• 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


Countless billions of American dollars have been spent in the past twenty years supporting  the con-artist Al Gore political campaign that the Earth is dramatically heating up, and that this heating up is, will be a killer to all human kind, and that the white man is responsible for this coming disaster unless you and your government support  the cause financially and politically by  supporting Democrats and Fascists throughout the World.

Yet there is NO evidence whatsoever that white man’s inventions have any significant effect upon global warming whatsoever BEYOND THE POLITICAL.

It’s all a racket!?!   …. Al Gore, a con-artist of the Ages?!!   YES, ACCORDING TO WHAT MANKIND DOES KNOW ABOUT OUR EARTH’S PAST.

Twelve thousand years ago most of my Minnesota was a thousand or more feet under ice for several thousand years.   Yet, 65,000,000 years ago the Dakota plains to the West of us in Minnesota were populated by dinosaurs, jungles, and ferns hundreds of feet tall.

You, dear adult readers, should have been taught such reality when you were in school….but your teachers were poorly educated…..and have much slouched now selling fascism to your children.

Craig Rucker has been stalwart for years in his efforts challenging the Al Gore corrupt financial and political world selling GLOBAL WARMING!

He wrote the other day:


The global warming campaign would have more credibility if its proponents weren’t constantly getting caught in the lie.

They spin the facts and the media let’s them get away with it.  Sadly for team warming, there are still plenty of us out there who won’t let bogus claims go unchallenged.  If the science was actually settled, why distort the news?

Case in point, check out the excellent article Dr. Jay Lehr posted at CFACT.orgdebunking (yet again) the spurious claim that 97% of scientists all agree that no global warming claim, no matter how wild, dare ever be challenged.

Many articles have been written to refute this claim but they all dig into the statistical weeds. Common sense alone should set you straight. If the reader wishes he or she could read the original paper by Naomi Oreskes that started it all in Science Magazine in December of 2004. Be aware you might die laughing…

Simple proof of this erroneous talking point is provided by the Global Warming Petition Project at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2015. They obtained signatures on a Declaration from 31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s that stated they did not believe man kind had a significant impact on his climate. The declaration included the words: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human releases of carbon dioxide methane or other greenhouse gases are causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”

They made all the names available in a paper back book.It is rather doubtful that these people all comprise the 3% of non believers.

Check out Dr. Lehr’s full account.

Science works on objective reality, not consensus.

Especially not a phony consensus.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker

The Constant Lying Makes Our American Leftists Feminists and FASCISTS!

The Lies Leftists Tell about Hate Crimes

By William Sullivan  at  American Thinker:


When confronted with an immediate question in the wake of the news about Jussie Smollett having fabricated the hate crime he allegedly suffered, Cory Booker was calmly reserved with his comments, saying he would “withhold [judgment] until all the information actually comes out.”

It was certainly a curious response, because he initially had no such reservations or skepticism regarding Smollett’s farcical story about two MAGA-hatted white guys carrying bleach and a noose at 2 A.M. in sub-zero temperatures, waiting to violently remind any passing black guy that the streets of Chicago are somehow “MAGA country.”  But what’s even more curious is that Booker continued defending the predetermined narrative of white racism by saying that “we actually know, in this country, since 9/11, that the majority of terrorist attacks on our soil have been right-wing terrorist attacks, and the majority of them have been white supremacist attacks.”

Like you, I’d never before heard anyone refer to Jussie Smollett’s alleged attack as a “terrorist attack” until Cory Booker invoked those words.  Why did he?

What Cory Booker was referencing, and the “since 9/11” statement seems to be a dead giveaway, is likely the data collected in a well known study conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggesting that “right-wing” terrorist attacks occur more frequently than Islamic ones.

Though that study has its own issues, which I’ve highlighted before, comparing right-wing terrorism to Islamic terrorism is nothing more than a red herring in this case.  The narrative that Jussie Smollett’s hoax attack was meant to prove is that Trump’s presidency has led to a massive increase in white Americans committing hate crimes against minorities unlike anything we’ve seen in decades.

