• 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

Nasty John Brennan’s Secret Trip to Moscow

John Brennan’s Secret Trip to Moscow

by Daniel John Sobieski   at   American Thinker:

The Russians say he did, and while some might say, well, these are the same Russians who helped put together the Steele dossier filled with “salacious and unverified” material, and may once again be playing with us, there is evidence that Brennan, the man who voted for communist Gus Hall for president, did make the trip in March 2016 for purposes unknown:

“It’s no secret that Brennan was here,” claimed Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov.  “But he didn’t visit the Foreign Ministry.  I know for sure that he met with the Federal Security Service (the successor agency to the Soviet KGB), and someone else.”

No further remarks clarify what Brennan was allegedly doing in Moscow or what he discussed with the FSB.  Syromolotov insists it had nothing to do with Russia’s withdrawal from Syria.

Sputnik News, a Kremlin-controlled propaganda outlet, quotes CIA Director of Public Affairs Dean Boyd as affirming that Brennan did, in fact, discuss Syria during the visit.  “Director Brennan,” he allegedly said, “reiterated the US government’s consistent support for a genuine political transition in Syria, and the need for [President Bashar] Assad’s departure in order to facilitate a transition that reflects the will of the Syrian people.”

The website GlobalSecurity.Org goes into somewhat more detail about Brennan’s Moscow trip without clearing up confusion about what the purpose of the trip might have been:

News of the CIA chief’s visit to the Russian capital was first made public on Monday by a Russian foreign ministry spokesman and subsequently confirmed by the CIA.

“It’s no secret that Brennan was here,” the Interfax news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Oleg Syromolotov as telling journalists in Moscow.

He added that the visit was not linked to Moscow’s decision to start withdrawing military forces from Syria, which President Vladimir Putin announced on March 14.

Dean Boyd, director of the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs, confirmed Monday that Brennan visited Moscow.

“Director Brennan traveled to Russia in early March to emphasize with Russian officials the importance of Russia and the Assad regime following through on their agreements to implement the cessation of hostilities in Syria,” said Boyd.

He added that Brennan “also reiterated the U.S. government’s consistent support for a genuine political transition in Syria, and the need for Assad’s departure in order to facilitate a transition that reflects the will of the Syrian people.”

Now, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for a CIA director to make a trip to Moscow, but when a Russian deputy foreign minister says he didn’t visit the Foreign Ministry itself but did visit the KGB’s successor, the Federal Security Service (FSB), it raises some eyebrows.

Consider that John Brennan is a Trump-hating perjurer who lied to Congress about secret surveillance.  He is the crown prince of a Deep State fiefdom that has its own agenda.  The end justifies the means in their world, and Brennan may have been up to his eyeballs in developing that “insurance policy” against a Trump victory.

Certainly, he ruthlessly defended his CIA turf.  The mind hearkens back to the day when an op-ed in the Washington Post, that right-wing rag, called for Brennan to be fired for conducting illegal surveillance of the Senate Intelligence Committee and then lying about it:

Brennan was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers “to thwart an investigation by the committee into” the agency’s past interrogation techniques.  The accusation had been made earlier that day by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said the CIA had “violated the separation-of-powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution.” Brennan answered:

As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth.  I mean, we wouldn’t do that.  I mean, that’s – that’s just beyond the – you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do. …

And, you know, when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.

(You can see the video of Brennan’s answer here.)

Now we know that the truth was far different.  The Post’s Greg Miller reports:

CIA Director John O. Brennan has apologized to leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee after an agency investigation determined that its employees improperly searched computers used by committee staff to review classified files on interrogations of prisoners. …

A statement released by the CIA on Tuesday acknowledged that agency employees had searched areas of that computer network that were supposed to be accessible only to committee investigators.  Agency employees were attempting to discover how congressional aides had obtained a secret CIA internal report on the interrogation program.

Brennan once proudly admitted that he voted for Communist Party leader Gus Hall and openly supports liars and perjurers like Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and James Comey.  The possibility that he went to Moscow to personally obtain a copy of the dossier and similar material is real.  As I wrote here recently, Brennan may have colluded with foreign spies to help Hillary Clinton.

