• 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

Jeff Zucker’s Fascism at CNN Exposed at Last!

CNN Whistleblower Reveals Network ‘Vendetta’ Against Trump, Obsession With Impeachment

CNN Whistleblower Reveals Network ‘Vendetta’ Against Trump, Obsession With Impeachment

A CNN whistleblower leaked video showcasing CNN President Jeff Zucker’s vendetta against President Trump and obsession with pushing stories of impeachment.

“Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said Nick Neville, a media coordinator at CNN. “It’s not gonna be positive for Trump. He hates him. He’s going to be negative.”

Ryan Saavedra

@RealSaavedra

BREAKING: New leaked video from inside CNN:

President Jeff Zucker tells employees to push “impeachment” and that all of CNN’s stories should be about “moves towards impeachment”

One of CNN’s employees says Zucker has a “personal vendetta against Trump”

The whistleblower identified himself as Cary Poarch, a satellite uplink technician at CNN’s Washington, D.C. bureau.

“When I came to work at CNN, I mean it was my dream job,” Poarch said. “And that dream, actually turned into a nightmare.”

Poarch recorded the 9:00 a.m. morning calls held by Zucker, in which he urged CNN employees to focus on the impeachment narrative.

“Let’s just stay very focused on impeachment,” Zucker said. “We’re moving towards impeachment. I mean, don’t like, you know we shouldn’t pretend this is going one way. And so, all these moves are moves towards impeachment.”

Zucker also encouraged CNN employees to report on Fox News as if it were a conspiracy outlet.

“I think what’s going on in America now is really fundamentally the result of years of fake news, conspiracy nonsense from Fox News,” Zucker said. “The fake conspiracy nonsense that Fox has spread for years is now deeply embedded in American society, and frankly that is beyond destructive for America. And I do not think we should be scared to say so.”

After the release of this video, Poarch announced he saw no other option but to wear a hidden camera and expose the bias of CNN.

Dem Fascists Continue to Swarm Their Lies Feeding Their Cohorts at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, ABC, and Afternoon FOX!

…….THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST:

TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO WRONGDOING BY PRESIDENT TRUMP

by  John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

The just-released transcript of President Trump’s July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky confirms the president’s statement that he did nothing blameworthy with regard to the Biden investigation. The conversation was friendly and wide-ranging. There was discussion of how much the U.S. is helping Ukraine:

Trump: I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you.
***
Zelensky: Yes, you are absolutely right. … [T]he United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense.

Trump next brought up the subject of alleged Russian hacking of the DNC’s email system during the 2016 election. The exchange is rather cryptic (to me, anyway) but it appears that Ukraine has something to do with the whereabouts of the server that the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Zelensky agrees, and goes on to talk about his desire for closer cooperation with the U.S. Among other things, he is replacing Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. If Ukraine really does have the long-sought DNC server (why? I have no idea), it could shed light on the 2016 email intrusion.

Zelensky continues by referring to investigations:

I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation [i.e., the server], I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

Trump takes up the invitation to talk about investigations. This is the directly relevant portion of the conversation:

Good, because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news, so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

That’s it. I can see no basis to criticize President Trump’s request. Zelensky responded:

I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%.

The conversation concludes with some pleasantries. President Trump winds up discussion of the investigation with this:

I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything.

It is obvious what went on here. There was corruption on both sides of the deal. A Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, retained Joe Biden’s son Hunter and agreed to pay him $3 million–$600,000 a year for five years. There is no conceivable way that Hunter Biden could provide $3 million worth of legitimate services to a Ukrainian company. Undoubtedly Burisma was buying (or thought it was buying) influence with the Obama-Biden administration.

A Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Burisma for corruption, potentially including the Biden payoff. Joe Biden has boasted that he threatened to cancel a $1 billion loan guarantee package, demanding that Ukraine fire the offending prosecutor. Ukraine’s prior government acceded to Biden’s demand. As far as I know, Hunter Biden continued to collect his $600,000 annually.

The new Ukrainian government, under President Zelensky, is commendably willing to reopen the corruption investigation that was quashed by the prior Ukrainian administration, which was friendly to the Obama-Biden administration.