Hate crime data don’t actually support that narrative, however, and that’s likely why Cory Booker, when put on the spot, decided to cite an altogether unrelated study about terrorism.  The raw data on hate crimes, as compiled by the FBI, simply don’t suggest that white hate crimes are uniquely on the rise, despite the illusion being presented to the American people that they are.

In 2009, for example, the FBI statistics show that there were 2,724 “anti-black” hate crimes committed, 1,503 of which were committed at the hands of white offenders.  In 2017, which year contains the latest data provided by the FBI, that number decreased by roughly 13.5% to 2,358 at the hands of 1,241 white offenders.

Inversely, in 2009, anti-white hate crimes were at 652 and saw an increase to 844 in 2017 — nearly a 30% increase, which includes a 26% increase in anti-white hate crimes by black offenders.

This general point should be simple enough.  From the year after Obama’s election to the year after Trump’s election, the number of anti-black hate crimes decreased, while the number of anti-white hate crimes increased.

It’s important to note that all hate crime had dropped by 2014, but that year signified a stunning reversal of a declining trend going back to at least 2006.  In 2006, there were 9,080 total hate crimes tallied by the FBI.  In 2009, there were 7,789, and by 2014, there were 6,418.

Something happened at that moment, however, that reversed that trend across the board, in nearly every measurable category.

In 2015, there were 6,885 hate crimes recorded by the FBI.  In 2017, that number indeed spiked to 8,437.  But while there was an 11% increase in anti-black hate crimes recorded during that timeframe, it also coincided with a 15% increase in anti-white hate crimes.

Interestingly, between 2015 and 2017, there was only a 1% increase in known white offenders committing anti-black hate crimes, despite there being a clearly correlating ~13% increase in known black offenders committing anti-white hate crimes.

A significant driver of that curious discrepancy is that the number of offenses where the race was “unknown” in anti-black hate crime had jumped by ~33% between 2015 and 2017.

We like to look at these hate crime data and assume that these are proven or solved crimes we are talking about.  They are not.  According to the FBI methodology, “the term known offender does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known”; rather, it implies that “some aspect of the suspect was identified.”

In other words, if Jussie Smollett had not been caught fabricating his attack, the incident would have likely been recorded by the Chicago police and provided to the FBI as an anti-black hate crime at the hands of “known white offenders.”

How thin must the evidence of all these additional crimes be, we might ask, if the race of the offender is altogether “unknown”?

To say fabricated hate crimes can occur is a gross understatement, and to say hate crimes are far more often fabricated by individuals in minority demographics, where victimhood often amounts to social currency in the media, is just simple logic.

Andy Ngo has done the yeoman’s work of compiling a large list of recent hate crime hoaxes, all of which involve “victims” who fit neatly in the intersectional hierarchy of victimhood having fabricated a hate crime.  Rarely, if ever, is it the inverse of those circumstances.

If this many hate crime hoaxes can be identified, how many undetected hoaxes make it into FBI hate crime statistics?  A few hundred?  A thousand or more?  It’s impossible to know.

In short, hate crime data are incredibly unreliable, and they certainly present more animosity toward minorities than actually exists in America.  The only question is how much more.

Hate crime law is all ridiculous nonsense on its face.  Crimes are crimes, and hate crime laws arbitrarily suggest that some crimes are worse than others based upon the rationale leading to the crime rather than judgment based upon the severity of the crime itself.  Buried within these cited statistics above are examples of intimidation, vandalism, rape, arson, theft, assault, and murder.  The distinctions among those actual crimes should mean everything, but for mass consumption, they’re all just labeled “hate crimes,” with the supposed impetus of bigotry as the primary feature worthy of note.  These crimes are sculpted into broad, misleading statistics that leftists can use to signify that America is a hateful place where demographic minorities are unfairly targeted as victims of crimes.

