Presidential Politics

Joe Biden’s tax returns: The 3 biggest takeaways

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict Thursday on subpoenas for President Trump’s tax returns that could allow the financial records to remain shielded from the public until after the November election. Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was quick to reignite his criticism of Trump for fighting to keep his tax returns, banking and other financial documents private. “You want to talk about corruption? I’ve released 21 years of my tax returns — I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government in Congress and as vice president,” Biden said in a video from October that he tweeted out again on Thursday. Last July, in the midst of the Democratic primary, Biden’s campaign released three years of income tax returns starting with 2016, his last year in office, and running through 2018. He had previously released his returns from earlier years. The documents show that Biden, who frequently used to refer to himself as “Middle-Class Joe,” enjoyed a stream of wealth once leaving office, making millions of dollars mainly from lucrative book deals. Here are three main takeaways from Biden’s tax returns. He made the bulk of his money after he left the White House: Biden’s federal tax return for 2016 shows his adjusted gross income was close to $400,000 in his last year in office. His 2017 tax return shows his income soared to more than $11 million; in 2018, he earned about $4.6 million. The spike in wealth was largely attributed to sales of his 2017 book: “Promise Me, Dad,” a best-selling book about the final year of his son Beau’s life, came out in November 2017, almost two years after Beau died. Biden also made 47 paid speaking engagements from January 2017 through the end of May 2019, a majority of which were for the book tour. In total, he received about $4.29 million in fees from those speeches. As Biden earned more money, he paid a higher effective tax rate: Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, had effective tax rates of 23.5 percent, 33.9 percent and 33.4 percent for 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. They donated to charity 1.5 percent of their adjusted gross income in 2016, 9.2 percent in 2017 and 6 percent in 2018.

To see crazy Joe’s tax returns and judge for yourself, click on the text above.  What a self-righteous hypocrite.  He’s definitely a millionaire….but jealous he’s not a billionaire like Trump, lol.    🙂

Poll: Americans Still Think Trump Is Best for Economy and Jobs

The U.S. economy is likely in the deepest slump since the Great Depression but Americans still think President Donald Trump is better on economic issues than Democrat rival Joe Biden. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reveals that voters picked President Trump over Biden when it comes to who would be best at cutting unemployment and getting Americans back to work, by 48 percent to 35 percent. On handling the overall econonmy, Trump bests Biden by 48 percent to 37 percent. Trump’s continued strength on economic issues is notable because Americans have taken a much grimmer view of the economy as unemployment has shot up to post-World War II records and the coronavirus shutdowns have thrown the economy into contraction. Just five percent of Americans rate the economy as “excellent,” down from 18 percent at the end of 2019. The share rating the economy as “good” has fallen to 17 percent from 35 percent in December. The share rating the economy as “poor” has shot up to 45 percent from 14 percent in December. Those who rate the economy as “only fair” have remained almost steady at around 30 percent. Trumps’ overall job approval rating stood at 45 percent in the June, down 1 percentage point from April. It is actually up a percentage point since the December poll. His strongly approve rating fell 3 points since December to 31 percent, while somewhat approve rose 3 points to 14 percent. The strongly disapprove rating went up 3 points from December to 47 percent. Forty percent of Americans say they have positive feelings about Trump, while 37 percent say they have positive feelings about Biden. Trump’s “very positive” rating is at 29 percent, compared with just 17 percent for Biden. In a dramatic illustration of just divided Americans are on political matters, Trump also far outpaces Biden on the “very negative” score, 45 percent to 26 percent. In the head-to-head poll asking who would voters cast a ballot for if the election were held today, Biden beats Trump by 49 percent to 42 percent. That is almost unchanged from the poll taken last July and each poll in between.

