltration of political views into national news.  Subsequently, what began as infiltration has become full-on partisanship.  The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and various other “news” outlets used to portray themselves as impartial.  Reading an opinion piece masquerading as a news story in a national news publication no longer seems brazen.  It has become the new normal.

On any number of subjects, building a wall between Mexico and the United States being a current topic of the day, there are literally dozens of video recordings of Democrats contradicting themselves from the position they took even a decade ago.  Joe Biden once pounded the pulpit demanding that we build a wall.  With Joe Biden as the Democratic frontrunner for U.S. president, you’ve seen that contradiction reported all over the national mainstream media, haven’t you?

Contrast that with anything and everything Donald Trump says.  The media are quick to pull any quote, any tweet out of context or bend it out of shape to promote the narrative that the president is an unhinged liar.  With very few exceptions, how can one not be entirely cynical of our news sources and online media?

Remember the Joe Biden interview on The View and the clapping throngs responding to his claim?  In a 2017 article by leftist Slate.com (find it here), the subtitle reads, “The Nazi propaganda machine exploited ordinary Germans by encouraging them to be co-producers of a false reality.”

Not a whisper of scandal, indeed.


R. Quinn Kennedy is a conservative activist and writer in Colorado.


Is Leftist Piers Morgan Discovering the Power of Seeking Truth, at LAST? Welcome, Good Man!

PIERS MORGAN: The next book America’s self-appointed ‘superhero’ James Comey writes may be his prison diaries, from a cell shared with his fellow Trump-hating FBI villains

James Comey’s had a very lucrative year since he was fired by President Trump.

He’s sold several million books, made myriad highly paid speeches, and appeared on all the big talk shows.

In doing so, he’s become household name.

Comey’s now a multi-millionaire celebrity living the American dream.

And he’s achieved this newfound fame by constantly attacking his old boss, acting in the process like a brazen, politically motivated opponent.

There’s just one problem I have with all this: Comey was Director of the FBI, supposedly a top-secret intelligence agency.




Former FBI Director James Comey’s now a multi-millionaire celebrity living the American dream – and he’s achieved this newfound fame by constantly attacking his old boss, Trump

His job was to KEEP secrets, not to spill them to anyone with a large check.

And what the hell does Comey have to boast about anyway?

This is the guy who screwed almost everything up while holding one of the most prestigious and important jobs in federal government.

So much so that he is universally loathed and distrusted on both sides of the political aisle.

Yet here he is, strutting around like he’s a Marvel superhero sent to save America from the bad guys, whilst conveniently overlooking the increasingly likely fact that he himself is one of the very worst of those bad guys.

The breath-taking irony of Comey’s self-promoting new angelic persona is not lost on former colleagues.

Yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein finally went public on his real thoughts about Comey who recently sneered that Rosenstein’s soul had been ‘eaten’ by Trump.

‘The former director seems to be acting as a partisan pundit,’ Rosenstein retorted, in an address to the annual Greater Baltimore Committee Dinner, ‘selling books and earning speaking fees while speculating about the strength of my character and the fate of my immortal soul. I kid you not. That is disappointing.’

As zingers go, this ice-cold back-slicing riposte was right up there with being mauled by a Polar Bear in the Arctic.

Rosenstein also emphasised his own comparative neutrality.

‘People spend a lot of time debating whose side I was on, based on who seemed to benefit most from any individual decision,’ he said. ‘But trying to infer partisan affiliation from law enforcement decisions is what you might call a category error. It uses the wrong frame of reference.’


Rosenstein’s legal assessment of Comey is that he deserved to be fired by Trump because of his inept handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and especially the public way in which he announced both the results of the investigation and the reopening of it just 10 days before the 2016 election.