And even with the benefit of their subjective data constructs and media support, leftists still cannot present an intelligent argument to defend their narrative, because their own data and reality completely destroy it.

So instead, you can just expect them to continue calling white people terrorists.



Fascistics Win Again at Google


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Google has done away with its Artificial Intelligence Ethics Board, apparently because leftists at the company objected to inclusion of Heritage Foundation President Kay Coles James on the board:

[E]mployees immediately claimed that James’s position on transgender identity involved advocating violence against them. An employee leaked an internal discussion on the issue, and the comments proved terrifying.
Some employees defended James’s addition to the board in the name of including diverse perspectives. Even this suggestion was demonized.

“I think that people have been very clear that the problem with the Heritage Foundation isn’t that they ‘don’t think like I do’ but that they actively and stridently advocate for religiously based anti­LGBTQ+ policies that immiserate my friends, colleagues, and comrades and has a real and damaging impact on their lives,” one employee wrote.

Disagreement is violence! I met Kay James at a dinner a year or so ago, and can assure you that she is not a proponent of violence.

The Heritage Foundation has hosted many events criticizing transgender identity. It has hosted former transgender Walt Heyer, who runs the website SexChangeRegret.com. It has hosted Julia Beck, a lesbian feminist who got kicked off of the Baltimore LGBT Commission for disagreeing with transgender identity.

Beck has warned that embracing transgender identity in civil rights law would allow biological men in women’s bathrooms and changing rooms and in women’s sports.

That seems rather obviously correct. But transgender activism has entered the holy pantheon of leftist ideologies that cannot be debated.

Mike Wacker, a Google employee concerned about animus against conservatives and Christians at the company, warned that conservative employees at Google are terrified of defending Kay Coles James internally, “especially if someone reports them to HR. That fear is justified.”

Corporate human resources departments are among the main sources of evil in today’s world.

Wacker pointed to a survey from the Lincoln Network, in which one conservative tech employee wrote, “Employees will interpret your words in the most offensive way possible, then report you to HR based on that interpretation. It’s one big offendedness sweepstakes. When people get in trouble, it’s often based not on what they said, but on how others interpreted their words, regardless of how unreasonable that interpretation is.”

“I’ve seen someone get reported to HR for sharing a National Review article,” the conservative employee wrote.

There is much more at the link. Bottom line is that Google and other left-wing tech companies should not be ceded control over public discourse in America.



Dems Are No Longer Yesterday’s Democrats. They’ve Become Dem Fascists Who Care NOTHING About TRUTH!


by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

I’m on an airplane right now with the usual crappy airborne internet service, but watching the breaking news of AG Barr’s summary of the Mueller Report. It is a complete rout for Democrats and the media, notwithstanding the confused section about possible obstruction of the investigation by Trump. Expect Democrats to cling to this slim reed to keep The Resistance ginned up. But that slim reed is very likely to snap off underneath them pretty fast. In fact, if I were inclined to devious thinking (who, me?), I’d almost think Mueller and Barr wrote that problematic obstruction passage just to keep the Democrats in full beclowning mode. For Democrats, the Mueller Report has turned out to be the Fyre Festival of investigations.

At the very beginning of the investigation, a lot of observers raised eyebrows that Mueller hired so many Democratic lawyers—some of them even donors to Hillary’s campaign—to work on the investigation. I had a counterintuitive hunch that if Trump was in the clear, the final report that exonerated him would be politically bulletproof. How are Democrats going to argue with a straight face that the investigation was a sham or a cover-up? Right now it is hard to see House Democrats assembling enough votes to pass an impeachment resolution.

As usual, I’m not watching the Fox coverage, but flipping back and forth between MSNBC and CNN. They’re pretty glum, but also noting that there could be “voter fatigue” if Democrats won’t let go of it.