There is another scenario as plausible as the one asserting that Team Trump, and perhaps President Trump himself, colluded with the Russians.  It is that John Brennan himself colluded with the Russians to help Hillary win to guarantee his continued tenure as CIA director.  It involves the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, used by Brenan and others as a pretext for a Trump investigation bonanza.  As the American Spectator reported:

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump.  One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election – Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy.  He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people[.] …

The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press.  According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others.  The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia.  The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin).  But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).

The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan “passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.”  To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill.  In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the “Gang of Eight” about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.

Could it be that Brennan himself is the leaker of classified information and is up to his eyeballs in using foreign sources to gather dirt on President Trump for the purpose of keeping him out of the White House?  Brennan’s briefing of Sen. Harry Reid, which included information from the Steele dossier, certainly is a key indicator of his participation in the campaign to keep or kick Donald Trump out of the White House:

According to “Russian Roulette,” by Yahoo! News chief investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff and David Corn, the Washington bureau chief of the left-wing Mother Jones magazine, Brennan contacted Reid on Aug. 25, 2016, to brief him on the state of Russia’s interference in the presidential campaign.  Brennan briefed other members of the so-called Gang of Eight, but Reid is the only who took direct action.

Two days after the briefing, Reid wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey asserting that “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount.

Reid’s letter referred to some public reporting about Trump campaign associates’ links to the Kremlin, but he also included a reference to information that may not have been made public at the time.  He cited allegations that were included in the infamous Steele dossier about Carter Page, an adviser to the Trump campaign at the time.

It would seem that the trip to Russia we should be investigating is not Carter Page’s, but rather John Brennan’s.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/john_brennans_secret_trip_to_moscow.html

Mike Pompeo Better Become U.S. Secretary of State..OR MITCH McCONNELL’S HEAD SHOULD ROLL

Deadline: Corker Sets Monday Committee Vote On Pompeo Confirmation; Update: Heitkamp Endorses Pompeo

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

Let the games … continue. There’s already been a considerable amount of game-playing surrounding the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Democrats have their first real opportunity to block a Donald Trump Cabinet appointee in a floor vote, and the first step is to tarnish Pompeo with a negative recommendation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Chair Bob Corker started the countdown today to a Monday committee vote:

SEE ALSO: Lindsey Graham: I endorse Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has set a vote for Monday on Mike Pompeo’s nomination as President Trump’s secretary of state.

Pompeo, who has made headlines in recent days for his secret trip to North Korea over Easter weekend, won the backing of the committee last year as CIA director but faces longer odds this time.

To secure the committee’s blessing, Pompeo will need at least one vote from the 10 Democrats on the 21-member panel. That’s because the day after Pompeo’s nomination was announced, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), formally stated his opposition to Pompeo’s bid.

It’s not just Paul now, either. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who plans to retire at the end of the year, stated that he’s not sure whether he’ll support Pompeo in committee or on the floor, either. That would force Corker to find two Democrats on the SFRC in order to get a positive recommendation for the full confirmation floor vote that Mitch McConnell will likely expedite, regardless of how the committee vote goes.

Needless to say, the likelihood of even getting one Democrat on the committee is rather low. Ranking member Bob Menendez has publicly stated his opposition to Pompeo, as have most of the other Democrats on the SFRC. That makes the necessity of shoring up the GOP position even more urgent, and Reason’s Robby Soave reports this morning that Trump himself has lobbied Paul to reconsider:

President Donald Trump is confident he will ultimately convince Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to vote to confirm CIA Director Mike Pompeo, the president’s pick to be the next secretary of state. Trump told reporters that Paul “is a very special guy” who has “never let me down.” …

CNN reported that Trump called Paul yesterday and asked him to give Pompeo another chance:

Paul told reporters on Capitol Hill that Trump called him a “few minutes ago” and asked for him to meet with Pompeo and he will.

“I’m open to meeting right now and we’ll see what happens in the meeting,” he said with a smile, adding that no date had been set for the meeting.

