President Trump

Opinion/Analysis: There was collusion – but not involving Trump

There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.” Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic Party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen … which is why you could bet the ranch that it would. Plan A was to get Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions. Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump not reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case. Upon becoming President Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton improperly set up a private, non-secure system for email communications. It featured her own personal server, stored in her home and, later, maintained by a private contractor. Secretary Clinton used this private email system for all of her official State Department communications, notwithstanding that doing so (a) violated government regulations (which, as the department head, she was responsible for enforcing); (b) violated governmental record-keeping and record-production obligations imposed by federal law; and (c) made it inevitable — due to the nature of her responsibilities — that streams of classified information would flow through and be stored in the non-secure system. This lack of security meant that top-secret intelligence — some of it classified at the highest levels, some of it involving Clinton’s communications with the president of the United States and other top national-security officials — became accessible to people who were not cleared to see it. Accessible not just to those lacking security clearance but also to hostile actors, including foreign intelligence services and anti-American hackers. When asked, nearly two years after leaving office, to surrender copies of her emails (by an Obama State Department under pressure from congressional investigators and Freedom of Information Act claimants), Clinton caused tens of thousands of her emails to be destroyed. Not just deleted. Destroyed. As in: purged with a special software program (“BleachBit”) designed to shred electronic documents. The aim was to prevent their being recovered. Ever. By anyone. In all, Clinton undertook to destroy over 30,000 emails, even though some of them had been demanded by congressional subpoena. And this would not be a Clinton story if we failed to note that, in the time-honored family tradition, Hillary lied her head off about the substance of the destroyed emails: We were to believe that, in thousands upon thousands of email exchanges, one of the busiest public officials and most obsessively political creatures on the planet had lolled her days away gabbing about yoga routines, family vacations, and her daughter’s wedding. President Obama took care of undermining any prosecution for her mishandling of classified information. He had a deep interest in doing so: He had knowingly communicated with his secretary of state through the private system, and he had misled the public about it — claiming to have learned about Clinton’s private email practices from news reports, like everyone else. All of that could be neatly buried in two steps. First, invoke executive privilege (without calling it that — too Nixonian) to seal the Obama–Clinton emails from public view. Second, ensure that the Clinton-emails case would never be prosecuted: If Clinton was never accused of criminal conduct, then Obama’s role as a minor participant would not become evidence in a criminal case. In April 2016, on national television, the president made clear that he did not believe an indictment should be filed against former Secretary Clinton, who, by then, was the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Obama explained that, in his considered judgment, Clinton meant no harm to national security. Plus, the intelligence involved, though technically categorized as “classified,” was not really, you know, the super-secret stuff — “There’s ‘classified,’” Obama scoffed, “and then there’s classified.” It was a classic Obama straw man. The criminal provisions pertinent to Clinton’s case did not require proof of intent to harm the United States, only that she was trusted with access to intelligence and nevertheless mishandled it, either intentionally or through gross negligence. Moreover, no one was accusing Clinton of trying to damage national security. That is a different, more serious criminal offense that was not on the table. It was as if Obama were claiming that a bank robber was somehow not guilty of the bank robbery because she hadn’t murdered anyone while committing it. There was no way on God’s green earth that the Obama Justice Department was ever going to authorize a prosecution involving conduct that would embarrass the president. Nor was it ever going to indict Obama’s former secretary of state — certainly not after Obama, revered by Democrats and pundits as a first-rate lawyer, had pronounced her not guilty, had provided a legal rationale for exoneration, and had endorsed her as his successor. Wonder of wonders: The “no intent to harm the United States” rationale President Obama had glibly posited in insisting Clinton had done nothing wrong was echoed in the ensuing months by his subordinates. Justice Department officials leaked to their media friends that Clinton was unlikely to be charged because there was scant evidence of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, very shortly after Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s case, FBI director James Comey and his closest advisers began drafting remarks exonerating Mrs. Clinton. Over a dozen critical witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not yet been interviewed. Salient evidence had not yet been examined. No matter. With the end of the story already written, the rest was just details. When Director Comey finally announced that Clinton would not be indicted, his rationalizations were indistinguishable from Obama’s. Thus “exonerated,” the former first lady was on her way to the Oval Office — this time as president. Or so she thought — as did the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, every progressive activist from Boston Harbor to Silicon Valley, and every political pundit from the Beltway to the Upper West Side. Alas, there was just one problem — a problem the president and his myrmidons could not fix for Mrs. Clinton. That problem was Mrs. Clinton. As would have been manifest to less politicized eyes, she was an atrocious candidate. Clinton was the same fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, broadly unpopular candidate she had been in 2008, when she couldn’t convince Democrats to support her. You may recall this as the reason there was a President Barack Obama in the first place. You say, “Hey, wait a second. Donald Trump was fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and broadly unpopular, too.” Maybe so, but if hammering away at an opponent’s malignance is the path to victory, shouldn’t you perhaps nominate a candidate who doesn’t mirror his defects? The only differences between the “It’s My Turn” Senator Hillary! of 2008 and the “Stronger Together” Secretary Clinton who expected a 2016 coronation was that she now had hanging around her neck the Benghazi debacle, a desultory tenure as secretary of state, a shades-of-2008 inability to convince Democrats that she was the preferable candidate (this time, not in comparison to a charismatic young progressive, but to a 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who had joined the Democratic party about five minutes before announcing his presidential aspirations), whispers that her health was deteriorating, and an email scandal that smacked of both national-security recklessness and rules-don’t-apply-to-me arrogance — precisely the kind of controversy that reminded Americans of how exhausting the last scandal-plagued Clinton administration had been. The Obama administration’s exoneration gambit came up snake-eyes because of Clinton herself. Democrats can con themselves (and attempt to con everyone else) into believing that her failure is due to Vladimir Putin’s perfidy or Trump’s demagoguery. In the real world, though, Clinton lost because of her epic shortcomings. That loss made it inevitable that the Obama administration’s exploitation of counterintelligence powers to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign would come to light. That made it imperative to promote the notion that there had been a Trump–Russia scheme worth investigating — a dark cloud of suspicion that would straitjacket and shorten the Trump presidency. The collusion narrative.

