Special Report Calls Trump a Liar

Friday night Special Report with Bret Baier featured A. B. Stoddard and Charles Krauthammer both stating categorically that Trump’s allegation of being spied on is false. Stoddard is the Liberal on the panel, altering with Mara Liasson of NPR as the balance of the “Fair and Balanced” claim on FOX.

Stoddard, a child of privilege and a member of the 1%, rolled her eyes and called Trump an “international embarrassment,” accused him of levelling false allegations and threatening America’s alliances and international order. She then instructed Trump on how he should act:

“The job [of President] requires something else. Every word matters, every action, the conduct of your staff, it’s not to be blown off.”

She longs for the day when the media set the national conversation and created the limits of permissible discourse. Which, of course, is exactly the reason that Trump is President.  The media and it's bastard offspring no longer rule the public discourse except in those dark Blue spots in a deep Red country.

The media is getting hysterical about Trump’s failure to retract  or hunker down when they attack. That's what they are accustomed to from Republicans and they are deeply angry that Trump is not following the script.

Charles Krauthammer, who usually provides center-Right analysis, stated categorically that:

“It’s a farce, you know, the idea that everyone in this town – the media – the agencies – the congress – are running around chasing their tails on a story that everyone knows it’s not true, but having to pretend that it might be because he’s the President when we know how it’s going to end.”

This is absurd.

There is absolutely no way that either of these media personalities know that Trump was not under surveillance and that his team’s conversations were not recorded. They can’t possibly know and are making an assumption based on nothing except the desire to believe that the Obama administration would never do that.  The same administration that weaponized the IRS to go after the Tea Party.  The same administration that created Fast and Furious so that Mexican drug cartels would have access to American guns, "proving" that American's ability to buy guns was a danger to the world.  The same administration that brazenly lied to get Obamacare passed.  An administration that appointed a guy who supported the Communist Party as head of the CIA and who who lied to congress about the extent to which the American people are spied on.

Stoddard and Krauthammer had three choices: (1) believe Trump, (2) use reason and logic, or (3) believe the Deep State. They have chosen the latter and have shown themselves willfully blind.

What’s impossible to believe that here was no surveillance – of Team Trump or people his team was speaking to.  If there was no surveillance we have to conclude that the press lied instead of passing along "leaks" from the Deep State.  We have to believe that they made up stories out of whole cloth and lied about those "Trump and his people are tied to the Russians" stories. It's possible, the mainstream press has done it before.  But it's usually done by one author making up stories like Jason Blair who fabricated a series of stories for the NY Times.  We are unaware of multiple media organs promoting the same story using the same unnamed intelligence sources where all the reporters are lying about what they were told.  The NY Times and the Washington Post are not running any stories backing off their earlier claims that electronic surveillance showed that Team Trump was in contact with the Russians. These papers are writing as if these revelations prove that Russia was behind the Trump victory.  Of course the stories prove no such thing, but they do prove that the intelligence community is feeding information to the press.  So both Stoddard and Krauthammer are accusing the largest American media organs of lying. 

It’s absurd.

Second, the explanation given by Judge Andrew Napolitano is logically consistent. His claim is that British Intelligence has access to NSA intercepts. He accused Team Obama of going to GCHQ to get information from NSA about NSA records of Team trump conversations ... intercepted by NSA. There is no accusation that GCHQ spied on Team Trump.  There has been no denial that GCHQ and NSA share information. The British denial is pro-forma and as dismissible as our head of intelligence stating that the NSA does not have records on Americans; a lie.

Why would Team Obama take that route? Simple, it does not leave legal trails, no FISA requests, no court orders. Spooks talking to spooks don’t leave a paper trail; but perhaps they should.

The reason that people like Stoddard and Krauthammer claim that Trump lied is the same reason that neither one of them believed during the campaign that Trump would be elected. He’s just not the kind of person they see in the role of American President. Even now, months after the inauguration, they are denying his legitimacy.  Stoddard refuses to believe a President who acts like Trump is real or legitimate.  She wants the President to act like her Central Casting's image of a president.   They deny he’s the President and deny his very rational assertions that his conversations and that of his aides were recorded and disseminated to the news media in an attempt to attack him and impugn his legitimacy.

Meanwhile, anchor Bret Baier fell all over himself to make it crystal clear that Fox News is trying to put as much distance as possible between himself and Andrew Napolitano.  The word may have come down from on-high - Rupert Murdoch - or it may have been a desire by Baier or the news department to avoid anything that could conceivably be reported by Breitbart, Limbaugh or any other Conservative organ.

If Fox and Baier wants to get the approval of the MFM they are going about it the wrong way.  The Left is busy purging its ranks and any attempt by Fox News personalities to appear impartial is doomed.  Just as in the Soviet Union in the 1930s the old Bolsheviks were tried and executed by a purer, newer strain.  The Left's defenestration of it's own leaves no room for cooperation with anyone to the right of Obama.

Too bad.  I like Baier and his panel, but news and politics is now divided into enemy camps in this country.  Especially in the news industry, that there is no longer any hope that a middle ground can be found.  At this point, every source is suspect and everyone is under suspicion for "deviation-ism."

Nothing is certain except what you know personally and the press' talking heads like Stoddard and - occasionally - Krauthhammer are talking through their asses.   But the nice thing about being in the press is you believed that, like a doctor, you simply bury your mistakes and go on as if nothing happened.

Unfortunately, the Internet never forgets.

The Revolt of the Judges

Glenn Reynolds:

They are setting Trump up for a Jacksonian moment. And he knows it, too, as his wreath-laying signals. This will not end well.

Ace of Spades:

If judges aren't going to accept that Trump is actually the President and has all the powers they were more than willing to concede Obama had (way more than willing, actually), then why should Trump accept that the judges have the powers they believe they do?

Josh Blackmkan asks:

".. whether the judiciary has decided to treat Trump as if he's not really president. He says that judges who seem to be taking their cues as to how to read Trump's public statements (in the most uncharitable light possible, of course) are practicing a new judicial doctrine which might be called "MSNBC deference."

The Liberals in the judiciary appear to question Trump's legitimacy by questioning his motives rather than judging based on the law.  They view his as fundamentally different.  If they are right, they may not understand that Trump will not accept their legitimacy if they do not accept his.   trump is different; he's taken on the entire bipartisan Ruling Class and so far he's winning.  The judges may be creating their own nemesis.

Funny

Ha!