So President Trump is doing the right thing in encouraging Zelensky to get to the bottom of a corruption investigation that may extend both to Ukraine and to the United States. That investigation, if it is pursued to the end, might not end happily for the Biden family, which apparently, at least, has gotten caught with its hand in a multi-million dollar cookie jar.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are rushing headlong toward impeachment. I don’t think there is much doubt that they will proceed to vote articles of impeachment. I don’t see how they can back down after the wild accusations that they are now making with one voice. To take just one example, I got an email this morning from Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota. Ellison wrote:

Trump has colluded with foreign powers to pervert our democracy, betrayed national secrets to our enemies, lined his own pockets, broken the law and violated the Constitution.

Congress owes it not to politics but to history and democracy to impeach. I applaud Speaker Pelosi for taking action yesterday to protect the rule of law.

This, and all similar talk about Trump “shredding the Constitution”–that was Joe Biden!–is simply insane, in the context of the Ukraine matter. How Trump’s conversation with Zelensky, or any related action (as yet unspecified) could possibly have “violated the Constitution” is inexplicable.

So it appears to me that we are on a collision course with the alternative reality in which the Democratic Party lives.

 

Transcript Shows No Wrongdoing by President Trump

What Are Our Today’s Rising Big Business Dem Fascists Really Up To?

THE LEFT’S EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE

by  John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

A reader points out this article by a liberal in the Atlantic. It is titled “The Left Needs a Language Potent Enough to Counter Trump.” The writer, George Packer, is mostly intent on denouncing President Trump’s “dangerously populist” speech. As usual, the author goes off on Nazi, Hitler, and fascist tropes without acknowledging that the reason why the things Trump says are “populist” is that they make sense to most people, based on their experiences and observations. That part of the article is too foolish and boring to be worthy of comment.

But when the writer moves on to a topic he understands better, the shortcomings of his fellow leftists, he makes some good points–points that are especially noteworthy because they come from inside the leftists’ closed world:

“[T]he language of the contemporary left is anti-populist. Its vocabulary, much of it taken from academia, is the opposite of accessible—it has to be decoded and learned. Terms such as centered, marginalized, intersectional, non-binary, and Eurocentric gender discipline separate outsiders from insiders—that’s part of their intent, as is the insistence on declaring one’s personal pronouns and showing an ability to use them accordingly. Even common words like ally and privilege acquire a resonance that takes them out of the realm of ordinary usage, because the point of this discourse is to create a sense of special virtue. The language of the left also demands continuous refreshing and can change literally overnight: A writer is told that the phrase born male is no longer okay to use and has to be replaced with assigned male at birthMany of these changes happen by ambush—suddenly and irrevocably, with no visible trail of discussion and decision, and with quick condemnation of holdouts—which gives them a powerful mystique.

The language of the left creates a hierarchy of those who get it and those who don’t. Mastering the vocabulary is a way of signaling entry into a select world of the knowing and the just. The system is closed—there’s an internal logic that can be accepted or rejected but isn’t open to argument or question. In this sense, though much of the language of the left has academic origins, its use in the public square is almost religious.

Italics in the original, bold added. “Almost religious” understates the case, but the author sums up quite well the bizarre world of public discourse in which we find ourselves. I think that Democratic Party politicians are lucky that most people pay no attention to the strange things they say.

 

The Left’s Exclusionary Language

TOP 28 MOMENTS FROM BOMBSHELL GARR!

The idea of resisting a democratically elected president and…really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.’

Attorney General William Barr’s nearly hour-long interview with CBS News’ Jan Crawford last week was full of fascinating details about the special counsel probe, the debunked Russia collusion theory that roiled Washington for years, and Barr’s investigation into how the FBI and Department of Justice used the “bogus” theory to investigate the Trump campaign.

The interview was downplayed by the media, which is implicated in perpetuating the Russia hoax Barr is investigating, and which came in for criticism from Barr for its failure to care about violations of civil liberties. Here are the top 28 take-aways from the interview.

1. Mueller ‘Could Have Reached a Conclusion’

Crawford, whose questions revealed a command of the facts not demonstrated by many of her mainstream media peers, asked Barr about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to outline 11 instances where President Trump’s frustration at falsely being accused of treason could amount to “possible obstruction” followed by a refusal to decide whether they did.

Barr explained that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that prevents presidents from being indicted was no barrier to making a conclusion about obstruction. “Right, he could have reached a conclusion,” Barr said, noting that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that Trump had not obstructed justice.