..which we now know to be a total hoax; a complete fabrication.  Thanks to attorney Andrew C. McCarthy for this outstanding piece.  Its an excerpt from his new book: “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig and Election and Destroy a Presidency.’  So, you’ll have to pick up a copy to read the rest of this..   Excellent!!!     🙂

Anti-sex trafficking leader praises ICE, Trump: ‘No question’ he’s done more than previous presidents

Director and activist Jaco Booyens touted President Trump’s historic work in fighting sex trafficking and defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as “incredible people” who helped keep children safe. Fox News host Mark Levin asked Booyens whether Trump did more to address the issue than other presidents, including former President Barack Obama. “No question,” Booyens responded on “Life, Liberty, and Levin,” airing Sunday. Booyens said that despite all the criticism surrounding ICE, the agency has become a vital partner in combatting sex trafficking. “These are incredible men and women that help us … incredible people who actually go and keep America’s children safe. This president has empowered them to do so,” he told Levin. His movie “8 Days” tells the story of a 15-year-old girl who’s forced into sex trafficking after attending a party with her friends. Booyens said the film is available on Netflix and other places. Booyens claimed that he tried taking his story to CNN and MSNBC but faced “closed doors.” “I say that not to point finger or blame, that’s just a fact. This crime doesn’t ask ‘are you conservative or liberal?'” Levin asked Booyens whether CNN and MSNBC were too focused on their own “ideological agenda” to cover the issue. “You want to believe they’re too busy to pay attention and yes they are because they’re busy with silly stuff — accusing the president,” Booyens responded. He also argued that sex trafficking was rooted in sex addiction fueled by mass media. “It is sex addiction that in its core is fueled … it starts with a pornographic culture, soft porn, it’s the objectification of women — which we as a country have done a great job at completely objectifying women.” Specifically, Booyens said, Hollywood was to blame along with the Internet.