Rosenstein’s legal assessment of Comey is that he deserved to be fired by Trump because of his inept handling of the Hillary Clinton (pictured above on her Blackberry) email investigation


Rosenstein’s legal assessment of Comey is that he deserved to be fired by Trump because of his inept handling of the Hillary Clinton (pictured above on her Blackberry) email investigation

In a memo used by Trump to justify Comey’s firing, Rosenstein said the director was ‘wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority’ by holding the press conference where he announced the initial closure of the investigation, and made comments to the press that were ‘inappropriate, derogatory and unfair’.

In a damning conclusion, he said it was ‘a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.’

But it is Comey’s treatment of Donald Trump that may lead to far more serious consequences for him and some of his former FBI team.

Today it emerged that Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney, John Durham in Conneticut, to examine the origins of the Russia collusion investigation and determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was ‘lawful and appropriate’.


Today it emerged that Attorney General William Barr (above left) has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia collusion investigation.  This is after former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (above right) also finally went public on his real thoughts about Comey who recently sneered that Rosenstein’s soul had been ‘eaten’ by Trump

This comes a month after Barr told Congress he believed ‘spying did occur’ on the Trump campaign in 2016.

At the centre of this sensational claim lies a surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on former Trump associate Carter Page, and the bureau’s use of an informant while it was investigating former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopolous.

Separately, the Justice Department’s inspector general is also investigating the Russia probe’s origins.

So the heat is being massively turned up on the FBI, and the man who was at its helm at the time: James Comey.

In light of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s expansive report, which exonerated Trump or any of his campaign team of any collusion with Russia, Comey may now face some very difficult questions.

Bruce Ohr

Andrew McCabe


Comey’s FBI colleagues like Andrew McCabe (above right) Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (above left) and Peter Strzok all conspired to compromise the President

As I wrote when Mueller’s report was released, it seems patently clear now that Comey’s FBI colleagues like Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok all conspired to compromise the democratically elected president of the United States.

They are all heavily implicated in numerous acts of alleged crimes involving the misuse of a dodgy discredited dossier compiled by dodgy discredited former British spy Christopher Steele which they used as an excuse to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign team members without any mention of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats financing it.

Their treachery, and Trump-hating motivation for it, is all there in their own words.

Strzok texted Lisa Page, his secret lover, before the 2016 election, and after he had just helped get Hillary off the email scandal rap, to say a newly-opened FBI investigation against Trump was an ‘insurance policy’ against him in case he won.

McCabe, who succeeded Comey as FBI Director, confirmed to CBS after his own departure that he not only launched a counter-intelligence operation against President Trump, but also later discussed with FBI colleagues whether it was possible to remove him from office using the 25th Amendment.





Strzok texted Lisa Page, his secret lover, (both pictured above)  before the 2016 election, and after he had just helped get Hillary off the email scandal rap, to say a newly-opened FBI investigation against Trump was an ‘insurance policy’ against him in case he won

What the hell were all these FBI agents, who took an oath to serve the President, doing by plotting against him in such a disgraceful way?

And how much did their boss know about what they were doing?

Well, now we’re going to find out.

As Comey’s behaviour has recently grown more defensive and erratic, there is a mounting belief that he and his FBI agents illegally cut corners and broke the rules in their zealous desire to stop Trump becoming President, and later – under Director McCabe – have him removed when he did.

If that is now proven to be true, then the repercussions for all those involved will be incredibly serious and probably involve some of them going to prison.

Comey needs to be asked, under oath, at what stage did he decide to proceed from a preliminary investigation or inquiry (a ‘PI’) to a full-blown investigation (an ‘FI’)?

This only happens when the FBI has received substantial information that implicates US citizens as agents of a foreign power. But there are very tough rules about how such information is acquired by FBI operatives against a U.S. citizen.

So what information did Comey receive?

How did he and his FBI team receive it?

Who did they task with getting further information, when did they task it, and how did those sources go about their work?

James Comey likes to parade around in some weird kind of moralising halo, but we may be about to discover just how ill fitting that halo is.

For when it comes to soul biting, Comey’s a shameless shark that has munched great chunks out of the integrity and reputation of the FBI.