CNN Goes Nuts Over No Car Seats In Presidential Limo

Part of Draining the Swamp is to get rid of many of the rules that force you to live the way that Liberals want you to live, and to shut them up when they scream and whine.  This is an example of hysteria.

Apparently, there aren’t enough important things going on in the world to prevent this from becoming headline news, with CNN devoting an entire story to the possibility that this event might have transpired. “Trump-Kushner children appear to board motorcade sans car seats,” read the panicked headline that was better suited to The Onion than to a legitimate news outlet. (I don’t recall CNN ever covering such incidents when they involve Chelsea Clinton hopping in a taxi with her young daughter and no car seat.)

Never mind that it’s legal to take a child of any age in a beat-up taxi without a car seat; but CNN seems to think someone should call Child Protective Services because the Trumps let their kids ride in the safest car in the world without car seats! Even CNN was forced to acknowledge the, ahem, singularity of “Cadillac One,” writing: “The Secret Service-driven presidential limousine, known as “the Beast,” is certainly safer than the average vehicle.”

You don’t say! Maybe that has something to do with the six-inch thick windows that can stop any bullet, the doors that weigh as much as the cabin doors on a Boeing 757, or the explosive-proof fuel tank, for starters? Never mind the police escort that rides along with the car at all times, and which shuts down all traffic wherever it goes.

The attention given to this incident highlights just how extreme America has become about car seats—even one of the safest cars ever built is still fair game for the car seat police—and how bad the helicopter parents of America have gotten in carrying out their work for the nanny state.

Horrid headlines on the health-care bill are about an alternate reality

From the NY Post.

Democrats and much of the media are screaming over the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that 24 million Americans will “lose” their health insurance thanks to the GOP-proposed American Health Care Act. In fact, the CBO numbers are guesses based on an alternate reality.

Back when they wrote the ObamaCare law, Democrats gamed the system to get happy predictions out of CBO — numbers that never showed in this reality. Naturally enough, the push to replace ObamaCare now yields some scary estimates.

Proposed bill would let bosses fine you for refusing a genetic test

CBO said the Affordable Care Act would trim the deficit; reality’s been the reverse. It said 24 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges by now. Reality: below 11 million.

And the agency is still projecting the exchanges to cover 19 million by 2020 if nothing changes. In fact, enrollment leveled off this last year; at best, it’s on course to stay around 11 million. More likely, the program has begun its “death spiral,” with soaring prices prompting plummeting enrollment.

Then, too, CBO says the repeal of the “individual mandate” — the fine for going without insurance — would drive 18 million people to drop their coverage by next year. But that includes 6 million of the 11 million on the exchanges — suggesting that more than half of those people only buy insurance to avoid the fine.

Much as we hate ObamaCare, we don’t believe that — the fines aren’t high enough. And even if CBO’s right, then those people don’t really want their policies, so they wouldn’t be “losing coverage,” but fleeing it.

CBO also says 5 million would quit Medicaid — even though premiums are tiny. Anyway, everyone who qualifies can re-join Medicaid the instant they need it, so those folks wouldn’t truly lose coverage.

Plenty of other CBO assumptions are just as dubious. For example, the agency guesses that the bill would push up exchange premiums — when Health Secretary Tom Price has already started the process of pushing them down, by junking Obama-era regulations that forced every policy to cover a long liberal wishlist, from “free” contraceptives to chiropractors and other alternative medicines.

The GOP bill isn’t perfect, but it’s a realistic first step toward moving beyond a system that’s on track to implode. The scary headlines only describe a fantasy world where ObamaCare is a smashing success.

When an organization has such a bad track record on prediction, why would you believe them , unless your desperately want to.

ANN COULTER: LET'S MAKE RUSSIA OUR SISTER COUNTRY!

The more hysterical liberals become about Russia, the more your antennae should go up.

Their selective misgivings with Russia are just like their selective alarm with (our ally) Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the nationalist Chinese government, and (our ally) Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam. ...

They say Putin is a "thug" and a "bully" who kills journalists. Liberals never used to mind Russian leaders killing journalists. Nor millions of scientists, writers, Christians, Jews, kulaks, Ukrainians and the entire 1980 Soviet Olympic hockey team.

...

Liberals were cool with the show trials, the alliance with Hitler, the gulags, the forced starvations, the shooting down of American planes and goose-stepping through Eastern Europe.

But that was when the Russian leader was Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev -- not the beast Putin!

Back then, liberals were spying for Stalin (Julius Rosenberg's code name: "Liberal"), the U.S. president was calling the bloodthirsty dictator "Uncle Joe," and The New York Times was covering up Stalin's infamous crimes. In the storied history of fake news, the Times' Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his false reports denying the Ukrainian famine, in which more than 7 million people were deliberately starved to death.

As far as the Times is concerned, those were Russia's halcyon days!

Back when Russia was actually threatening America with nuclear annihilation, Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their "inordinate fear of communism." Sting sang that "the Russians love their children, too.”

But now liberals are hopping mad with Putin. They could never forgive Russia for giving up communism.

To add insult to injury, Putin embraced the Russian Orthodox Church! This was deeply offensive to fiercely Christophobic liberals.

Russia's descent into insanity and madness was clear when Putin refused to allow LGBTQ marches through Red Square. For having the same position on gays as Obama did, circa 2008, Russkies were walking on the fighting side of liberals!

Read the whole thing.

How John Brennan and Some Brits Tried to Tip the Election to Hillary

They investigated candidate Trump and then planted smears in the English press about it.

It makes sense once you find out that Obama's CIA Director John Brennan once supported the Communist Party.

Leading Putin Critic Warns of Xenophobic Conspiracy Theories Drowning U.S. Discourse and Helping Trump

The MSM can't help themselves.

Hillary Clinton's team met with Russian ambassador, says Kremlin spokesman, as he warns against 'hysteria'

Why do I have to learn this from a British news source?

Hillary Clinton’s team members met with the Russian ambassador during the election as well as Donald Trump’s, the Kremlin spokesman has alleged, as he set out to dismiss the “hysteria” surrounding Mr Trump’s links to Russia.

The house intelligence committee will hold its first session on Russia on March 20, with the heads of the FBI, national security agency and CIA expected to appear, plus previous intelligence chiefs.

But Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that America was “self-humiliating” in insisting that Russia hacked its election.

Impossible to impeach her, she lost. Lock her up?

When you elect an administration that doesn't really like the country that much, this is what you get.

More of the politicization of the bureaucracy that is Obama’s toxic legacy.

Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell said on Saturday that the WikiLeaks' dump of documents it claims are from the top-secret CIA hacking program is "absolutely" an "inside job."

Speaking with "CBS This Morning," Morell said the spy agency should be asking itself whether the leaker was a staff employee or a contractor, and whether there were any "red flags" that were missed....

"This data is not shared outside CIA. It's only inside CIA," Morell said. "It's on CIA's top secret network, which is not connected to any other network. So, this has to be an inside job."

"The American public should be deeply troubled by any WikiLeaks disclosure designed to damage the intelligence community's ability to protect America against terrorists and other adversaries," a CIA spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday. "Such disclosures not only jeopardize US personnel and operations, but also equip our adversaries with tools and information that do us harm."

How's the fundamentally transformed country working out for you?

Mark Steyn Talks About Barack Obama's Intelligence

National Review Figured Out Why Hillary Wasn't Indicted

WHY YES, THIS IS CNN:

(Copied from Instapundit)

Did the New York Times already tell us Trump was ‘wiretapped’?

Why yes, they did!

The reason the Times has a dilemma is that, on Jan. 20, the paper ran a front-page story with the headline “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”

Now they're denying rump's accusation of wiretapping.

So who's lying?

Marxism: the Bug Wearing an Edgar Suit

Marxists kill the organization and wear it's skin like an "Edgar suit."

... it’s very important to identify which groups and institutions are SJW-converged, which ones are Edgar suits filled with Marxist cockroaches, and which ones are not. Rightists have permitted bad actors to continue to be treated like good actors merely because they skinned an organization of good actors alive, and wore them like a suit. It’s both stupid, and disservice to the memory of those who created the original, non-converged organization.

Fox News Radio correspondent confronts Gateway Pundit reporter in White House briefing room

Politico

As reporters were getting settled ahead of Friday’s briefing, the Fox correspondent Jon Decker pointed out that a reporter from Gateway Pundit, Lucian Wintrich, was in the room and that they “hate blacks, Jews, Hispanics,” according to BuzzFeed White House correspondent Adrian Carrasquillo, who tweeted about the incident.

Decker also sent an email to the entire White House reporter email listserv, noting that the White House "has admitted Gateway Pundit into today's White House Press Briefing."

While some in the White House briefing room say the White House should be open to any and all outlets, others have expressed concern with certain outlets being legitimized via their White House credentials.

Fox News confirmed Decker was reacting to previous tweets Wintrich had posted. According to a White House Correspondent in the room, several reporters shook Decker’s hands as he walked back to the Fox News radio booth.

When the entire media - news and infotainment - is guilty of false "reporting," selective editing, spiking stories because they don't advance the narrative, alternative media spring up. 

The establishment fights back, not by getting better, but by demonizing the interlopers. 

The attempt to monopolize the views that the American people get has failed. The old media has lost its power to create the national mood. That's why Hillary lost despite the backing of the establishment press. Her entire campaign was based on demonizing Trump and the press was her megaphone. They failed. 

Using muscle in the White House Press Room isn’t going to fix the problem. It’s the modern version of book burning. As the well-known hero of Progressives, Chairman Mao, once said “let a thousand flowers bloom.” 

Gateway Pundit has a long way to go before it has printed as many lies as the NY Times. They still haven’t returned the Pulitzer Prize for Walter Durante’s whitewashing Stalin’s. And don’t get me started on the rest of the legacy media.

Here's a link to Gateway Pundit.

'IMMIGRANT PRIVILEGE' DRIVES CHILD RAPE EPIDEMIC

Ann Coulter

According to North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement, immigrants commit hundreds of sex crimes against children in North Carolina every month -- 350 in the month of April 2014, 299 in May, and more than 400 in August and September. More than 90 percent of the perpetrators are Hispanic.

The press isn't very interested, except for the spectacular crimes like the illegal from Honduras decapitating his mother.

There have been more stories in the American media about a rape by white lacrosse players that didn't happen than about thousands of child rapes in North Carolina that did.

I'm pretty sure our media is opposed to rape. But evidently, not as opposed as they are to America.

We've know that for a while.   It's why they supported Obama.

Starbucks CEO's refugee comments sour customer views of chain - survey

When you deliberately piss off at least half the country you are no longer running a business but a hobby.

Starbucks Corp's vow to hire thousands of refugees after President Donald Trump's first executive order that temporarily banned travel from seven mostly-Muslim nations appears to be hurting customer sentiment of the coffee chain.

Middlebury College: college presidents whose superpower is appeasement.

The Speech President Patton Gave To Students

If there were any uncertainty about that, President Patton soon put it to rest. At seven minutes into the video, she took the stage and spoke for six and a half minutes. Let’s put this in present tense. Patton speaks in a somber tone, and is at pains to get across her own extreme reluctance to have Charles Murray on campus. Her points are:

Inclusiveness. “Thank you all—every single one of you—for being here.” Several times over the course of the next six minutes, Patton repeats a pledge of allegiance to diversity: “Middlebury is committed to unlocking the potential and brilliance of every student no matter their race, their class, their sexual orientation, their religious orientation, their disabled status, or any other demographic marker.”

Regret. “I’m here because if my schedule is free I always respond to the student requests.” Patton allows that college policy permits students and faculty freedom “to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them.” She sounds not one bit enthusiastic about this policy.

Repugnance. “I would regret it terribly if my presence here today, which is an expression of support I give to all students who are genuinely seeking to engage in a very tough public sphere, is read to be something which it is not: an endorsement of Mr. Murray’s research and writings. I will state here that I profoundly disagree with many of Mr. Murray’s views.”

Is every Middlebury student a repository of brilliance waiting to be unlocked? Presumably the Charles Murray of “The Bell Curve” would have doubts about that, as would anyone who takes the trouble to watch the 44-minute video, which serves as a pretty good illustration of what not-very-intelligent people look like when they succumb to a mob mentality. Patton’s list of the “demographic markers” she is eager to defend does not include political orientation. Indeed, she began her remarks by declaring, “Allow me to state the obvious. We are a left-leaning campus…”

Patton Didn’t Defend Free Expression—She Took Sides

Nowhere in her remarks was there any defense of the ideal of free expression on campus. She acknowledged that “college policy” left the door open to the American Enterprise Institute Club to invite Charles Murray, but Patton had nothing to say about why it was a good idea to let Murray or others not on the left speak.

Nowhere in her remarks was there any defense of the ideal of free expression on campus.