The hazard now for the impulsive Trump would be to grant pardons to Paul Mannafort and others and to continue to blast the investigation as a witch hunt (even though it was). I doubt this would go down very well.

More to come. Stay tuned.

P.S. Did you happen to notice that Trump was entirely silent on Twitter all weekend? And then this morning he seemed to be trolling everyone with these:

UPDATE: I’m watching MSNBC, and it’s only taken 30 minutes for the initial glumness to give way to rallying behind some talking points to keep the whole thing going. Resistance! Keep Hope Alive! (And boy are they mad that this didn’t work out like they expected.)


Murdering Christians Throughout the World Ignored in Leftist America

Media Silence Surrounds Muslim Massacre of Christians

Christians massacred Nigeria
Pius Utomi Ekpei / AFP / Getty Images

Political leaders and public figures were falling over themselves this weekend to condemn the mosque attacks in New Zealand, while dozens of Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in Nigeria to the sound of crickets.

The mosque attacks were indeed a horrific affair and worthy of universal condemnation. Presidents, prime ministers, royalty, and religious leaders rushed to extend their condolences to victims and their families — as well they should — while decrying the hate that purportedly motivated the shootings.

Without exception, the mainstream media gave top billing to the shootings, with newspapers carrying the story on their front pages and television news channels leading off their broadcasts with the story.

The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa.

As Breitbart News alone reported among major news outlets, Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror.

The New York Times did not place this story on the front page; in fact, they did not cover it at all. Apparently, when assessing “all the news that’s fit to print,” the massacre of African Christians did not measure up. The same can be said for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, the LA Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

The news shows from the three major television channels did not mention the story, and nor did CNN or MSNBC.

There are several possible explanations for this remarkable silence, and none of them is good.

Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare.

A second motive for the media silence around the massacre of Christians in Nigeria may be geo-political and racial. New Zealand is a first-world country where such things are not supposed to happen, whereas many people still consider Africa to be a backwards place where brutal killings are par for the course.

Moreover, the slaughter of black Christians in Africa may not enkindle rage among westerners the way that the murder of white and brown Muslims in New Zealand would.

Finally, the story simply does not play to the political agenda that many mainstream media would like to advance. How much mileage can be gained from Muslims murdering Christians, when Christians in America are often seen as an obstacle to the “progress” desired by liberals? The left sees Christians in the United States as part of the problem and seeks to undermine their credibility and influence at every turn rather than emboldening them.

Anti-Christian bias has been rightly called “the last acceptable prejudice,” one that few bother condemning.

“No one much cares about offending Christians,” wrote the coalition of African-American pastors in an essay last Tuesday. “In fact, mocking, belittling, and blaspheming Christianity is becoming a bit of a trend in our culture. Anti-Christian bigotry truly is the last acceptable prejudice.”

“The hypocrisy on display is astounding,” the pastors continued. “Christianity is the dominant religion of our country. It is the foundation of our government and morality. And yet, Christians are treated as fair game for mockery and insult.”

Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in the world, but the mainstream media routinely ignore this fact as if it were unimportant or uninteresting. As a result, many people do not even realize how widespread the persecution is or that 75 percent of the victims of religious persecution around the world are Christians.

Whatever the reason — or reasons — for the media silence surrounding the most recent massacres of Christians in Nigeria as well as numerous other such events, it should give right-thinking people pause.

By all means, the lethal shootings of dozens of Muslims in New Zealand is a massive story and merits extensive coverage. But it only stands to reason that similar coverage should be devoted to the slaughter of Christians.

For the moment, it serves as a poignant reminder that a double standard is at work when it comes to news coverage, and that it is Christians who inevitably draw the short straw.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter


Dem Ditsy Fascists Blame Christchurch Murders in New Zealand on Trump Republicans…..!


by John Hinderaker    at PowerLine:

We haven’t written anything about the Christchurch, New Zealand, massacre. There probably isn’t much to say. Nevertheless, a few observations.