Indeed..  Catch this interview tonight on Fox News if ya can…and tell your friends, especially your liberal, Democrat ones.   🙂

Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke slam Trump in wake of El Paso massacre, face backlash for politicizing tragedy

Two Democrats seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination faced sharp criticism on social media Saturday after linking the massacre in El Paso, Texas, to President Trump’s rhetoric. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., one of nearly two-dozen Democrats hoping to block Trump’s bid for a second term in the White House, made her remarks at a labor forum event in Las Vegas. “The individuals who do the shootings are responsible,” Klobuchar said, referring to mass shootings such as the one in El Paso that left 20 dead and 26 injured, “but I do think Trump’s rhetoric has fueled more hate in this country.” Klobuchar also pushed for gun reform legislation on Twitter. “Today innocent people—families—went to that mall in El Paso,” she wrote. “Some of them never came home. The U.S. House has passed common sense gun safety legislation. It is long past time to pass it in the Senate. The question to ask: Whose side are you on? The NRA’s or the people’s.” Former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke also placed some blame on the president for the shooting while speaking in El Paso, which he represented when he was in Congress. “He is a racist, and he stokes racism in this country,” O’Rourke told reporters. “We’ve had a rise in hate crimes every single one of the last three years. During an administration where you’ve had the president call Mexicans rapists and criminals.” The shooting in El Paso occurred at a Walmart store on Saturday afternoon. A suspect was later taken into custody, police said. While some on social media praised the candidates’ comments, others criticized them for politicizing the shooting.

Typical Dem reaction to a shooting..   They blame Trump somehow, and clamor for more useless gun-control legislation that wouldn’t have prevented the shooting in the first place.  It’s shameless politicizing of a horrific event for their own self-serving reasons.  The good news is that neither of these obnoxious tools will be our next president.  They have NO chance of getting the nomination of their party, much less beating Trump.  Anyway, for more, click on the text above.

Trump announces new tariffs on China

President Trump said Thursday he is slapping a 10 percent tariff on $300 billion in Chinese imports as of Sept. 1, saying President Xi Jinping failed to fulfill key promises. Mr. Trump said the levy is on top of the heftier tariffs affecting more than $250 billion in imports. In a series of tweets, the president said Mr. Jinping has failed to block shipments of fentanyl to the U.S, as he’s promised, and hasn’t purchased U.S. farm products. Mr. Trump had touted both pledges as signs of incremental progress when they occurred, though now he says he’s disappointed with Mr. Xi. The China tariff announcement immediately reversed a positive day on Wall Street, turning a 250 point-plus gain in the Dow Jones index Thursday into a loss of more than 100 points within 15 minutes of the White House announcement. Both the broader S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq indexes also fell back sharply. Even as he slammed China, Mr. Trump held out hope for a trade deal after “constructive” talks between both sides in Shanghai this week. Mr. Trump said his new levies will take effect right as Chinese officials travel to Washington in September to resume talks. “We look forward to continuing our positive dialogue with China on a comprehensive Trade Deal, and feel that the future between our two countries will be a very bright one!” Mr. Trump wrote.

Resurfaced video shows Elijah Cummings calling Baltimore ‘drug infested,’ likening residents to ‘zombies’

House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., previously referred to his community of Baltimore as a “drug-infested” area, using a term that President Trump included in a tweet widely panned as a racist attack on the city. The video, tweeted by the president on Wednesday, showed Cummings lamenting the city’s scourge of drugs while speaking during what appeared to be a congressional hearing. “This morning, I left my community of Baltimore — a drug-infested area where a lot of the drugs we are talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children,” he said. “The same children that I watched 14 or 15 years ago as they grew up, now walking around like zombies.” Trump originally called Baltimore a “rat and rodent infested mess,” apparently conjuring allusions to racism for some media outlets. CNN’s Erin Burnett, for example, accused Trump of feeding his base’s “basest tendencies” by using those words to describe a majority-African American city. “Infest has become sort of a trope for Trump,” she added before pointing to statements about immigrants and inner cities. “Infest is a loaded word throughout history.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., similarly called Trump’s tweets “racist,” although it’s unclear what exactly she was referring to in the tweets. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., responded to the old footage by asking whether Cummings himself was racist. “Obviously racist… Right? Those are the rules!” he tweeted alongside the video. Trump has defended himself by claiming that he was “stating plainly what most people already know.” “Elijah Cummings has done a terrible job for the people of his district, and of Baltimore itself. Dems always play the race card when they are unable to win with facts. Shame!” he said over the weekend.