Patton’s explicit and emphatic avowals of her disagreement with Murray were gratuitous. She cited none of his views and gave no reasons why she disagreed with those views. She merely took sides: siding with the protesters in their uninformed distaste for Murray, though not in their willingness to deny him a platform.

The underlying message to the students who showed up to protest was that President Patton felt the justice of their cause, but was determined to stick with college policy allowing controversial speakers to speak. Patton positioned herself almost identically to how Chancellor Nicholas Dirks at UC Berkeley had positioned himself prior to the Milo Yiannopoulos event. Dirks had likewise empathized his extreme dislike of the speaker’s views and his temperate allegiance to free speech.

But perhaps the most striking precedent for what happened at Middlebury is the May 2013 takeover of a Swarthmore College board meeting by a mob of student activists. The president of Swarthmore at the time, Rebecca Chopp, sat in the audience and did nothing, even after students who were not part of the protest appealed to her to restore order. That event too was caught on video, and Chopp persisted afterwards in defending her inaction in the face of tactics of intimidation and lawlessness.

Stanger Participated in the Protest

But there are deeper layers of irony here. If you examine the video carefully, Stanger makes several appearances before she goes on stage. At one point (29:08), Stanger is to be found grinning at the chant, “Hey hey, ho, ho, Charles Murray has got to go.” At another (30:05) Stanger is broadly smiling as the crowd chants, “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away.” Still later, as the crowd chants, “Black Lives Matter,” Stanger raises her hands above her head (33:20) and claps along. Soon after, the camera pans across her again (33:34) and she is chanting the slogan as well as clapping.

In other words, Stanger was not just present at the protest, but participated in it.

That his assigned interlocutor would publicly participate in an effort to prevent him from speaking at all is, I guess, part of the postmodern academy.

That his assigned interlocutor would publicly participate in an effort to prevent him from speaking at all is, I guess, part of the postmodern academy. Murray tweeted after the event, “Allison Stanger. She’s on the left. And fearless, funny, smart as can be, and as devoted to academic freedom as anyone I’ve ever met.”

Stanger is the Russell J. Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics at Middlebury, and a figure to be reckoned with: Harvard Ph.D., a graduate diploma in economics from London School of Economics, author of some important scholarly works, including “One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy” (Yale University Press).

To this, we can add outpatient at Porter Hospital and martyr to President Patton’s commitment to non-interference in the right of Middlebury students to enforce their prohibition on free speech in their own creative way.

President Patton, however, was “deeply disappointed by the events that [she] witnessed.” She issued a letter to the community expressing her displeasure.

Cate Blanchett: My Moral Compass Is 'In My Vagina'

You can't make this up.

A few days before International Women's Day, when anti-Trump protesters planned to strike for "A Day Without A Woman," actress Cate Blanchett said that her moral compass is "in my vagina."

"It's all about, as you move forward in life, what's your moral compass — where does kindness and humanity sit in a really brutal world?" Blanchett, best known for her role as Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, said on "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert Saturday.

Colbert asked her, "What is your moral compass? Where does kindness and humanity sit in a brutal world?"

"It's in my vagina," Blanchett quipped, as the audience broke out in laughter and applause. The actress then pretended to leave the set, as if she'd said all there was to say.

Blanchett's statement was intended as a joke, but it arguably reveals the mentality of much of the "women's movement" against President Donald Trump. Protesters involved in "A Day Without a Woman," organized by the same people behind the "Women's March" after Trump's inauguration, seem driven by a less-than-rational anger at the sitting president.

The event's website described the event as standing up against the forces of "fear, greed and hatred." As International Women's Day began, Trump himself tweeted his respect and honor for women, which might seem surprising to those protesting him as the ultimate misogynistic bogeyman.

But there is an explanation for this sub-rational marshaling of protesters, and it comes in Blanchett's own words. At the "Women's March," hundreds of women — and men! — dressed in vagina costumes, and there was a campaign to knit "pussyhats" beforehand. In a

world where "The Vagina Monologues" are considered "empowering," this might not come as a surprise so much as a national cultural embarrassment.

There are feminists who identify with a certain part of their anatomy, and they do indeed act as though that is their "moral compass."

Indeed, the Huffington Post's Rebecca Shapiro called the vagina-moral compass declaration "another reason to love Cate Blanchett."

Don't women ever get embarrassed by this kind of thing?   If so, why have we not heard about the backlash?

Where do we find most anti-Semitism?

Jewish fear and hatred of Christians is not reciprocated. You can't fight generations of indoctrination with reason or facts. This is true of Jewish culture and - unfortunately - also of Arab culture. Learn to live with it and accept it as a cultural artifact.

“There is also a general sense among Jews, at least liberal Jews, that Trump’s supporters are significantly more anti-Semitic than the public at large. I have many times asked for empirical evidence that supports this proposition, and have so far come up empty. I don’t rule out the possibility that it’s true, but there doesn’t seem to be any survey or other evidence supporting it. Given that American subgroups with the highest proportions of anti-Semites — African Americans, first-generation Hispanic immigrants, Muslims and high school dropouts — are strong Democratic constituencies (though the latter group appears to have gone narrowly for Trump this time), one certainly can’t simply presume that Trump has a disproportionate number of anti-Semitic supporters. Often living in a blue bubble, liberal Jews easily can panic when they don’t know anyone who voted for the other side’s candidate(s), and can assume the worst about the other side’s supporters. . . . The irony of all this is that if you talk privately to those who work in the Jewish organization world, many will confide that the greatest threat to the security of the American Jewish community is ‘changing demographics,’ which is a euphemism for a growing population of Arab migrants to the United States. Anti-Semitism is rife in the Arab world, with over 80 percent of the public holding strongly anti-Semitic views in many countries.”

Podesta Didn’t Register As A ‘Foreign Agent’ When He Represented A Bank With Ties To Russian Spy Agencies

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova told TheDCNF Podesta should have registered with the Justice Department.

He said Sberbank’s ties to Russian intelligence agencies clinched it. “It’s all the more reason why they should have registered. They were representing a direct organ of the Russian government engaged in espionage.”

“The truth is you always err in favor of registration, but Podesta didn’t want to register because it wouldn’t look good, even for a Democrat. So, what they did was they didn’t register.”

DiGenova was rueful over the double standard being applied about ties to Russia. “It’s axiomatic that what is forbidden for Republicans is permitted for Democrats.”

Isn't it time that this law was actually enforced and people put in jail?