“[W]hen he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision,” Barr said. “That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.”

2. DOJ Not an ‘Adjunct to Congress’

Mueller received praise from the media for, they said, subtly asking Congress to impeach the president for, apparently, his frustration with falsely being accused of being a traitor. Barr was less enamored of this idea.

“Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process. We are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers,” he said.

3. Mueller’s Guilty Until Proven Innocent Standard ‘Not The Standard We Use’ At DOJ

Mueller’s refusal to determine whether President Trump had obstructed justice by making hiring and firing decisions or complaining about false accusations he had conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election was one problem. The other was that Mueller flipped the standard prosecutorial approach on its head, Barr said.

“[H]e also said that he could not say that the president clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law, and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction,” Barr said.

4. Mueller’s Obstruction Theories ‘Did Not Reflect The Views’ of DOJ

Barr said the legal analysis in the special counsel’s obstruction report “did not reflect the views of the department” and were the “views of a particular lawyer or lawyers.” He went on to explain that firing James Comey, for example, is a “facially valid exercise of core presidential authority.”

Even if you don’t accept that presidents have the right to fire incompetent employees, to show obstruction the firing would have to have the probable effect of sabotaging a proceeding and be done with corrupt intent.

“[T]he report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn’t feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases,” Barr explained.

5. Barr Doesn’t Care about ‘Hyper-Partisan’ Complaints

Asked about the criticism he’s received from the media and other partisans, Barr said, “Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance, and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts. And I realize that’s in tension with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.”

6. Barr ‘Surprised’ by Mueller Not Providing Report Ready to Release

Barr explained that he wrote a four-page summary of Mueller’s 400-page report because Mueller failed to provide a report that was ready to release to the American public. In conversations in the weeks leading up to Mueller’s report delivery, Barr repeatedly requested that the grand jury information be highlighted so it could be quickly redacted by Justice Department officials.

Instead, the report included no highlighting of which portions were from grand jury information, which must be redacted by law. That meant it would be weeks before the report would be made public, at a time when former intelligence officials were making false claims about the Mueller report.

Barr said he wrote the four-page summary:

because I didn’t think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every — there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it, or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth. Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and — Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very — Right, and talking heads and things like that, and these things affect the United States’ ability to function in the world.

We have an economy. It could affect the economy. It can affect, it can affect our foreign relations during very delicate period of time with, you know, serious adversaries in the world. So I felt that in order to buy time, in order to get the report out, I had to state the bottom line just like you’re announcing a verdict in a case. My purpose there was not to summarize every jot and tittle of the report and every, you know, angle that, that Mueller looked into. But, just state the bottom line, which I did in the four-page memo.

7. Mueller Letter Complaining About Lack of Impeachment Narrative Was ‘A Little Snitty and Staff-Driven’

Someone within the special counsel’s office leaked to The New York Times a letter complaining that Barr’s four-page summary set the media narrative differently than they would have preferred. Barr said he was surprised Mueller “didn’t pick up the phone and call me given our 30-year relationship” and that he felt “the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven.” He reiterated his preference to have the full report released so that everyone could determine “what Bob’s reasoning was.”

8. No ‘Discrepancy’ on OLC Opinion

In a press conference, and in his report, Mueller claimed to believe that an Office of Legal Counsel opinion about presidents not being able to be indicted meant that he couldn’t even analyze whether Trump’s frustration at years of false allegations that he was a traitor constituted obstruction.

Previously, Barr said Mueller had assured him that the OLC opinion had not been the reason he hadn’t determined Trump obstructed justice. The two put out a joint statement saying that there was no discrepancy between what they were saying. Barr explained that Mueller did not even analyze whether there was a crime.

9. Response to Russia Threats Troubling

If intelligence officials were “alarmed” by the Russia threats as early as April 2016, as they claimed, “Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump campaign.”

10. FBI’s Wray ‘Very Supportive’ of Investigation Into Russia Probe

Barr said he and FBI Director Christopher Wray have “discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that … he is being very supportive and we’re working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.”

11. Spying Is Spying

Crawford noted that Barr has received criticism for referring to the widespread surveillance of the Trump campaign as “spying.” Barr responded, “Yeah, I mean, I guess it’s become a dirty word somehow. It hasn’t ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it’s an important tool the United States has to protect the country.”