Politico Admits Democrats ‘Dread’ Fast Economic Rebound

The far-left Politico admitted Tuesday that Democrats are “dreading” the idea of a fast economic boom as America reopens, which explains the anti-science push among many Democrat governors to extend their pointless coronavirus lockdowns. Thanks to these lockdowns, some 40 million people are unemployed, some 40 million lives have been shattered; lines at food pantries seem to go on forever; countless small businesses are in danger of closing or already have… Nevertheless, what America’s oh-so compassionate Democrats dread most is a quick economic rebound that might undermine their grasping desire to hold on to and obtain power. “The general election scenario that Democrats are dreading,” the Politico headline reads. And what is that scenario? “We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country,” a former economic adviser to Barack Obama told a bunch of bigwigs from both parties last month. His name is Jason Furman and Politico says he “laid out a detailed case for why the months preceding the November election could offer Trump the chance to brag — truthfully — about the most explosive monthly employment numbers and GDP growth ever.” Furman’s counterintuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic. “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.” And top policy officials on the Biden campaign are preparing for a fall economic debate that might look very different than the one predicted at the start of the pandemic in March. “They are very much aware of this,” said an informal adviser. What Furman already sees are signs of what’s known as a “V” recovery, as a opposed to a slower or gradual recovery, or a recovery that takes a while to get back to where we were before these stupid lockdowns began. Furman sees an economy that’s already unleashed. Consumption and hiring started to tick up “in gross terms, not in net terms,” Furman said, describing the phenomenon as a “partial rebound.” The bounce back “can be very very fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. It will look like a V.” Furman’s argument is not that different from the one made by White House economic advisers and Trump, who have predicted an explosive third quarter, and senior adviser Jared Kushner, who said in late April that “the hope is that by July the country’s really rocking again.” White House officials were thrilled to hear that some of their views have been endorsed by prominent Democrats. While no one expects the second quarter numbers — the numbers that will tell us the GDP between April 1 and June 30 — to be anything but terrible, if we can come to our senses nationwide and get these absurd lockdowns behind us, the third quarter numbers (that will be released at the end of September) could show real growth. This would be good for the incumbent president, especially since that incumbent president has been predicting a “pent up” desire within the American people to get back to normal. Good news for America and Americans would, of course, be terrible news for Joe Biden, who is desperate to strangle our economy with record high taxes and an obscene amount of regulations. Biden’s policies would hurt a flourishing economy, but they would kill a post-lockdown recovery in the same way the Obama-Biden economic policies of 2009 killed any hope of a real rebound after the 2008 economic crash. It’s no accident the Obama-Biden administration oversaw the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression. Their taxes, regulations, and constant threats of more kept a boot firmly on the neck of our economy for eight long years. Plus, no matter how much Biden might crybaby about Trump’s Twitter account, his golf game, and his violation of the establishment’s “precious norms,” the American people tend not to fire a president when the economy is humming — especially if we are coming out of a downturn. But what does it say about Democrats that with nearly 40 million lives shattered, they “dread” a fast comeback for those 40 million people? Obviously, that’s a rhetorical question, but it does answer the question as to why — and for no valid scientific or medical reasons, a number of mercenary Democrat governors are desperate to push these pointless lockdowns as far into next month as possible (especially in swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania). It is all about doing whatever damage they can to those third quarter GDP numbers; even if that means more pain for those who cannot work from home — primarily the working class.

Sooo…To be clear..  Democrats are rooting for the economy to tank, and the more people unemployed, the better.  By contrast, Trump and the GOP are rooting for America to bounce back “big” and for people to have jobs and be prosperous.  Remember that in November.

Trump Coronavirus Campaign Ad Features Joe Biden Cheerleading for China

President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign released a new ad on Thursday attacking former Vice President Joe Biden for his past support of China. “During America’s crisis, Biden protected China’s feelings,” the text of the ad reads. The ad features Biden’s past positive comments about China, as more Americans suffer from the coronavirus that first came from China. “It is in our self-interest that China continue to prosper,” Biden says in the ad. The ad also features Biden toasting Xi Jinping at dinner and questions on Biden’s son Hunter’s investments in China. Dr. Anthony Fauci also has a cameo in the campaign ad, praising the president enacting the China travel ban to help fight the virus.

And so it begins…  To see this brutal ad, click on the text above..