U-M Refuses to Disclose Its President's Politicking

The University of Michigan is withholding some emails its president sent regarding President Donald Trump, claiming their content is protected under the Freedom of Information Act. The university, which took 106 days to respond to the open records request, claimed the content in those emails were “preliminary and advisory in nature.”

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy announced last Thursday that it is suing the university over a monthslong delay in completing its request for public information....

Michigan Capitol Confidential reported in early February that the Mackinac Center filed a FOIA request with the university on Nov. 16, 2016, asking for Schlissel’s emails containing the word “Trump.”

The request was filed after Schlissel made anti-Trump remarks at an on-campus protest on Nov. 9, the day after the election.

...

At the postelection protest on campus, Schlissel implied that students who voted for Trump voted for hate.

“Your voices worked out to be a 90/10 decision in favor of the unsuccessful candidate yesterday,” Schlissel told those at the protest. “Ninety percent of you rejected the kind of hate and the fractiousness and the longing for some sort of idealized version of a nonexistent yesterday that was expressed during (Trump's) campaign.” (The Michigan Daily has published a video of Schlissel’s speech.)

John Mozena, Mackinac Center vice president for marketing and communications, said in a press release that the FOIA request was only made because of Schlissel’s public comments.

“In his professional role as head of a public university, President Schlissel took a very public stance against President-elect Trump and the people who elected him,” he said. “Our CapCon team was interested in learning more about the decision-making process that led to the actions taken by this public university and its employee, and filed the FOIA request accordingly.”

Democrat Groups Paid Ransoms to Hide Protester Funding

You pay ransom to hide bad information on you if the bad information is true.

Here's an interesting thought: will the Congress reveal what's in the 30,000 missing Hillary emails?

John Crudile in the NY Post

One of the reasons I predicted Hillary would lose was that the Russians had hacked her emails — along with those of some other Democratic Party higher-ups.

A very reliable source told me that the Russians did it, through a proxy and — this is the important part — that the National Security Agency had hacked the Russians while the Russians were hacking Hillary.

So everything the Russians have, the NSA also has. And, as I said back then, the NSA offered those hacked emails — including Hillary’s — to the FBI, which declined the offer.

Everyone now agrees with me that the Russians did indeed hack Hillary. In fact, Clinton herself treated this as a fait accompli — something that had actually happened — when she started to address what was in those emails. She said the 30,000 or so messages were mostly discussions about yoga and daughter Chelsea’s wedding.

That, of course, is absurd.

Only Hillary really knows what’s in those 30,000 emails because they never came out, although they were supposed to.

WikiLeaks, which dumped hundreds of thousands of Democratic emails onto its site, never had one email that came from Hillary or was sent to her.

WikiLeaks had promised what it called the fourth phase of email dumps the week before the election, but that’s the only promise it didn’t keep. So what happened? My guess is that President Obama’s stern warning to Vladimir Putin caused the Russian president to stop the promised leak of Hillary’s personal emails.

Any investigation of the Russian hacking is liable to result in Hillary’s emails being read, and perhaps released.

The other possibility is even more likely. Putin could get annoyed by the firestorm over his interference in the US election and decide to have the surrogate he had do the hacking release Hillary’s emails.

Imagine how quickly attention will shift if we suddenly have Hillary ’s emails about Obama, Bill Clinton, donations to the Clinton Foundation and many other topics.

After Obama, whom would you trust to do it?

This is the tragedy of the Obama administration. He really did fundamentally transform the country into a copy of a corrupt African kleptocracy.  And with the enthusiastic cooperating of the Democrats in congress.

The Obama administration left us with a poison bouquet, a federal government whose investigatory agencies are thoroughly corrupted, politicized, and untrustworthy. We know for a fact that the Internal Revenue Service, acting after demands from Democratic elected officials, targeted conservative-leaning activist groups for investigation and harassment, and that this harassment was outrageous, including demands that religiously oriented organizations disclose the very contents of their prayers.

We know that that Internal Revenue Service illegally and maliciously leaked information about the donors of the National Organization for Marriage, in order to facilitate political and financial retaliation against them. We know that evidence, including e-mails, was destroyed to subvert investigation into this criminal conspiracy, and that congressional Democrats went to extraordinary lengths to protect IRS officials from being punished for their wrongdoing.

We know that one of the key figures in that case, Lois Lerner, is enjoying a large federal pension rather than a small federal prison cell. We know that the Department of Justice was wildly politicized during the Obama years, doing Democrats’ bidding on everything from voter-intimidation cases to the Clinton e-mail case.

We know that the National Labor Relations Board was used as a political weapon to try to punish Boeing for setting up new production in Republican-leaning South Carolina rather than Democratic-leaning Washington State.

We know that the ATF was used to audit a business whose owners were not involved in A, T, or F, but who were involved in election-reform projects, and that the same firm was targeted by OSHA and the IRS.

We know that a politicized EPA was involved in such extraordinary shenanigans that its director felt the need to set up a pseudonymous e-mail account in order to hide her activities from ordinary oversight.

Even our Democratic friends have concluded that the FBI under the Obama administration was politicized, though they cannot quite seem to make up their minds about the direction or intent of it.

Barack Obama liked to talk about capital-H History, about “making History” and being “on the right side of History.” And though he may not go down as a particularly consequential figure (much of the drama of the Obama years was just that: drama), Obama will be remembered by the historians for a few things: for being the first black man elected president in a country with a complicated, ugly, and brutal history on the issue of race; for attempting to walk away from U.S. commitments in the Middle East only to reinvade Iraq, lose a game of chicken in Syria, misunderstand the nature and the aims of the Arab Spring, and send U.S. forces into nebulously defined conflicts in several African countries; and for being the first president to institute a policy of assassination of U.S. citizens as a matter of national security.

But what probably will end up being most consequential about President Obama is the corruption, which was systemic despite his media sycophants’ insipid insistence that his was a presidency without scandal.

The corruption of the Obama administration was not of the apple-stealing/intern-bothering Clinton variety, but the much more serious matter of perverting necessary public institutions for political purposes. He oversaw this at the federal level and inspired it at the state level: Consider all those Democratic attorneys general banding together to shake down Exxon and lean on free-market think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Kamala Harris’s campaign to do to California’s conservative activists what the IRS did to the National Organization for Marriage, demanding donor lists.

The Trump administration’s ties to Moscow probably should be investigated, if only for the sake of putting aside the wilder fears and more inflamed passions of less responsible partisans. The trouble is, the Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress have left us with no credible institution to undertake such an investigation.