The administration is hoping that Pompeo’s starring role in setting up peace talks with North Korea and dialing down the need for military action will appeal to Paul. If Paul flips back, one would presume that Flake would come along for the ride, leaving Corker with the majority he needs to avoid embarrassing the White House.

Either way, though, McConnell intends to have a floor vote on Pompeo. In a floor speech earlier today, McConnell insisted that a vote against Pompeo would be a vote against the diplomacy that naysayers claim they’re defending:

In recent days, the world learned Director Pompeo had undertaken initial conversations with representatives of North Korea, in an effort to bring Kim Jong Un to the table and discuss denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Pursued with clear-eyed realism and clear objectives, this is a worthy effort, and in the best interests of the United States, our allies, and the world.

Although every Commander-in-Chief has insisted it would be unacceptable for North Korea to obtain a nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, it is this administration that finds itself having to actually accomplish that objective. So as a matter of policy, I was encouraged by this news. Based on Director Pompeo’s impressive record at the CIA, the North Koreans undoubtedly view him as credible, determined, and insightful. The quiet nature of these discussions reflect their seriousness. …

I’ve recently heard some critics claim the Trump administration places too little emphasis on diplomacy. In truth, the public statements of Secretary Mattis, former Secretary Tillerson, and former national security advisor McMaster have signaled a clear preference for aggressive, realistic diplomacy over potentially risking American lives. But regardless, in confirming Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, the Senate can ensure the nation has a chief diplomat who enjoys the complete confidence of the president.

Those who claim to want a larger role for diplomacy should match those words with action and vote to approve him.

That will be just five minutes of a 30-hour debate sometime next week or the week after, regardless of what the SFRC does. But if Paul and Flake aren’t coming along, can Pompeo prevail? John McCain may or may not be around for the vote due to his health, and McCain might have reservations about Pompeo too [see update]. That leaves 48 Republicans and a two-vote gap for McConnell and Trump. Can they get two from Democrats?

The Hill’s Jordan Cainey reports that it’s possible:

Of the 15 minority members who backed Pompeo for CIA director, roughly half have now said they will oppose him for the State Department. Being the country’s top diplomat, they say, is vastly different from running a spy agency. …

Of the Senate Democrats who supported Pompeo’s CIA nomination, seven have yet to say how they’ll vote now: Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Mark Warner (Va.). King has also not said how he will vote.

Pompeo met with Warner and McCaskill on Wednesday and had previously met with Manchin and Heitkamp.

“Still working on it. … We had a good conversation. We’re having more of them,” Manchin said on Wednesday.

Four of these face tough re-election bids in states Trump won in 2016: McCaskill, Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp. They’d be more likely to flip if the SFRC reports Pompeo out with an endorsement, though, in order to protect their left flank when it comes time to rally Democrats in these states to the polls. But there’s another Democrat who wasn’t around for Pompeo’s CIA confirmation vote that might have even more reason to be, er, reasonable:

Some moderate Democrats, as well as independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, declined to weigh in, saying they want to discuss it with the nominee first. “I’m going to reserve my comments, and let me talk to Director Pompeo about all that,” said Sen. Doug Jones, a Democrat from Alabama.

Other moderate Democrats who are undecided on Pompeo’s nomination say his North Korea trip is not a major concern. “It might be a positive thing, actually,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. “I look at it as a potential positive.”

Jones owes his seat to the incompetence of Republicans in a special election, not a shift to the left in Alabama. He has to run for re-election, and helping to torpedo one of Trump’s nominees will be portrayed as a sign that Jones is nothing more than a rubber stamp for Democratic party leaders. Tester is an even more interesting case, though, since he seems to be in pretty good position to win re-election whatever he chooses here.

All of this becomes unnecessary if Trump and Pompeo can convince Rand Paul to come back into the fold. Which means that …. all of this will likely be necessary.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/19/deadline-corker-sets-monday-committee-vote-pompeo-confirmation/

REP. NUNES Threatens to IMPEACH WRAY AND ROSENSTEIN!