Opinion/Analysis: Doddering Joe Biden Unfit to Lead in Time of Crisis

Whatever you think about President Trump and his response to this global pandemic that sparked from a Chinese “wet market” selling wildlife, you cannot exactly be heartened to behold the response offered by Democrats. The party’s presumed nominee, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, finally mounted the barricades this week to personally combat the Wuhan virus by — what else? — setting up a television studio in his Delaware home to offer “counterprogramming” to the president and his crisis team of doctors, public health officials, industry leaders, and economic experts. Watching Mr. Biden stumble, mumble and dodder through a simple speech in his living room while looking lost and lonely staring into a cold camera is physically painful for any human. For nearly five decades, Mr. Biden has been one of the great masters of Washington. Yet he is a blubbering disaster unfit for the national stage during a crisis. Unfit, really, for any stage at any time. He is Barack Obama — minus the fake Greek columns. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress cannot help but reveal their true loyalties in the desperate throes of a global meltdown. More Americans have lost their jobs in the past several weeks than at any other point in history, and what is the first instinct of panicked Democrats in Washington? They race to lard up an emergency financial rescue package with treasonous smash-and-grab bags of obscene money for the greedy special interest groups that keep Democrats in power. From environmental wackos to self-serving union bosses to the suicidal open borders industry, the great puppeteers of Washington Democrats were the party’s first — and only — priority in this panic. Workers be damned! Taxpayers be screwed! Damn the greatest economic engine on the earth! This really should not be much of a surprise if you look back at their performance these past several years. Since the dawn of the Trump Dynasty, Democrats have manufactured ridiculous crisis after ridiculous crisis. Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel room. Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh a serial gang rapist. Ukraine Kabuki impeachment. These people are fundamentally unserious. Totally untrustworthy. Genetically anti-American. And nothing reveals their unseriousness like an actual, true crisis. Perhaps the most obvious and cynical way Democrats in Washington exposed themselves during this pandemic was their nakedly partisan effort to expand — of all things — “voting from home” in the massive bailout bill. Also known as “ballot harvesting,” this scheme strips away every safeguard designed to ensure election integrity in America. After all, this is the same party that managed to lose an election to President Trump. The only way they have any hope of winning is to entirely rig the whole thing. There is also talk in Washington these days of doing something just as bad as ballot harvesting. Some people want to allow congressmen and senators to be allowed to cast ballots from anywhere. These people are bad enough being allowed to vote while in Washington. Why on earth would we want to encourage them by allowing them to vote from home, too? The whole point of establishing the nation’s capital in Washington was that it was a dismal swamp uninhabitable most of the year. The mosquitoes alone kept Congress out of session for long months at a time. This narrowed the amount of time each year that federal legislators could be in Washington wasting your money and destroying the country with their ridiculous ideas and votes. Then along came air conditioning, and that ruined everything. One of the rare bright spots in this whole pandemic has been that — finally — Mitt Romney found a job for which he is actually qualified: self-quarantine. It’s just too bad he didn’t think of that back in 2012 before Republicans nominated him to run against Mr. Obama. Maybe if he had, Republicans could have nominated a real leader — a real statesman — like Donald Trump.

Exactly!!!  Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) was total disaster as a presidential nominee.  And now the Dems are seeing the handwriting on the wall about former VP Joe Biden (D).  Thanks to Charles Hurt for that outstanding op/ed.  Charles can be reached at or @charleshurt on Twitter.  Excellent!!!     🙂

Opinion/Analysis: Socialist Sanders is most dangerous major party presidential contender in US history