Whom would you trust? The Justice Department? The State Department? The FBI? The intelligence community? A special investigator? A bipartisan special committee that would be subject to the high ethical standards of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer?

Remember this?

When Democrats and the Russians were friends.

New York Times Claims to Support Free Speech on Campus, Then Proceeds to Blame Violence on Campuses on Right Wing "Narrative" of Phony Oppression

When a newspaper can no longer simply denounce a violent black bloc mob's assault on men and one woman without trying to excuse it away as somehow the fault of the victims of the attack, then I would say we're pretty close to the edge.

The left is now in war mode, where violence in the service of tribe is sometimes (by which I mean "almost always") excusable.

..

I've been told for years about the growing threat of right-wing extremism and how right-wing leaders have to police and denounce their own to keep from encouraging extremists to commit violence, and this is the New York Times' response to left wing violence?

To encourage it and excuse it away, precisely as they've (erroneously) accused right wing "leaders" of doing for years?

I heard the media shriek and whine that Trump supporters would jeer and mock Katy Tur. That was a threat to Democracy Itself, they lectured.

Now their Shock Troops are beating people in the street, and their response is to claim right-wingers are making up sob stories and thereby... provoking their own beat-downs?

Sabotage is All They Have Left on the Left

From the Diplomad:

Like a retreating occupation army, the Democrats and their enablers seek to destroy all before the advancing liberating forces can use it.

Sabotage is all they have left on the left.

In the wake of Trump's "shock" victory last November, their failure to prevent him from taking office through a variety of loopy legal/political moves, the Democrats, reeling, once again, from the hammer blows of Trump's uplifting and magnificent agenda-setting address to Congress, now openly seek no less than the destruction of the country's ability to govern itself. They offer no alternative vision to compete with Trump's optimistic message of national renewal, so they seek to prevent him from being able to use government in that quest, by denying him, the elected president, the institutions of government.

Sabotage is all they have left on the left.

As I noted some time back (here, here) we are seeing the attempted execution of an American coup d'etat against our own institutions,

This has gotten completely out of control. I never thought I would see our country's politics reduced to the degrading levels of a Banana Republic. Are we destined to become Honduras with rockets?

This is no longer "just politics." This is political jihadism that attempts to make America ungovernable. There is no concern for the potentially dire consequences here or abroad of their actions. All that matters to today's progressives is that they, and they alone, hold all the power in the massive progressive state they have built. Elections, the law, the future of the nation, and even logic be damned.

King vs. King

Glenn Reynolds headline makes the point that the Democrat attack on Trump's legitimacy has escalated because Trump would not play the tit-for-tat game.

Richard Fernandez tells this story:

Many years ago I worked with a man who before taking up a graduate degree in math at a German university had been a martial arts enthusiast. He had a very slight limp and one day told me the story behind it. While walking along a beach in Honduras with his wife and a British couple the foursome were attacked by a huge man armed with a machete. My friend had a "little camping machete" for defense and seeing the fight would soon go against his shorter weapon stepped inside his assailant's blade arc and took out his assailant's arm while receiving in exchange the blow which produced the limp. The Honduran police later congratulated him for subduing a notorious local criminal and took both him and the seriously injured suspect to the hospital.

The story illustrates how in a sword fight, as in politics, the combatants often attack each other's extremities (sword hand, extended foot, arm) first before venturing into body strike range. To get into killing range you must often risk being killed yourself. So sword fighters usually wait for their foes to weaken or an opening to develop.

The most singular thing about Donald Trump's wiretap accusation against Barack Obama is how he's refusing to play the game of extremities — losing a Flynn here and getting a Sessions paralyzed there — and getting right into lethal range. Trump's gone right past Schumer, ignored the surrogates and gone straight for the former president himself.

The Sunday Guardian writes some believe Trump's key mistake was believing "in mid-November ... that it would be a statesmanlike gesture to (in effect) pardon Hillary Clinton." He must have expected a reciprocal courtesy. The next thing he felt were his digits being sheared away.

Acting through their contacts in the incoming administration, the Clinton machine ... 'dismissed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn ... [and] ensured that the green light got flashed to launch an attack on another known foe of Hillary Clinton', Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose sought after resignation would energize the Clinton machine to move on to their next targets, Counsellors Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Bannon.

Trump's response to the finger-lopping campaign was not to respond proportionately but to attack Obama himself. CBS News writes: "The White House ... is calling for an investigation into the previous administration’s surveillance activities."

This escalation represents a real threat to Obama. Suddenly everything is out of control. Nobody would have minded much if Trump had gone after one of Obama's henchmen — which is probably what was expected — but none can foresee how an exchange of blades between principals will end. It is safe to say, however, that unless the combatants disengage, someone will get hurt. It will be a terrible moment for American political civility when a king lies on the political floor. The whole point of a peaceful transition of power is to prevent a clash between kings. Yet the very tragedy the electoral process is intended to prevent is happening before our eyes.

The Left, the press, Obama and Clinton have always misunderstood Trump.  They underestimated him. They failed to realize that he will not play by the rules that made other Republican subjects of their attacks so docile. He fights. And if you start a fight with Trump he will finish it.

So suddenly the Press and the Democrats are backing off the "Trump and Putin stole the election, and the FBI and CIA are on the case." All of a sudden it's "there was no wiretapping of Trump going on." Forget the headlines in the NY Times, we were just kidding.

Reynolds:

One of the ways American political culture prevents such a fight is to have only one king at a time. Former presidents are expected to retire and vanish. Obama, however, decided to stay in DC and try to destroy Trump’s presidency. That was a choice that showed little concern for America, but then, the lack of such concern has been a hallmark of Obama’s career.

And who was foolish enough to think that Trump would respond to attacks by playing small ball?

Answer: the foolish people who just lost the last election.

Did Obama spy on Trump? Glenn Reynolds

So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be at true is that the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what authority and who was targeted.

As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy summarizes in National Review, the Obama Justice Department considered a criminal investigation aimed at a number of Trump’s associates. When they didn’t find anything criminal, they converted the investigation into an intelligence probe under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Elements of that story have been confirmed by The New York Times, the BBC and McClatchy newspapers.

FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked. But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC. As McCarthy writes, this is notable because “the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance.”

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn’t specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones..

Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls “disingenuous on several levels.” Others have characterized them as a "non-denial denial.”

Of course Team Obama spied on Trump. They spied on everyone.