1) Liberals wasted no time trying to make political hay out of the slaughter. The deplorable Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tied the murders to President Trump. It is noteworthy that liberals attribute almost superhuman powers to Donald Trump, attributing responsibility to him for pretty much anything that goes on in the world. The only phenomena for which the Left does not assign responsibility to the president are the intended, beneficent results of his own policies.

2) Brenton Tarrant published a typical mass murderer’s manifesto in which he described himself as an “eco-fascist,” expressed hatred for conservatism and said that Communist China is his ideal country. Tarrant is an environmentalist who bought the global warming hype hook, line and sinker. His closest analogy is perhaps the Unabomber.

Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?

Because they are the same issue, the environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by so doing save the environment.

But poring over the ravings of lunatics to find ideological meaning is basically useless, like examining the entrails of a chicken in search of omens.

3) From a policy standpoint, the only lesson that can be drawn from the Christchurch massacre is reflected in the difference in the casualty totals between the two attacks. Forty-one were killed at the Dean Ave. mosque, the first one that was targeted, where the murderer had plenty of time and at one point returned to his vehicle to reload. There were only seven killed at the Linwood mosque because one of the worshippers was armed:

A second shooting happened at a mosque in the Linwood area of the city.

One Friday prayer goer returned fire with a rifle or shotgun.

Witnesses said they heard multiple gunshots around 1.45 pm.

A well known Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off.

He was heard telling police officers he was firing in “self defence”.

Early reports of catastrophic events like these always turn out to be wrong in some respects, but it does appear that armed self-defense was the key to the less tragic outcome at Linwood. Murder is the result of human evil and will never be eradicated in this world, but if more people arm themselves, there will be fewer mass murder events.



Note from ghr:   Near East Coptic Christians have been murdered by Islamists  in  the tens of thousands in the Near East the past two decades, but America’s newsprint and television empires have never given the slaughters much attention……even in the
“fair and balance” world.   We read in Leftist Republican owned fascistic StarTribune this morning’s edition, “MASSACRE WAS FUELED BY HATE”…..followed by “Self-described racist, fascist, killed 49 in New Zealand mosque attacks” for a sub title……even though racist and fascist are neither very  truthful nor accurate adjectives to apply unless readers are given far more information about the race and politics of the victims who, we  were told, were Muslims.   Perhaps the victims in New Zealand  included white Muslims.

We have a lot of Islamists in Minnesota these days….most from Somalia, most in Minneapolis.   The most popular Islamist in the US Congress is well known, loud speaking DEMOCRAT  Islamist, Ilhan Omar who represents Minneapolis’s 5th District.

The Washington Post and New York Times are the major majorettes reporting front ten page news at today’s Mpls StarTribune……which is owned by a RINO.



Byron York: Yes, Trump is target of ‘presidential harassment’

President Trump often complains that he is the victim of “presidential harassment” — or, as he sometimes puts it, “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!”

“Presidential Harassment by ‘crazed’ Democrats at the highest level in the history of our Country,” Trump tweeted on March 3. “After more than two years of Presidential Harassment, the only things that have been proven is that Democrats and others broke the law,” he added later. “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! It should never be allowed to happen again!” he tweeted Feb. 7.

The president’s adversaries of course dismiss his protests as self-interested whining. But the fact is, Trump has a point. He is the target of an extraordinary combination, not just of federal law enforcement and congressional probes, but a long list of less-discussed but potentially consequential investigations by state and local prosecutors and regulators.

Together, it adds up to a pile-on of unprecedented proportions, by and large the work of blue-state Democrats who stand to gain politically if their investigations succeed in crippling the president.

Recently, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the agency that regulates the insurance business, issued what the New York Times called an “expansive subpoena” to Aon, the insurance broker for the president’s companies. The agency leaped into action after former Trump fixer Michael Cohen told the House that Trump had at some point inflated his assets to an insurance company. Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and faces serious questions about the truthfulness of his latest testimony, supplied no details.