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the improbable current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, is lying to the American people when he tell us that “democratic socialism” simply means he wants to give the vast majority of Americans new opportunities to succeed and wants millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, my extensive research on comments Sanders has made going back decades shows he has warmly embraced not just socialism but communism, and praised tyrannical dictatorships that have trashed the freedoms Americans enjoy under the Bill of Rights that are part of our Constitution. Sanders is not just another liberal Democrat who wants to expand social programs, in the tradition of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He is the most radical candidate in American history with a real shot at winning the presidential nomination of one of our two major political parties. While candidates have run for president in the past on radical platforms under the banners of socialist, communist and other fringe political parties, they have drawn only tiny percentages of the vote. Sanders, elected in Vermont as an independent and not as a Democrat, is trying to convince the American people that policies implemented around the world by socialist and communist regimes that have resulted in death, destruction and economic mayhem are in our best interest. But like the wolf in the children’s tale of Little Red Riding Hood who donned a nightgown and covered his face to pose as the young girl’s grandmother, Sanders tries to disguise socialism. The socialist senator wants us to believe socialism is a kind and caring philosophy that is the embodiment of justice and equality for all. Sanders thinks that by sticking the word “democratic” in front of the word “socialism” he can trick millions of Americans into supporting the horrific philosophy he espouses. As the old saying goes, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Communism and socialism give government far more power than our capitalist system does, enabling leaders to become tyrants. This has been proven the case again and again in dozens of nations that have abandoned capitalism for communism and socialism. The truth is that more than 167 million people were exiled, imprisoned, or killed by socialist and communist parties in the 20th century. And, contrary to claims made by Sanders, his talking points about socialism’s successes in countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark are completely false. Those countries are not socialist nations and their citizens are, in many ways, not better off than most Americans. Yet despite these well-documented facts, Sanders has managed to sell his socialist snake oil to many well-meaning, kind-hearted Americans who think that the only way to solve the world’s problems is to give government far more power over their lives. The following quotes from Sanders illustrate just how truly radical and disturbing his ideology is. In a “special interview” in 1981 with a communist newspaper called The Militant, Sanders, who had just become mayor of Burlington, Vt., claimed there are American police departments “dominated by fascists and Nazis.” “We’ve got cops here who are good trade unionists on all the regular trade union issues, and who also have a concern for young people,” Sanders told The Militant, in reaction to some concerns voiced by socialists who were worried that he received too much support from local police during his 1980 mayoral campaign. In other words, Burlington had good cops – but bad cops dominated many other police departments. The attack Sanders made on police is not only outrageous, it’s also incredibly ironic. The Nazis were, in fact, socialists who believed in collectively managing property and most of the German economy. Further, some of the most ruthless, murderous regimes to exist during the past 100 years were led by committed Marxists – not free-market capitalists devoted to defending individual rights. Sanders has a long track record of supporting communist and socialist organizations. For example, in 1980 and 1984, he endorsed Socialist Workers Party presidential candidates, and he even agreed to be an elector for the party. This shows clearly that Sanders is no Democrat. He’s an opportunistic radical trying to hijack the Democratic Party and turn it into a socialist party. In the 1980s, the Socialist Workers Party was mostly devoted to espousing radical Marxist and communist ideas, and it was widely known as being largely Trotskyite – an ideology made famous by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, who promoted the necessity of global communism. According to an article in The Militant, Sanders issued a press release in 1980 in which he said he supported the Socialist Workers Party in part because of its “continued defense of the Cuban revolution.” At the time Sanders lauded the “Cuban revolution,” the ruthless dictator Fidel Castro had been in power for two decades. During that period Castro stripped Cubans of their basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and welcomed Soviet missiles to his island nation. That action led to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which brought the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. Sanders has a long track record of framing his ideology as one that is completely contrary to capitalism. This precludes any possibility that he wants to merely reform America’s current market-based system. For example, in a speech Sanders delivered in May 1981 while introducing the head of the Socialist Workers Party, he explained that the “real debate of our time” and the “debate of our century” is “socialism versus capitalism.” Further, throughout the 1980s Sanders said the Democratic Party was not radical enough to accomplish his goal to usher in his Marxist utopia and win the “socialism versus capitalism” debate. For instance, according to reports by the Burlington Free Press, in a speech Sanders delivered in the early 1980s before students at the Vermont Law School he said Vermont needed a new and radical party that “must develop a membership base of workers and farmers” and called for “the rejection of the Democratic and Republican parties.” Based on his own words, it is clear that the “revolution” Sanders is always talking about staging would spell the end of capitalism and economic freedom in the United States that made us the richest, most prosperous and most powerful nation on Earth. And once economic freedom goes, history has shown that political freedom and many of our human rights go as well. My question to each of you reading these words is simple: Do you really want to see America turned into a “workers’ paradise” like China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and so many other failed communist and socialist nations? Sanders doesn’t frame his campaign that way, of course. But that is the choice facing voters.