Remember when this was a rebellious song?

How to Survive In the Age of Rage

The firs thing is not to read the Virginian Pilot.

November 9, 2016 was when the actual SMOD -- reality -- hit.

They lost their feeling of control and power over America. And believe me, after 8 years of Obama, and with the social and cultural winds at their back, able to gin up social media hate-mobs against anyone who even said something they didn't like, and able to sic the IRS on conservative groups and get away with it scot-free -- they felt like they were in total control.

And they were right to feel that way: They were in total control.

And now that's gone.

November 9, 2016 -- the day they realized it was not a nightmare, but a reality akin to a nightmare -- was the progressives' 9/11. Just as real Americans felt the loss of security and control over their own fates that day, so did progressives feel that on 11/9.

What you're seeing from progressives now, and the media, is the same sort of urgent fury you saw from real Americans after 9/11 -- an anger that a great evil had been done, and honor demanded furious retribution.

Many people might have gone a little round the bend after 9/11. I think I did. In fact I know I did. I'm not proud of that, but neither am I too ashamed to admit it.

At least there was justifiable cause.

And now a great evil has finally shaken the progressives in the same way-- they lost all three branches of government.

And they've gone crazy.

In my experience, there is nothing quite so dangerous as an inflated but brittle ego. An inflated ego which is resilient is annoying and dangerous, but, being resilient, it does not really react bigly to threats. It shakes threats off, so it doesn't need to lash out or go on little Nervous Breakdown Picnics out in Ego Protection Park.

But large brittle egos do. Large egos lash out, and brittle ones -- ones that are easily punctured by pins -- must lash out aggressively, constantly, almost randomly.

11/9 stole from them the two things most sacred: their sense of superiority and infallibility, and their precious political power over the people they hate.

And they're reacting rather poorly to that.

The daily hysteria, paranoia, conspiricizing, meltdowns, tantrums, out of left field accusations -- these are not signs of healthy minds.

We are used to saying X Derangement Syndrome but I really think there is some actual derangement going on.

How far down the road do you think we are?

Ace of Spades has a good point. There is political capital to be gained from political violence. At some point wearing the losing uniform is stupid.

This is why I said I'd become a Democrat if Hillary won -- I thought it was over. I still think it's over, if I'm being honest. But if the Democrats continue 16 straight years in office, with no chance of punishment for any transgression and thus the perfect freedom to transgress on whim, then I'm damn sure not going to continue wearing the uniform of the army that's surrendering. I'm going to change uniforms -- I have to meet the second need, freedom from government harassment, before I bother thinking about the third, fourth, and fifth level needs.

Either we're fighting to win or I, personally, am not fighting at all. It's one thing to fight in vain for a lost cause; but to make yourself an enemy of a state for a cause no one is really fighting for?

Now that's crazy.

So thus the importance of the question: How far along the decline do you think we are? How close do you think we are to the point of no return?

How menacing do you think the left's ever-more brazen mobs are?

How insulated do you personally feel from the violence that is happening more and more, and with less and less condemnation of the Political-Media Establishment?

And in pondering that question, read this account from Charles Murray about the mob that assaulted him and put a female professor in the hospital, and then ask yourself:

Do you really think there will be any legal consequences for the mob?

Or do you think the Political-Media state will tacitly bless their assaults as "understandable" and hence not punishable?''

Does it not seem to be an inside-outside game going on? Community-organized violent demonstrators who are then protected, if not outright blessed, by official government institutions and all of the media to go even further than they've gone already?

A mob that gets cracked down on by government agents is a one-day crime story.

A mob that gets protected by government agents is a serious political story.

That there is political violence is not itself alarming. That government actors, rich institutions, and the putative Fourth Branch of Government support political violence is gravely alarming.

Do you think there will be more of this, or less of this, in the year to come? And if you say less -- well, what would cause there to be less of it?

Is Lynch advocating violence in the streets?

Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”

But the strongest words come in a statement that seems to suggest the answer is street action that will inevitably turn bloody and deadly.

“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people,” Lynch says. “I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers.”

North Carolina State Senator Who Blamed Trump for JCC Threats Goes Silent

Rolling Stone published a February 28 story which featured North Carolina state senator Jeff Jackson (D) who vociferously blamed President Trump for the Jewish community center bomb threats around the nation. Bad timing for him because just three days later, on Friday, a suspect was arrested for the JCC threats. Very inconveniently for Jackson and many liberals the suspect, Juan Thompson, turned out to be an anti-Trump leftist. So what was the reaction of Jackson and the Rolling Stone? Contrition? An apology? Naw. Complete silence.

Like much of the rest of the mainstream media as pointed out by Newsbusters' Brad Wilmouth, Rolling Stone has avoided the topic of Thompson's politics by simply not even mentioning him despite the fact that they featured a story on the JCC threats just days earlier. Fortunately that publication did preserve Jackson's sick allegations against Trump in their earlier story

Chris Wallace Accuses Dem Sen of ‘More Than a Whiff of McCarthyism’

Coup and Counter-coup

More news on Trump wiretaps

The media has been full of information stating that Trump was being wiretapped.  Here's a great tweet from Hillary Clinton on this very subject.




And who would those "computer scientists be? Why, nobody else but our friend at the NSA working on behalf of the Obama Justice Department.

I think that the former AG and her Deputy, Sally Yates, went through the NSA in terms of the FISA request. Comey is telling us the truth that neither he nor the FBI was involved with any of it. I think when Michael Rogers met with our President on November 18th, he was there to inform the President Elect that he and the folks at the NSA were responsible for all types of surveillance on him. He decided to come clean and let the President know that he had absolutely no choice because the AG through the President (Obama) wanted this. I think President Trump thanked him for the info and asked him to remain quiet about it.

 Today the media are denying their previous accusations.  That's what happens when you have partisans instead of truth seekers in the press.

More fake news

It turns out that those headstones in a Jewish cemetery in Brooklyn just fell over due to neglect.

Another day, another fake story to debunk, this time out of Brooklyn where there were reports earlier on Sunday of widespread of “possible vandalism” of the mainly Jewish Washington Cemetery. Note how Sen. Chuck Schumer linked to this early report as if it were fact:...

The New York Police Department says no evidence of vandalism has been found at a predominantly Jewish cemetery where more than 40 tombstones were toppled over.

The NYPD says after consultation with the management of the Washington Cemetery in Brooklyn, it was determined the 42 tombstones came down as a result of a number of factors. Those include long-term neglect or lack of maintenance, as well as environmental factors such as soil erosion.