12. Words Don’t Need to Be Retired Because Trump Uses Them

“[S]ome former intelligence chiefs have said that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that there is spying, this is a witch hunt, this is a hoax, and so your use of that word makes it seem that you are being a loyalist,” Crawford said. Barr responded, “You know, it’s part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.”

13. Law Enforcement and Intelligence Should Not Meddle In Elections

“And look, I think if we — we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic,” Barr said.

“But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections,” Barr said. Asked which interference is more troubling, Barr said they both are.

14. Government Officials Should Not Become a ‘Praetorian Guard’

When discussing actions taken against the Trump campaign, Barr referenced the Roman Army’s elite unit that interfered in politics, even overthrowing emperors.

“[R]epublics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality, where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.”

15. Use of Spy Tools Against Political Campaigns a ‘Serious Red Line’

Asked if he was concerned that a Praetorian Guard mentality had set in in 2016, Barr said, “Well, I just think it has to be carefully looked at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.”

16. AG Must Protect Against Abuse of Government Power

“[O]ne of the key responsibilities of the attorney general, core responsibilities of the attorney general is to make sure that government power is not abused and that the right of Americans are not transgressed by abusive government power,” Barr said. “That’s the responsibility of the attorney general.”

17. Looking Into Process for Counterintelligence Activities Against Trump Campaign

In a sea of media complacency about the use of counterintelligence activities against the Trump campaign, Barr seeks answers.

I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our … First Amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? … And we’re working closely with the intelligence agencies, the bureau and the agency and others to help us reconstruct what happened. And I want to see, what were the standards that were applied. What was the evidence? What were the techniques used? Who approved them? Was there a legitimate basis for it?

18. Details on Other Investigations

Barr explained that the inspector general is only looking “at a discrete area that is — that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page.” Page endured a year of heavy surveillance from the federal government, which told a secret court that he was an agent of Russia. The year of surveillance found no crimes committed by Page, who is now suing to restore his reputation.

Barr explained that he didn’t have the inspector general expand his probe to cover the other areas because of his limited powers: “He doesn’t have the power to compel testimony, he doesn’t have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited.”

Of John Huber, the U.S. attorney who was reportedly looking at FISA abuse, Barr said he “stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review,” only waiting for criminal referrals. However, Barr said he’s also working on issues that “relate to Hillary Clinton” and are concluding.

19. Media Supposed to Be ‘Watchdogs’ of ‘Our Civil Liberties’

Barr said that when he joined the Central Intelligence Agency 50 years ago during the Vietnam and Civil Rights era, there was a ton of concern about investigation of domestic political activities.

[W]hen was it appropriate for intelligence agencies, the FBI too was under investigation. You know, the penetration of civil rights groups because at the time there was concerns about contacts with, you know, communist funded front groups and things like that and you know how deeply could you get into civil rights groups or anti-Vietnam war groups. A lot of these groups were in contact with foreign adversaries, they had some contact with front organizations and so forth and there were a lot of rules put in place and those rules are under the attorney general. The attorney general’s responsibility is to make sure that these powers are not used to tread upon First Amendment activity and that certainly was a big part of my formative years of dealing with those issues. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.

20. Answers on Trump Campaign Surveillance Not ‘Satisfactory’

Barr declined to weigh in on specifics, but said, “Like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that, that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”

Pressed to explain further, Barr said, “That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving.”

21. Failures Not in Rank and File But ‘Upper Echelon’

Barr had previously said that the abnormal procedures taken against the Trump campaign didn’t take place among the rank and file of the bureau, but among the upper echelon. Asked to explain, he said, “Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the, probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of headquarters.”

22. 2016 Meddling ‘Antithetical to the Democratic System’

Barr was generous about the wrongdoing perpetrated by government actors, saying no one may have intended to undermine the republic by surveilling political opponents.

I’m not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can — in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.

Barr did not specifically cite fired FBI director Comey, whose 2018 defense of his tenure is titled “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.” Comey was strongly criticized in an inspector general report for failing to follow departmental procedures in his handling of the Hillary Clinton case regarding mishandling classified information.

Barr said of those who justify their actions, “That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really, you know, shouldn’t be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don’t see that. So that’s why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are people — you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that.”

23. ‘Gross Bias’ of FBI Agents ‘Appalling,’ Would Be Roundly Condemned If about Obama

Barr said of the virulently anti-Trump texts that have been previously released:

Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling…. Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that ‘Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.’ You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?

24. Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Bogus’

Crawford said Comey may say the investigation into Trump had to be closely held because it was so extraordinary. Barr said, “Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus.”

25. Media In No Place to ‘Wring Hands’ about Barr’s Declassification Authority

Barr said that he asked President Trump for the authority to declassify documents dealing with the Russia investigation, as well as the direction that other agencies support his efforts to investigate the probe. He said the other agencies are being supportive.

Of media concerns about the transparency, Barr said,

I’m amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I’m going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods. I’ve been in the business, as I’ve said, for over 50 years, long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I’m in the best decision to make that decision.

He said the media reaction is strange. “Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.”

26. Barr Expected Criticism for Upholding Rule of Law

Crawford noted Barr’s sterling reputation before he began his second round as attorney general. He previously served in the George H.W. Bush administration. He said he expected criticism from partisans.

I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs, and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital, and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.

27. ‘Everyone Dies’

Asked if he worried about his reputation, Barr said, “Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?” He added that he didn’t regret taking the job.

28. Resistance Is ‘Shredding Our Institutions’

Barr said he’d rather be back to his old life, but that he loves the Justice Department and the FBI: “I think it’s important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that — it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective, the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and, you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.”

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/03/top-28-moments-from-bombshell-barr-interview/

Mitt Romney Turns Brutus, or Perhaps He Was Always an IDIOT!

ET TU, MITT?

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

“Republican” Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan has called for President Trump’s impeachment on Twitter. His reasons are idiotic:

“Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct,” Amash wrote.

An interesting paraphrase of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But naturally Politico cheers Amash on, with this false statement of fact:

The [Mueller] report outlined several episodes that meet all the element [sic] of an obstruction of justice offense, most notably former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s testimony about Trump’s persistent efforts to have McGahn fire the special counsel.

No, actually, it didn’t. The McGhan theory is laughable: if Trump had wanted to fire Mueller so that another special counsel could have been appointed, he would have done it. But he didn’t. And replacing a conflicted special counsel with another special counsel could not possibly constitute obstruction of justice, in any event.

This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Mitt Romney praised Amash without going so far as to call for impeachment himself:

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) said Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) was “courageous” for concluding President Donald Trump committed “impeachable conduct.”

Romney said, “I think every individual has to make their own judgment. I think it helps to actually have read the entire document. It’s a long document. It took me two full days to get through it. The second volume is more difficult to get through than the first. Hopefully more people read it. I think a lot of people want to reserve judgment until this is played out. My own view is that Justin Amash has reached a different conclusion than I have. I respect him. I think it’s a courageous statement. But I believe to make a case for obstruction of justice, you just don’t have the elements that are evidenced in this document. And I also believe that an impeachment call is something that not just relates to the law but considers practicality and politics. I think those considering impeachment have to look at the jury, which is the Senate. The Senate is certainly not there either.

Thanks for that ringing endorsement of your president, Mitt. Taking the Democrats’ absurd grounds for impeachment seriously is a betrayal of your party and, ultimately, of the American people who are benefiting so greatly from the Trump administration. Romney also declined to endorse President Trump for re-election, saying it is “way too early.” Who knows, Mitt might yet decide Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden is a better choice.

Dem Fascists Go Wild Attacking AG Wm Barr at Stalinist Jerry Nadler’s May Day Judiciary Committee Gathering

Jerry Nadler just turned the Judiciary Committee into a complete circus

Rising to chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after more than a quarter-century in Congress, New York’s Rep. Jerry Nadler is finally enjoying his moment in the spotlight — by turning the committee into a circus.

On Thursday, Nadler chaired a mock hearing, complete with an empty chair for Attorney General William Barr, who he knew wouldn’t show up.

Playing to the TV cameras, one committee Democrat placed a fake chicken on the chair — and, for good measure, brought a bucket of fried chicken.

The point: “Chicken” Barr was afraid to show his face and testify about his summary of the Mueller report. Never mind that he’d faced a Senate committee the day before, or that the idea of Bill Barr being afraid of Jerry Nadler is just ludicrous.

The reason Barr refused to show is that Nadler demanded that he face questioning from staff lawyers. The AG was perfectly right to object: There’s no precedent for non-members quizzing a Cabinet official in a public Judiciary hearing.