With every smart-a** tweet, smug talk-show appearance, self-satisfied speech, and mutually back-slapping interview on CNN, Comey causes fresh embarrassment to a bureau that has always prided itself on professionalism and discretion.

Now he might soon see his Icarus style attraction to the bright lights of fame rebound on him in spectacular style.

The net is fast closing on the FBI shark.

And if he doesn’t have some very good answers, James Comey’s next book may be his prison diaries and his next CNN interview conducted from a cell.


Attorney General BARR and How Did the Foul FBI Get to the Point of Russian Collusion?

How the FBI Broke the Rules Using Christopher Steele

by Adam Mill at American Greatness:

Attorney General Bill Barr recently asked a question that all Americans should be asking: “How did we get to the point where . . . the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian Agent?” Barr added that the evidence now shows the accusations were “without a basis” and that “two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false.”

To answer that question, we have to go back and look at two dysfunctional relationships the FBI had with confidential informants. In both cases, the FBI was duped into working for the informant rather than the other way around.

The FBI should have learned its lesson from the spectacular scandal surrounding Whitey Bulger, the kingpin of the notorious Winter Hill gang in Boston whose work as an FBI informant allowed him to expand his criminal empire. As we are now seeing with Christopher Steele, of “Steele dossier” infamy, the FBI learned nothing from the Bulger case and failed to follow the guidelines put in place to prevent what happened with Bulger from happening again.

Bulger’s Double-Cross
In the fall of 1975, FBI agent John Connolly met with Bulger in the agent’s car on an abandoned Boston street corner. What would follow was the FBI’s greatest scandal involving a confidential informant subverting the vast powers of the government in order to target his enemies. This stain on the history of the Department of Justice should have led to effective reforms but instead it only foreshadowed more of the same.

The corruption of the Boston FBI field office and criminal prosecution out of the Boston U.S. attorney’s office began with a simple offer. The Italian mob had begun to feed information to the FBI about Bulger’s Boston-area Winter Hill gang. Connolly, who idolized Bulger from his childhood, offered to reverse the process—taking information from Bulger to target the Italian mob. Bulger accepted the deal but eventually would turn Connolly into his own informant and tool.

Over the years, Bulger bribed Connolly with nearly $250,000 in gifts. Instead of taking information from Bulger to help the government, Connolly raided the files of other informants to credit Bulger with tips he did not provide. This allowed Connolly to maintain the appearance that Bulger provided substantial value in exchange for the FBI’s protection.

When outside investigators caught on and prepared to take action, Connolly warned Bulger his arrest was imminent. After Bulger was captured in 2011 after 16 years on the lam. When he finally went to trial in 2013, the focus wasn’t so much on the 11 murders with which Bulger was charged and mostly on whether the FBI used Bulger as an informant or vice versa.

The Boston Herald noted that the government’s illicit protection of Bulger led to the prosecution and conviction of four innocent men. Bulger and Connolly framed the men as a product of the corruption that infected the Boston FBI and U.S. attorney’s office.

Reputation Over Justice

In 2001, the FBI revised its confidential informant guidelines, largely in response to the Boston debacle. Under current guidelines, when the FBI uses a confidential informant, it should make a “suitability” judgment in order to prevent the would-be informant from exploiting the relationship to use the federal government’s powers against his enemies. As noted by the FBI’s inspector general, the bureau’s suitability judgment is “pivotal.”

Connolly went to prison for using federal government resources to abet Bulger’s crimes. But justice wasn’t served. Then-U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller prevented the release of evidence that would eventually lead to the exoneration and release of the wrongly convicted targets of the Connolly-Bulger conspiracy. Howie Carr of the Boston Herald has been warning Americans for some time that Mueller perpetuated the framing of four innocent men. Two of them died in prison. The other two were released from prison after 35 years for crimes they did not commit.

Carr credits Mueller with prolonging the cover-up of the Connolly-Bulger framing of these men, causing one judge to describe as “chilling” the FBI’s defense of its reputation over the interests of justice.