Liberal students at Middlebury College send professor to the hospital

On Thursday, hundreds of students at Middlebury College shouted down political scientist Charles Murray, forcing him to deliver his remarks in a private room via a live web stream.

While he delivered his remarks, student troublemakers pulled the building’s fire alarm multiple times. Shouting could be heard in the background throughout the live-streamed lecture and subsequent conversation with Political Science Professor Allison Stanger.

When Stanger and Murray left the building, things turned violent, ..

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.

“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” Burger continued. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

There will be no investigation, no suspensions, no expulsions and certainly no criminal proceedings. The law does not apply to leftists.

Why are Liberals such violent anti-Semitic gigots

Anti-Trump Communist Arrested For Jewish Community Center Bomb Threats

Of course this is par for the course on American campuses.

Jewish students battle rising anti-Semitism on campus

Antisemitic Activity in 2015 at U.S. Colleges and Universities
With the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations

Anti-Semitism at My University, Hidden in Plain Sight

Anti-Semitism spikes on U.S. campuses

Just Google anti semitism on campus

The modern campus in America - or Canada, England, Germany, etc. - is the epicenter of the modern Liberal/Left.  Yet this is where the most virulent antisemitism is practiced.  The Liberal/Left has adopted a new pet: Islamic fundamentalists.  And since Jews and Muslims are as compatible as oil and water the Left has decided to go full Jihad against the Jews.

When you do that you give a wink and a nod to everyone out there who has a screw loose and who decides that shunning, marching, shouting and holding placards is not enough, and decides that bomb threats, desecration of Jewish cemeteries and physical violence is the REAL answer.    

That's how you get Juan Thompson.

Stupid Outrage

Ostentatious Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema nearly shat his progressive panties at the thought!

Also: Trump ordered a strip steak, which he ate per his preference, well-done and with ketchup, as if the entree would be accompanied by a sippy cup. (Insert a moment of silence for the cow, the condiment and what most chefs would call a forced marriage. Really, I feel the same way about masking the flavor of a $54 dry-aged steak as I do about guys who wear baseball caps indoors: Just don’t. And pity the new kitchen lead, chef de cuisine Brian Drosenos, who had to deal with the ultimate VIP in his first week on the job.)

Kevin Pang – the food editor of the A.V. Club was downright morally offended on the cow’s behalf, clutching his pearls in emasculated angst!

What asshole goes out to dinner at one of the nation capital’s most-acclaimed steakhouses, orders a 30-day dry aged New York strip, then asks the chef to cook it well done? And if that’s not enough, eats it with ketchup like a 5-year-old?

What kind of an asshole spends precious time publicly criticizing another person’s food choices?

Great question.

Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond's sexist joke shows liberals don't mind brutalizing Republican women like Kellyanne Conway

Why are Democrats such sexist pigs?

In front of the entire congressional press corps last night, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, insinuated that Kellyanne Conway, a married mother of four and counselor to President Trump, was a prostitute.  ...

Either the Left seriously cares about smashing glass ceilings and misogyny, or liberals only care about sexism when it can be politically-weaponized.

Fake News: Media, Democrats Distort Remarks to Target Jeff Sessions

Democrats and the media are once again targeting Attorney General Jeff Sessions — this time, over allegations that he met twice with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The Washington Post reports that Sessions met Sergey Kislyak once at a Heritage Foundation event in July 2016, where other ambassadors were also present. It also reports that Sessions met with Kislyak in his Senate office in September, in his capacity on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The hook on which the Post attempts to hang Sessions is that he did not disclose the meetings to the Senate when he was asked about “possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow.” Sessions’s spokesperson at the Department of Justice, Sarah Isgur Flores, says his answer in January was truthful because he was asked about “the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

The Post does not provide the full transcript of the question, from Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), and Sessions’s answer. Instead it summarizes the exchange in a way that makes it seem that Sessions was asked if there was any contact at all between the campaign and representatives of the Russian government.

In fact, what Sessions was asked about was sustained, ongoing communications — a core accusation in the dubious “dossier.”

Here, via C-SPAN, is the transcript:

Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

Franken: Very well.

Note that Sessions was not actually asked whether he or anyone affiliated with the campaign had any kind of communication with the Russians, ever. He was asked, first, about “a continuing exchange of information” — repeated contacts between the campaign and representatives of the Russian government.

In the full context of Franken’s remarks, it is clear that Sessions was asked about the allegations in the dossier, and he denied such “communications” to the extent of his ability to do so.

In another, written question, the Post notes that Sessions was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) whether he had “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day” (emphasis added). Sessions answered, simply, “no.” And there is no evidence in the Post nor elsewhere to cast doubt on that claim.

The New York Times covers the story and adds an interesting wrinkle — namely, that Obama administration officials did whatever they could to distribute information within the government about alleged contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intermediaries. (The Times calls this an attempt to “preserve” evidence, which would have been a departure from the Obama administration’s more typical practice of hiding evidence on personal email accounts and hidden email servers.)

That suggests a coordinated hit job, including espionage against the Russian ambassador, and possibly against members of the Trump campaign, even in their unrelated activities.

Regardless, as Flores noted to the Post, Sessions had meetings with “more than 25” ambassadors. The Post lists several of those, but leaves out one crucial country: Ukraine, whose emissary Sessions met the day before meeting with Kislyak. If Sessions was trying to back the Russians, that was an odd way to do it.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is calling on Sessions to resign, and the Democratic National Committee is already out with a list-building email, sent Wednesday evening: “BREAKING: Jeff Sessions may have perjured himself.”

But it is all just more “fake news.” A chance greeting at a public event, and a Senate meeting in the course of his official duties, do not add up to anything, and the full transcript — also omitted by the Times — makes it clear Sessions told the truth.

Barack Obama's close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home, which is now the nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against President Trump

• Obama's goal  is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment, a family friend tells DailyMail.com
• 
  
• Jarrett has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion to work closely with the former president and Michelle Obama
• 
  
• Jarrett lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and helped shape his domestic and foreign policies
• 
  
• Obama cannot use his West End office, a post-presidency perk, for political purposes
• 
  
• 'He's coming. And he's ready to roll.' former Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday about the former president's reentry into the political scene

And that $65,000,000 book deal will help fund the coup.

The Obamas and Jarrett have been thick as thieves. Jarrett was living in the White House and dined with the couple