Nadler knew full well Barr would refuse to play the patsy in what would’ve been a mock trial. As the committee’s top Republican, Doug Collins said, the only reason Barr wasn’t there is that “Democrats decided they didn’t want him here.”

Besides, the Judiciary Committee is packed with lawyers, including Nadler. Does the chairman think they’re just not competent to question the AG?

Playing out the show, Nadler went fully over the top, threatening Barr with contempt or impeachment and warning that our “very system of government . . . is at stake.” Please.

Don’t be misled: The Mueller report was a dud, but Democrats don’t dare admit it — nor pay the political price they’d incur if they went for impeachment anyway. So they’ve created a distraction — a phony scandal centered on Barr.

If anyone’s showing contempt for our “very system of government,” it’s Jerry Nadler and his crew.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/02/jerry-nadler-just-turned-the-judiciary-committee-into-a-complete-circus/

Twit ANTI-AMERICAN McCabe, LEAD TRAITOR AT THE OBAMA FBI HOUSE!?!

 

Editor’s Note: Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, was named acting director of the bureau after President Donald Trump fired his boss, Director James Comey, on May 9, 2017. McCabe would himself be fired less than a year later. In an exclusive adaptation from his book, The Threat, to be published next week by St. Martin’s Press, McCabe describes his encounters with President Trump and the steps taken to protect the FBI’s investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections—and into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russian actors.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, my first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI, I sat down with senior staff involved in the Russia case—the investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As the meeting began, my secretary relayed a message that the White House was calling. The president himself was on the line. I had spoken with him the night before, in the Oval Office, when he told me he had fired James Comey.

A call like this was highly unusual. Presidents do not, typically, call FBI directors. There should be no direct contact between the president and the director, except for national-security purposes. The reason is simple. Investigations and prosecutions need to be pursued without a hint of suspicion that someone who wields power has put a thumb on the scale.The Russia team was in my office. I took the call on an unclassified line. That was another strange thing—the president was calling on a phone that was not secure. The voice on the other end said, It’s Don Trump calling. I said, Hello, Mr. President, how are you? Apart from my surprise that he was calling at all, I was surprised that he referred to himself as “Don.”The president said, I’m good. You know—boy, it’s incredible, it’s such a great thing, people are really happy about the fact that the director’s gone, and it’s just remarkable what people are saying. Have you seen that? Are you seeing that, too?

He went on: I received hundreds of messages from FBI people—how happy they are that I fired him. There are people saying things on the media, have you seen that? What’s it like there in the building.This is what it was like: You could go to any floor and you would see small groups gathering in hallways, some people even crying. The overwhelming majority liked and admired Director Comey—his personal style, the integrity of his conduct. Now we were laboring under the same dank, gray shadow that had been creeping over Washington during the few months Donald Trump had been in office.

I didn’t feel like I could say any of that to the president on the phone. I’m not sure I would have wanted to say it to him in person, either—or that he would have cared. I told him that people here were very surprised, but that we were trying to get back to work.

The president said he thought most people in the FBI voted for him—he thought 80 percent. He asked me again, as he had in his office, if I knew that Comey had told him three times that he was not under investigation. Then he got to the reason for his call. He said, I really want to come over there. I want to come to the FBI. I want to show all my FBI people how much I love them, so I think maybe it would be good for me to come over and speak to everybody, like tomorrow or the next day.

That sounded to me like one of the worst possible things that could happen. He was the boss, and had every right to come, but I hoped the idea would dissipate on its own. He said, Why don’t you come down here and talk to me about that later?

After we agreed on a time to meet, the president began to talk about how upset he was that Comey had flown home on his government plane from Los Angeles—Comey had been giving a speech there when he learned he was fired. The president wanted to know how that had happened.

I told him that bureau lawyers had assured me there was no legal issue with Comey coming home on the plane. I decided that he should do so. The existing threat assessment indicated he was still at risk, so he needed a protection detail. Since the members of the protection detail would all be coming home, it made sense to bring everybody back on the same plane they had used to fly out there. It was coming back anyway. The president flew off the handle: That’s not right! I don’t approve of that! That’s wrong! He reiterated his point five or seven times.

I said, I’m sorry that you disagree, sir. But it was my decision, and that’s how I decided. The president said, I want you to look into that! I thought to myself: What am I going to look into? I just told you I made that decision.