NUNES Threatens to IMPEACH WRAY AND ROSENSTEIN!

by Tim Haines   at  American Thinker:

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that he is prepared to impeach the Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director if they don’t provide information he has been requesting immediately. Nunes is interested in the documents related to the original 2016 counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s possible ties to the Trump campaign. The document would shed light on why the collusion probe exists in the first place.

“Just the fact that they’re not giving this to us tells me there’s something wrong here,” the California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on ‘The Ingraham Angle’ Tuesday night.

“I can tell you that we’re not just going to hold in contempt, we will have a plan to hold in contempt and to impeach,” Nunes told Ingraham his committee would do to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if they don’t bow to his demand.

“We’re not messing around here, they are going to give up this document,” Nunes said, warning that after the Wednesday night deadline things “will get really complicated.”

Nunes joked that fighting to obtain documents from the Department of Justice was his “lot in life,” and complained that he has been trying to view this document for more than a year.

“I can tell you this,” he said. “We are going to get the document. So they can either cough them up now, or it is going to get really complicated starting Wednesday night, and we’ll have to take all the steps necessary to get the document.”

“I don’t think we’re going to have to do this,” he also said. “I think we’re going to get the documents.”

Watch the full interview for more details:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/11/nunes_threatens_to_impeach_wray_and_rosenstein_if_doj_cant_provide_documents_on_original_trumprussia_investigation.html

 

 

 

 

Hogg, the little Demagogic liar….by Ben Shapiro

GOOD RIDDANCE, JEFF! YOU’RE A FLAKE AND A TRAITOR!

Jeff Flake In New Hampshire: I’m An Endangered Species Of Conservative; “Americanus Never-Trumpus, Subgenus RINO”

by Tim Rains  at  realclearpolitics:

“Republican Jeff Flake delivered a speech Thursday at the annual ‘Politics and Eggs’ event at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. Flake said that during the administration of President Donald Trump, conservatives were an endangered species and the Republican Party had surrendered to a “propaganda-fueled dystopian view.”

Flake, who recently called for a 2020 Republican primary challenger against President Trump, is in the group of people who might do just that. “I haven’t ruled it out,” he told CNN later in this same day.

“I stand before you today the rarest of species,” the retiring moderate Republican said at the start of his speech. “The American Conservative.”

Americanus Never-Trumpus, subgenus RINO,” he joked. “There is a scurrilous rumor afoot that we’re not only rare but endangered. I don’t believe it!”

“But seriously, when the putatively conservative party loses its grasp on the meaning of basic terms –basically, the word conservative– that could just be a sign we’ve taken a wrong turn,” he said. “Say, hypothetically in 2018 we have a libertine budget-busting president who exudes chaos and dotes on authoritarians, who has replaced the State Dept. with Twitter, lives in a golden palace when he’s not at the White House, and he’s the conservative… And I’m the RINO.”

“The amazing thing is that in Washington right now, among people in my party, when you hear those two comparative profiles, people will say… yeah what’s the problem? It is like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. What have we done with all the conservatives?”

“In seriousness though, we have a long road to recover as a party.”

Later, he said: “There is nothing that will be more vital then to expunge from the American record then this frenzied attack on the truth. There are few jobs that will be more difficult than putting that particular horseback in the barn. Such is the power of the president to either build or destroy. And the irony should not escape us here that someone whose name became known to us as a builder would have such a pension for destruction.”

“What does it say about conservatives that our message is so different than the words that my parents thought me, so different as to amount to a rejection of the optimistic vision of Ronald Reagan, the extraordinary decency of George H. W. Bush, the principled constitutionalism of Barry Goldwater? What does it say that we have succumbed to what can only be described as a propaganda-fueled dystopian view of conservatism?” he asked.

Adam Schiff, The Truthless Democrat Star from California Where Evil Governs

The Schiff Obstruction

by Roger Kimball   at  American Greatness:

Readers of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit will recall the philosopher’s withering comments about “the dogmatism of mere assertion” which yields naught but an empty and deceptive feeling: self-certitude.

I thought about Hegel’s comments this morning when looking through the Democrats’ attempted rebuttal of the memo released earlier this month by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

It is interesting to compare the two memos, both as rhetorical artifacts and as substantive contributions to the debate over possible “Russian collusion” in the 2016 presidential election. Even a comparison of their physical appearance is revealing. Let’s start there.