Indeed..  Thanks to Justin Haskins for that well-researched assessment of Bernie’s history, and his actual philosophical and political beliefs, which he’s espoused for decades.  Justin Haskins is the executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and the editor-in-chief of He’s the author of “Socialism Is Evil: The Moral Case Against Marx’s Radical Dream.” Follow him on Twitter @JustinTHaskins.

Joe Biden, 77, Becomes Youngest Male Candidate in Democrat Primary

Former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, is now the youngest male candidate in the Democrats’ presidential primary after former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race Sunday. As of last week, Buttigieg, 38, was the field’s youngest candidate. He would have been 39 years and one day old upon taking up the White House had he won the general election. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the presumed frontrunner, is the oldest at 78 years old, followed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is only eight months younger than the Vermont senator. Sanders will be 79 if he wins the White House. At 73 years old, President Donald Trump is younger than Biden by four years. On Inauguration Day, the president became the oldest to assume office at 70 years and 220 days. John F. Kennedy was the youngest elected president at 43 years and 236 days. In contrast, the field’s woman candidates are all younger than Biden. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is the youngest at 38, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is 59 years old. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the oldest at 70 years old. She would be 71 years and 212 days old if inaugurated after a successful campaign.

Some interesting, and yet relevant, stats.  In a recent poll, those asked said that candidates whose age was over 75 was a cause for concern.  That should be a red flag to both Joe Biden, and especially Bernie who in addition had a recent heart attack.  Bernie may be doing very well with his rabid base in this primary season.  But, the general election is a whole other matter.   And, in the age and health category, Trump clearly has the advantage.  Biden is only 4 years older, but boy does he act old, and his chronic verbal gaffes…  Let’s just say… Trump would destroy him on the debate stage.

Hillary Clinton Received Over 800,000 Illegal Votes, Research Claims

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received over 800,000 illegal votes from noncitizens of the United States, according to academic research. A study by political scientist Jesse Richman from Old Dominion University in Virginia found that 6.4 percent of the 20 million noncitizens who reside in the United States voted in November’s presidential election. He then extrapolated these results into support for each presidential candidate, estimating that Clinton would have received 81 percent support from noncitizens, therefore receiving an extra 834,000 votes. The number of 834,000 is significant enough to have tipped some of the closest races in Clinton’s favor, including New Hampshire, Nevada, and Maine, all of which Clinton won by margins of under 3 percent. It would also have reduced Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote, which she won by 2.8 million by dominating cosmopolitan centers such as New York and California. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he would be opening up a “major investigation into voter fraud,” promising to “strengthen up voting procedures.”

Great!  It’s about time!  Voter ID should be a no-brainer.  That, and making sure that voter rolls are clear of people who are dead, no longer living in a given precinct…and so on.  This research substantiates Trump’s position that a significant number of illegals DID, in fact vote last November…and had a significant impact.  It only makes sense that a thorough investigation be done to get all the facts, and make the necessary adjustments/fixes to prevent this from happening again.

Obama’s farewell address longer than Reagan’s, Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s combined

President Obama’s farewell address to the nation was longer than the good-bye speeches of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined. Clinton spoke for 7 minutes, 25 seconds; Reagan spoke for 20 minutes, 42 seconds; and George W. Bush spoke for 13 minutes, 7 seconds. Obama spoke for 51 minutes, 10 seconds, nearly 10 minutes longer than the other three put together. Obama also broke from the tradition of delivering his final speech from the White House. Clinton and Reagan both spoke from the Oval Office, and George W. Bush spoke in front of a small audience in the White House East Room; the Obama administration distributed public tickets for his speech at the McCormick Place convention center in Chicago. Obama spoke to a crowd of 18,000.

Thankfully I wasn’t able to watch this nauseating, self-righteous, self-serving, narcissistic, ego-building session last night.  Reading the transcript was vomit-worthy enough.  He actually had the audacity to suggest that race relations have improved in America since he became President 8 years ago.  Wow..  That takes denial to a whole new level.  Just 9 more days, folks..