None were needed. “The subpoena that was served on Aon contains no indication that the company or any of its employees engaged in misconduct,” the Times reported. “Nor does it specify any possible wrongdoing that is the focus of the inquiry by state regulators.” The subpoena demanded “a broad range of materials” related to Trump’s dealings with Aon going back a decade, the Times said.

Also in New York, the State Department of Taxation and Finance announced last October that it is investigating Trump’s taxes going back at least 20 years.

New York state officials have also filed suit against the Trump Foundation, which has agreed to dissolve as part of the investigation.

Speaking of state law enforcement, the recent New York Attorney General race was virtually a contest to see which candidate could vow to go after Trump the most aggressively. In her victory speech, new Attorney General Letitia James said of Trump, “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.”

Outside of New York, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia are suing Trump, accusing him of violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Then, there is the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, based in Manhattan. Prosecutors there are said to be investigating the Trump Organization’s finances; the funding of the Trump inauguration; and the funding of the Trump SuperPAC Rebuilding America Now.

The SDNY investigations hold a large place in the hopes of Trump opponents who fear Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller might deliver an underwhelming report that does not make the case that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election or that he obstructed justice in the aftermath. Indeed, a number of observers believe the SDNY probes pose a more serious threat to Trump than Mueller.

Does there seem something odd about that? In a recent email exchange, I asked Andrew Coan, a University of Arizona law professor who is the author of the book Prosecuting the President, whether there is precedent for a U.S. Attorney’s office conducting a wide-ranging, open-ended investigation of a sitting president.

“The short answer is no,” Coan responded. “I am aware of no comparable prior investigation.”

The reason I asked was that it seems that the basis for the now-expired independent counsel law, and for special counsels that exist today, is that a president, when investigated, should be investigated in a specific way, and not in the normal course of business by federal prosecutors. Coan noted that a special counsel was appointed in Watergate on the rationale that “a U.S. Attorney could not be trusted to investigate the president who appointed him.” Today, by all accounts, Coan added, SDNY prosecutors have pursued their investigation aggressively, but the appointment of another special counsel from outside the Justice Department “would provide some additional assurance that this investigation is not being influenced by political pressure.”

By pressure, Coan meant pressure from the president. But in New York, there could also be the possibility of pressure created by the general atmosphere of resistance to a hated chief executive in a heavily Democratic state.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats have long viewed Trump’s tax returns, which he broke 40-year precedent by refusing to release, as a sort of Holy Grail of Trump investigations. “We have to have the truth,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said before the election. Now, the House Ways & Means Committee is reportedly preparing to demand the Treasury Department turn over the returns. The demand is based primarily on suspicion that Trump must have done something wrong with his taxes or he would have long ago released the returns. If Democrats get the returns, and that is not guaranteed given the expected legal fight, it’s likely they will start even more investigations.

Beyond that, there is the House Judiciary Committee’s recent decision to demand documents from 81 people associated with Trump, a request so wide-ranging that even some Democrats worry that their party’s investigators have overreached.

“The extensive scope could bolster claims by Trump and Republicans that congressional Democrats are seeking to undermine the president and cripple his 2020 reelection effort rather than conduct a disciplined, fact-finding inquiry,” the Washington Post reported. Yes, it could.

And all of that is apart from the Mueller probe and the Senate and House Trump-Russia investigations.

The point is, the scrutiny directed at the president from all sides, not oversight of his administration or even investigations into his election, so far exceeds anything in the past that it could well qualify as presidential harassment.

Democrats would no doubt respond that Trump is singularly corrupt, or that he brought it all on himself. He did not. What has happened is that Democrats, in Congress and in some key blue states, saw investigation as a way to weaken a president they never thought would be elected and want to ensure is not re-elected in 2020. And Trump, with the most extensive business history ever brought to the presidency, presented a lot of avenues of investigation. When he complains about harassment, he has a legitimate case to make.