The Republicans’ memo, overseen by Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is a three-and-a-half-page précis of findings from an ongoing oversight investigation into the behavior of the FBI and Department of Justice during the 2016 election cycle. It is prefaced by a brief letter from presidential counsel Donald McGahn to Congressman Nunes laying out the rationale for declassifying the memo and releasing it to the public. Each page of the memo is marked “UNCLASSIFIED” and the legend “TOP SECRET NOFORN” (for “no foreign nationals”) on each page is struck through with a heavy black stroke. Otherwise it is clean.

The Democrats’ memo, overseen by ranking minority member Adam Schiff, spills on to a tenth page. It is probably only about a half again as long as the Republicans’ memo, however, because—in addition to bearing the “Unclassified” stamps and strike-throughs of the “top secret” advisories—its text is littered with redactions: many passages of the text are blotted out. Were those redactions required by the FBI? By the executive branch? It was not said. Nor was it said why the Democrats did not take the redactions on board and present a clean text. I do not know the answer. My suspicion is that they wanted the blocks of black to stand as mute, non-specific but nonetheless graphically incriminating witnesses to their allegations.

For example, much of the memo deals with Carter Page, the American businessman who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign. In a section of the memo headed “Page’s Connections to Russian Government and Intelligence Officials” we encounter the following: “As DOJ described in detail to the Court, Page had an extensive record as”—as what? We don’t know. The juicy news is submerged beneath a minatory stroke of black.

Similarly, after informing us that a “Russian intelligence officer targeted Page for recruitment”—eyebrow raising, what?—we read that “Page showed”—another black stroke, starving knowledge but inflaming the imagination. What did Page show? Interest? Did he promise to smuggle the nuclear launch codes into Moscow? We don’t know. But we can think the worst.

My favorite of these little party favors comes in a discussion of Page’s alleged activities during the 2016 campaign. Remember: the issue that prompted Devin Nunes to compile and release his memo in the first place was the suspicion that the police power of the state had been mobilized to spy on an American citizen—Carter Page—for partisan ends. Remember: the FBI sought and obtained a warrant (actually, four successive warrants) from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Page. The first was granted in October 2016, just weeks before the presidential election. That warrant gave the spooks carte-blanche to rifle through Page’s emails, texts, and phone conversations. Given his connection to the Trump campaign, the warrant also amounted to a free back-door pass to the Trump campaign’s communications as well…….Please continue reading below:

https://amgreatness.com/2018/02/26/the-schiff-obstruction/

California’s Democrat Adam Schiff is a Mouthy Diseased Chronic Liar

THE SCHIFF MEMO’S APPALLING DISHONESTY

by Scott Johnson   at PowerLine:

Over the weekend the House Intelligence Committee Democrats’ much ballyhooed memorandum (“the Schiff memo”) was finally redacted and released. I posted the Schiff memo here and Devin Nunes’s response here.

The 10-page Schiff memo defends the FBI against the charge that it abused its surveillance powers during the 2016 election. The redactions strongly suggest that the Democrats don’t care as much about protecting intelligence sources and methods as they do about keeping up the appearance that there must be a pony in here somewhere.

The Democrats’ mainstream media adjunct has of course seized on the release of the memo to regurgitate the obligatory talking points. Read properly, however, the Schiff memo undermines the Democrats’ case. Andrew McCarthy authoritatively explicates the memo in his invaluable NR column “The Schiff memo harms Democrats more than it helps them,” just posted yesterday evening.

Unlike the Democrats’ faithful media servants, McCarthy applies relevant professional expertise to understanding the memo; he knows what he is talking about. Unlike the Democrats and their media servants, he does not live to promote a party line. He is a natural teacher.

The column is a marvel of lucidity that illuminates the memo’s dark, dark corners. Its only defect is its pedestrian headline. It would more accurately have been headed “The Schiff memo is a work of appalling dishonesty.”

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/the-schiff-memos-appalling-dishonesty.php