Analysis: Media say hacked emails are critical, but can’t say why

Many in the national media are certain that hacked emails hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances in the election, but their reports and columns rarely cite any of the emails’ contents that would have presumably affected the outcome. Members of the press have made a new push to assert that Russian hacking had an effect on the election, especially after last week’s unclassified report that said Russia did try to help President-elect Trump, and hurt Hillary Clinton. That report made no finding of how effective Russia was, but many in the press are deciding nonetheless that the effort had a huge impact. “While Russian hacks ‘were not involved in vote tallying,’ the publishing of pilfered emails … altered the zeitgeist, poisoned the political environment and shifted public opinion, all of which redounded to Trump’s benefit,” liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote on Monday, citing the intelligence report. The night before, Blow’s colleague Jim Rutenberg, who writes a column on media, said the “spilled secrets” in the emails were “damaging” to the Clinton campaign. He noted that the email revelations saw the resignation of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and led CNN to terminate its contract with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. But neither Blow nor Rutenberg explained why the emails were damaging nor did they cite examples as to what was in them. The emails — first the DNC ones hacked and published last July, followed by those of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s in August — contained no explosive revelations, though they did show DNC officials preferring Clinton to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. They also showed Clinton aides questioning some of their candidates’ decisions. Another email showed Podesta referring to former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Pena, both of whom are of Latin descent, as “needy Latinos.” (At the time of that email’s publication, neither the Times nor the Washington Post covered it.) But news reports and journalists are asserting that the emails, at least in some capacity, cost Clinton the election. “Was it the Russians who turned Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania truly red?” said Times columnist Maureen Dowd on Saturday, referring to the formerly blue states that Trump won on Election Day. The Trump team has maintained that its victory is legitimate and that it was not helped or guaranteed by foreign intervention. That assessment hasn’t been challenged by the intelligence community, at least not in the public version of its report. The report did say Russia’s intent was to aid Trump and harm Clinton, but it also said intelligence officials “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” Still, in an interview Sunday on CNN, anchor Jake Tapper, without discussing the contents of the emails, asked Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, “How can you say that the hacking had no impact on the election when Mr. Trump [during the campaign] kept invoking WikiLeaks which was printing, publishing things that the Russians had hacked?” An article Friday in the Times called the intelligence report “a damning and surprisingly detailed account of Russia’s efforts to undermine the American electoral system,” but did not mention the contents of the emails. The Washington Post’s write up of the intelligence report referred to the emails as having “embarrassed Democrats and kept voter attention on Clinton’s email controversy.” But again, that story listed no “embarrassing” details that might have swayed voters away from Clinton. Similarly, a USA Today report in December referred to the emails as “a trove of sensitive communications” but did not say what made them sensitive. One hurdle for the press as it tries to claim the emails were decisive were prior assessments from the media that downplayed the emails. Before the intelligence findings last week, some news outlets had actually diminished the importance of the email hackings. In October, Times columnist James Poniewozik dismissed the contents of them. “Just because it’s hacked doesn’t mean it’s important,” he wrote, adding that, “Where there’s a smoking gun, there isn’t always fire.” And PolitiFact, on Dec. 1, in a since updated article, said, “Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton.”

Of course it didn’t.  And, the Dir. of National Intelligence said as much.  Yes, the Russian government engaged in cyberwarfare, and yes tried to engage in information and disinformation campaigns, including the recent presidential election.  That’s hardly new.  We do the same thing.  Heck, Obama tried to (and illegally, I might add) undermine the election in Israel, so as to unseat Bibi Netanyahu.  Where was the media outrage about that?  Look, it’s all bs; smoke and mirrors.  Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate, that was seen by the overwhelming majority of Americans as someone who was not trustworthy.  If anything, all the hacked emails did was reinforce the attitudes and decisions that voters already had.  It IS interesting that the dominantly liberal mainstream media has failed to substantiate its assertion that that these emails were the cause for Hillary’s loss in November….but, it’s not surprising.