The ranting against Comey spiraled. I waited until he had talked himself out.

Toward the end of the conversation, the president brought up the subject of my wife. Jill had run unsuccessfully for the Virginia state Senate back in 2015, and the president had said false and malicious things about her during his campaign in order to tarnish the FBI. He said, How is your wife? I said, She’s fine. He said, When she lost her election, that must have been very tough to lose. How did she handle losing? Is it tough to lose?

I replied, I guess it’s tough to lose anything. But she’s rededicated herself to her career and her job and taking care of kids in the emergency room. That’s what she does.

He replied in a tone that sounded like a sneer. He said, “Yeah, that must’ve been really tough. To lose. To be a loser.”

I wrote a memo about this conversation that very day. I wrote memos about my interactions with President Trump for the same reason that Comey did: to have a contemporaneous record of conversations with a person who cannot be trusted.

People do not appreciate how far we have fallen from normal standards of presidential accountability. Today we have a president who is willing not only to comment prejudicially on criminal prosecutions but to comment on ones that potentially affect him. He does both of these things almost daily. He is not just sounding a dog whistle. He is lobbying for a result. The president has stepped over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he has encountered them. Every day brings a new low, with the president exposing himself as a deliberate liar who will say whatever he pleases to get whatever he wants. If he were “on the box” at Quantico, he would break the machine.


After Comey’s firing, the core of my concern had to do with what might happen to the Russia case if I were to be removed. I convened a series of meetings about that investigation—including the one interrupted by the call from the president—in which I directed an overall review of every aspect. Was the work on solid ground? Were there individuals on whom we should consider opening new cases? I wanted to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away.

As requested, I went back to the White House that afternoon. The scene was almost identical to the one I had walked into the previous night. Trump was behind the Resolute desk. He lifted one arm and jutted it out, fingers splayed, directing me to take a seat in one of the little wooden chairs in front of him. Reince Priebus, then the chief of staff, and Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, were in the other chairs.

The president launched back into his speech about what a great decision it was to fire Jim Comey, how wonderful it was that the director was gone, because so many people did not like Comey, even hated him—the president actually used the word hate.

Eventually he changed the subject. He said that he wanted to come to FBI headquarters to see people and excite them and show them how much he loves the FBI. He pressed me to answer whether I thought it was a good idea. I said it was always a good idea to visit. I was trying to take some of the immediacy out of his proposal—to communicate that the door was always open, so that he wouldn’t feel he had to crash through it right away. I knew what a disaster it could turn out to be if he came to the Hoover Building in the near future. He pressed further, asking specifically, Do you think it would be a good idea for me to come down now? I said, Sure.

DITSY Ocasio-Cortez’s Love and Dream to Build the Union of Soviet Socialist America

THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Thirty years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, I never imagined that a generation later socialism would be a threat to the United States. But bad ideas are, apparently, hard to kill–even when those bad ideas kill hundreds of millions.

Roger Simon says we should take socialism seriously, and I believe he is right. Roger locates the socialist virus in our educational system, and I think he is right about that, too. I would go farther and finger the teachers’ unions as the number one force for evil in this regard (and others).

Socialism is said to be popular among the young, which is consistent with the fact that history is pretty much untaught these days, and the most salient events of modern history seem to have gone down the media memory hole. The truth is that the ash heap of history is littered with socialist disasters. Some, like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and who knows how many other Democrats, want to lead us down that failed path. Michael Ramirez comments eloquently. Click to enlarge:

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-ash-heap-of-history.php

 

FASCIST DEMS ENCOURAGE NO BORDERS

Texas Secretary Of State: As Many As 58,000 Non-Citizens Voted In Elections

The Texas Secretary of State sent an advisory to the state’s registrars today which announced that his office had identified evidence of thousands of non-citizens voting in the state between 1996 and 2018. From the Star-Telegram:

Texas Secretary of State David Whitley said a year-long evaluation found about 95,000 people described as “non-U.S. citizens” who are registered to vote in Texas. About 58,000 of them voted in Texas elections between 1996 and 2018, Whitley said.

Naturally, there are voter advocacy groups already claiming that voter fraud doesn’t happen and questioning the validity of the Secretary of State’s data:

RECOMMENDED

Some civil rights officials weighed in Friday, acknowledging that the numbers are alarming. But they question whether the list includes duplications and factors in that about 50,000 Texas residents become naturalized citizens every year.