And the President is exactly right!  Also, kudos to his son for calling out Cummings out on his brazen hypocrisy.  Its ok for him to say the exact same thing because he’s a black Democrat.  But, when President Trump says exactly the same words, it’s racist.  Typical double standard hypocrisy from the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  To see the video in question, etc., click on the text above.

Ben Carson defends Trump amid feud with House Dems: ‘He’s not a racist’

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson defended President Trump from charges of racism Wednesday, saying the Commander-in-Chief is not a racist and loves his country. “I have an advantage of knowing the president very well, and he’s not a racist and his comments are not racist,” Carson said on “America’s Newsroom.” “But he loves the country very much and, you know, he has a feeling that those who represent the country should love it as well.” The former neurosurgeon was referring to Trump’s Sunday Twitter spat with the four progressive House Democrats known as “the squad.” Trump didn’t directly refer to them by name at first, but it quickly became apparent he was targeting Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Rashida Tlaib D-Mich., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. Carson said Trump’s policies speak for themselves and have lifted minorities out of poverty by expanding employment opportunities and providing affordable housing. He also said a racist wouldn’t be interested in helping poor, minority communities whatsoever. “Look at his policies, you know, under this president you see the rising tide lifting all boats. You see low unemployment … record-low for blacks, for Hispanics … for all the demographics of our nation,” he said. The former presidential candidate touted the administration’s support for “opportunity zones,” which he spoke about alongside Trump at a cabinet meeting Tuesday. “What’s happening in some of these places is just astonishing. And talking to some of those people there … they say I didn´t think this could ever happen,” said Carson. “And just a couple of weeks ago, the president signed an executive order establishing a council on eliminating the barriers to affordable housing. Who’s going to benefit from that? So when you have somebody who’s spending this much time and this much effort, trying to elevate those who are vulnerable and who are suffering in our society — I think we should pay a lot more attention to what they are doing than what anybody is saying.” Carson also decried the idea of victimhood and said the beauty of America is the ability to overcome financial struggles to rise up and be the best you can be. “I have to look at my own situation, born and growing up in dire poverty with a lot negativity around me, but also, recognizing that I lived in a place where, you know, through the help of my mother, who helped me to realize that I wasn’t a victim, that I had access to all kinds of things. And [I] was able to go on, become a neurosurgeon, now a cabinet member, and these are things that we want people to recognize in our nation and that’s why we want to create opportunities for them,” he said. “All the policies that we’re now espousing deal with creating self-sufficiency in people and in those people who cannot become self-sufficient, making sure that we take care of them in the most efficient and effective manner.”

A very salient detail left out of this article is the fact that Sec. Carson is black.  For those of you who didn’t know that, go back and re-read what he just said about President Trump with that detail in mind.

Gutfeld on Trump’s tweets

Did you hear? President Trump tweeted. The tweets are being called racist because Trump told critics of the United States to go back to their country. Now those critics are holding a press conference to respond. Trump’s comment sounds bad, if you leave the rest of it out. He actually said, “Go back to your countries, fix the problems there — and then come back, and show us how you did it!” How many racists say “leave,” and then say, “please come back and help us?” Probably zero. But Trump messes with the media’s reading comprehension, so they only digest half. See, Trump’s mistake is to assume everyone sees the whole picture. Fact is, the media and Democrats wish him ill and read his tweets with ill-intent. The rest of us are left to explain it all. It’s like doing stand-up while your friends are sitting at the tables explaining your jokes. That’s where I step in — I read the whole thing. My summary? After he said “leave,” he said, “please come back!” If anything, it’s a challenge. But why quibble with context? Still, the president could work harder on the details. Like the fact that only one of the Squad is from somewhere else. Also, maybe don’t tweet about the Democrats while they’re eating each other alive? So, yeah, I could’ve worded the tweets better than Trump. But, unlike his critics, at least I could read them.

Hahaha!!  Greg, as usual, absolutely nails it here! The liberal media is SO gullible.  I agree with Greg that Trump’s timing probably wasn’t that good.  He should have waited til AFTER the 2020 election, and then if he wins re-election, THEN go after these idiots and say this sorta thing, and watch their heads explode.  As it is, the Dems are in a circular firing squad eating each other for lunch, and by Trump doing this, he gave them something to unit against.  But, nothing racist here, as Greg clearly shows.  More fake news from the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  Typical…  Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET).   🙂