“This is a case about . . . informant abuse, about the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence bearing on the innocence of the four plaintiffs . . . about . . . not disclosing critical information that would have exonerated the plaintiffs, and not doing so, for 40 years,” wrote Federal District Judge Nancy Gertner.

Remembering Nothing, Learning Nothing
When Hillary Clinton hired Fusion GPS to frame Donald Trump, she wasn’t just hiring a random group of researchers. The power of Fusion GPS comes from its relationships, particularly with reporters and public officials. Fusion GPS had an existing relationship with the two Russians who attended the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. It had a longstanding relationship with the wife of Justice Department attorney Bruce Ohr and was able to leverage that relationship to get Ohr to help promote the collusion hoax to the FBI.

Often overlooked in the hoax is that Fusion GPS used Christopher Steele much the same way it used Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie, paying somebody with an existing relationship with law enforcement to help promote the bogus narrative.

According to the Sun, the FBI paid Christopher Steele more than $1.27 million over two years to help with a corruption case against the world soccer governing body (FIFA). Based on this, and perhaps other history, between the FBI and Steele, the FBI told the FISA court that the former MI6 operative had a history of providing reliable information and that the FBI considered him to be credible.

The FBI’s relationship with Steele reminds us of John Connolly’s relationship with Whitey Bulger in a number of ways. First, the post-Bulger guidelines warn the FBI to make an assessment of the informant’s “motivation in providing information or assistance, including any consideration sought from the government for this assistance.” Remember, Fusion GPS paid Steele at the same time the FBI paid him. He had a job to do for the Clinton campaign and unique access and trust with the FBI to do that job.

According to John Solomon’s reporting, Steele was also known to be politically biased against Trump and, “desperate that Trump not be elected.” Solomon has also reported that the FBI withheld (or at least significantly downplayed) those derogatory facts from the FISA court in much the same way Connolly used to paper over the record to make Bulger appear more credible than he really was.

Second, the post-Bulger guidelines also warn the FBI that the information obtained from the confidential informant “must be truthful.” And we now know Steele’s desperation, or perhaps his love of money, led him to pass on information that he would later admit could be untrue or even “deliberately false.”

Third, the guidelines require that the confidential informant must “abide by the instructions of the [FBI].” As Fox News noted, Steele was “suspended and then terminated” as an FBI source for what the bureau defined “as the most serious of violations”—an “unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.” The FBI would later cite a news report sourced to Steele as a way of corroborating Steele—an echo chamber effect that further corrupted the investigation.

Thus, Steele not only helped trigger FBI-sponsored surveillance against his client’s political enemy, he also interfered in the ongoing presidential election by smearing candidate Trump with a public disclosure of the investigation.

Recall that the February 2018 Nunes memo detailed how Steele in September 2016 leaked information to Yahoo News, even going so far as to suggest he was authorized to speak on behalf of “U.S. officials.” Thus, Steele broke a fourth FBI rule, which bars confidential informants from taking “any independent action on behalf of the United States Government.”

So the Steele tail wagged the FBI dog much the same way Whitey Bulger used the FBI frame his enemies. As Bulger’s money found its way into Connolly’s pocket, so, too, did Clinton money find its way into the Ohrs’ pockets as the husband promoted Steele’s work to the FBI.

Some may argue that the Russia collusion hoax is nowhere near as serious as the tragedy of four men being framed for murder by an FBI agent trying to protect a “confidential informant.” But the Trump-Russia hoax is arguably far worse because of the lasting damage it has done to our constitutional republic. As serious as the allegations against Trump were, framing a person for treason may be worse than treason itself. The hoaxsters have done incalculable damage to the rule of law and Americans’ faith in the justice system.

Perhaps Donald Trump’s greatest unwitting accomplishment has been to shine public attention on the two-tiered justice system that, at its very center, seems to have become an instrument of political power over and against the people it is meant to serve.