It’s not surprising that officials announced this news “using alarmist language that is clearly intended to advance a false political narrative to further restrict access to the ballot box,” said Beth Stevens, voting rights legal director with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The Houston Chronicle has additional objections from the same group but the Secretary of State’s office says the data is accurate:

“There is no credible data that indicates illegal voting is happening in any significant numbers, and the Secretary’s statement does not change that fact,” said Beth Stevens, Voting Rights Legal Director with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Stevens said she is concerned about how the state is identifying the suspected non-citizen voters.

The Secretary of State’s office insists the data is accurate and relies on documents that the voters themselves submitted to DPS when they were trying to obtain drivers licenses. Non-citizens are eligible to get a Texas drivers license, but they are not allowed to register to vote.

“It is important to note that we are not using information self-reported by the person regarding citizenship status; rather, we are using documents provided by the person to show they are lawfully present in the United States,” the state’s director of elections, Keith Ingram, wrote in a notice to registrars in all 254 counties in Texas.

I don’t have a problem with civil rights groups challenging the contents of this list. Voting is an important right and it makes sense to look carefully at the evidence before striking someone’s name from the rolls. That said, it’s a little hard to believe that all 58,000 names are a mistake of one kind or another and at this moment, Beth Stevens doesn’t have any proof that’s the case.

Also, it’s not as if the Texas Secretary of State makes this announcement and suddenly the names on his list are removed. The Secretary of State in Texas doesn’t have the power to remove anyone from the voter rolls, so that will be done by county-level registrars. Those officials will check the names and give each identified person 30 days to demonstrate proof of citizenship. Only if they fail to do that or don’t respond at all will they be removed from the rolls.

It seems to me what’s really at stake here is the presumption that large-scale voter fraud doesn’t happen. If Texas can substantiate even a fraction of this list it would change the dynamic of future conversations about non-citizen voting. We’ll have to wait and see if that happens.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/25/texas-secretary-state-announces-evidence-significant-voter-fraud/

New York Times Publishes Depiction of Trump Assassination

WHILE DEMANDING ‘CIVILITY’ NYT PUBLISHES FAN FICTION DEPICTING TRUMP’S ASSASSINATION
..
by Bre Payton  at the Federalist:
..
Should The New York Times, which published Trump-killing fan fiction, be held to the same standard it expects of the president?

The New York Times published a fictional essay fantasizing about President Trump getting assassinated the same week that explosive devices were sent to prominent political figures across the country.

After explosive devices were sent to prominent Democrats and liberal political figures — Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, and others — New York Times opinion columnist Charles M. Blow blamed Trump for creating a “toxic environment” that led to these attempted acts of terrorism.

“Trump doesn’t operate on an intellectual plane, but an emotional one, and the emotions he has learned to manipulate in politics are the darker ones,” Blow wrote, adding a summary of Trump’s speech at a rally for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas during which the president said Democrats want to “destroy American communities.”

“This is the rhetorical backdrop as we await an investigation and answers about who sent bombs to Democrats and the CNN offices,” Blow wrote.

Here’s some of the rhetorical backdrop being painted by The New York Times. In a collection of fictional essays published Tuesday, one author fantasized about a Secret Service agent helping the Russians assassinate Trump.

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

he Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

‘Here,’ the agent said politely. ‘Use mine. …’

Should The New York Times, which published Trump-killing fan fiction, be held to the same standard the it expects of the president? Or do they get to paint a rhetorical backdrop of bloodshed and get to be viewed as blameless for the fractured and hostile environment we all find ourselves in?

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/25/demanding-civility-nyt-publishes-fan-fiction-depicting-trumps-assassination/

Note:  These more fascistic Democrats could have been  responsible for the dud explosive devices sent to or toward the residences of Lefty  Democrats listed above.   They have been vicious in their drive to control the House of Representatives and attempt to dump Trump!

Our American press is controlled by the Left.

It is far more rational that certain  Dems  deviated  to fake bomb their own  leftist stars  as a last resort to gain publicity sufficient to win the House of Representatives this coming November.    What would be the purpose of the  GOP  to be so stupid  to play such a game?  Whatever would they gain.

The Dems  plotted this as a last resort to win the House and dump Trump!!!?