Did Comey Perjure Himself?



Primary Document: Comey admits at 3:34-3:35 that Trump DID NOT try to pressure FBI to drop any case.

So, 1) the “memo” is fake, 2) Comey lied and hence committed perjury, 3) Comey also committed a felony, 4) Comey never felt pressured and “memo” justifies Trump, and 5) a combination of any of these.

The media should never be trusted again fr what they have done in libeling Trump.

The Growing Democrat/Obama Spy Scandal


, ,

It appears there is a lot about the spying on Trump that exceeds in exponential ways, anything Nixon could have deigned.  Powerline notes here the issue:

We are now starting to get a picture of how sinister this whole Democratic Party misinformation campaign is. Through the last half of 2016, the Obama administration was desperately searching for evidence of some link between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia. They went to the length of seeking (twice, reportedly) and finally obtaining a FISA order that allowed them to spy on at least one insignificant Trump associate.

In addition, we now know that Susan Rice headed up an operation whereby raw NSA intelligence was sifted for names of Trump associates, no doubt in hopes of uncovering dirt of some sort.* And we also know that these efforts came up dry. The Obama administration found no compromising information about Trump or any of his associates.

Nevertheless, ever since the Inauguration the Democratic Party, especially its press wing in Washington and New York, has relentlessly pushed the Trump/Russia story. What story? There isn’t one. But that hasn’t stopped Democrats in the press from talking about little else for the last three months.

And yet, all along, the Democrats have known that their spying produced nothing. This whole story is almost unbelievably sordid. The relevant Congressional committees should investigate thoroughly, and criminal prosecutions should follow where laws have been broken.

Though Powerline does not really note it, we should point out that the press has always known these reports of collusion were false.  They have seen the leaked document so they knew.  yet, they continued to carry water for their party.  They thus slandered and libeled Trump and his administration.  The complicit media did not care and hence furthered the fake news story Trump had something to do with the defeat of Hillary–whose actual vile and violent nature had more to do with it as we learned yesterday.

It appears with every passing day Obama and his administration broke the law.  Prosecutions should follow.

Washington Post Proves Obama Spied on Trump


, , ,

The WaPo goes to pains to allude there was collusion, but there wasn’t (FISA warrants are usually granted not because there is a suspicion of something factual).  So what does this piece demonstrate?  Obama purposely spied on Trump in order to try to find some dirt him.  Further, it appears from this story, the spying was vast–as it now has wrapped up yet another member of his team.

In other words, Trump was right again.  His tweet was spot on that he was spied on.  This is a huge scandal for the breadth of the illegal activity.

Obama’s Spying Problem


, , ,

By the time it is all said and done, we will likely have come to the conclusion that Obama was the most corrupt president in the history of the republic.  As it sits now, his espionage and spying proclivities far outstrip Nixon’s break in of the Watergate building.

Ace of Spades noted the dirt here.

TabletMag has the scoop:

“At some point, the administration weaponized the NSA’s legitimate monitoring of communications of foreign officials to stay one step ahead of domestic political opponents,” says a pro-Israel political operative who was deeply involved in the day-to-day fight over the Iran Deal. “The NSA’s collections of foreigners became a means of gathering real-time intelligence on Americans engaged in perfectly legitimate political activism—activism, due to the nature of the issue, that naturally involved conversations with foreigners. We began to notice the White House was responding immediately, sometimes within 24 hours, to specific conversations we were having. At first, we thought it was a coincidence being amplified by our own paranoia. After a while, it simply became our working assumption that we were being spied on.”

This is what systematic abuse of foreign-intelligence collection for domestic political purposes looks like: Intelligence collected on Americans, lawmakers, and figures in the pro-Israel community was fed back to the Obama White House as part of its political operations. The administration got the drop on its opponents by using classified information, which it then used to draw up its own game plan to block and freeze those on the other side. And—with the help of certain journalists whose stories (and thus careers) depend on high-level access—terrorize them.

The reason we are being the hoax of Trump and Russia is because Obama is the first president to spy on political opponents as a political means to intimidate and further his ideological policies.

The next paragraph is in line with what we’ve been asserting for months here:

This is familiar territory. In spying on the representatives of the American people and members of the pro-Israel community, the Obama administration learned how far it could go in manipulating the foreign-intelligence surveillance apparatus for its own domestic political advantage. In both instances, the ostensible targets—Israel and Russia—were simply instruments used to go after the real targets at home.

The Russians/Kislyak, is all a diversion.  The real target was–at this point–Trump.  This is especially more weighty given that the illegal unmasking and leaking of names seems to be growing.  Did Kislyak speak to every member of the campaign?  It seems that CNN and MSNBC, the NYT, and the WaPo are saying yes!  It defies logic and is delusional.






, , ,

We live in a time when the press is ever more frequently engaged in coverups and propaganda techniques to protect the left and the Democrat Party. Eli Lake was smoked out yesterday by Cernovich, and then when he reported on the story made pained t point out Trump lied about the Tapping.
More and more evidence drips out every day that reveals Trump was more spot on than not about the fact he was spied upon and the taping was more than incidental.
But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn’t need a ‘deep throat’ within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America’s corrupt mainstream media outlets.  As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration.

The Party of Domestic Espionage



As we have been arguing for nearly 6 months, the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians was always a fantasy.  It was an unsubstantiated lie concocted by the Democrat Party to explain to the people, they were not responsible for how bad they performed in the election–it was also meant to deflect the real collusion between Hillary and the Russians.  Indeed, the Russians gave the Clinton Foundation money after they received a lucrative Uranium deal.  That’s pay for play and collusion.

Eli Lake at Bloomberg blows the lid off the fake news regarding Trump and Russians the last few months:

The National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

Rice should get a lawyer.  Lake write that there is no evidence for wiretapping, but as we have noted, the media has already reported multiple times that Trump was indeed tapped.  The Failing NYT has no self awareness of this fact it seems.

Journalist Mike Cernovich has also confirmed that Obama’s Admin broke the law and unmasked citizens in a political hit on Trump.  Just based on this fact, it’s already a bigger scandal than Nixon’s Watergate.  However, there is surely more to come as we delve into HOW they knew what they knew.  Evelyn Farkus seemed to admit just that on the fake news show MSNBC Morning Joe:


JAG Post Saved–What’s Exceptional about American Exceptionalism?


From June 2016:

What’s Exceptional about American Exceptionalism?

Aaron MacLean at the Washington Free Beacon draws our attention via Twitter to a Mother Jones article quoting Donald Trump on the topic of American exceptionalism. We are happy to offer our thoughts in response, and we do so sincerely and respectfully.

First, Trump said:

I don’t like the term [American exceptionalism]. I’ll be honest with you. People say, “Oh he’s not patriotic.” Look, if I’m a Russian, or I’m a German, or I’m a person we do business with, why, you know, I don’t think it’s a very nice term. We’re exceptional; you’re not. First of all, Germany is eating our lunch. So they say, “Why are you exceptional. We’re doing a lot better than you.”…

Because essentially we’re saying we’re more outstanding than you. “By the way, you’ve been eating our lunch for the last 20 years, but we’re more exceptional than you.” I don’t like the term. I never liked it. When I see these politicians get up [and say], “the American exceptionalism”—we’re dying. We owe 18 trillion in debt. I’d like to make us exceptional. And I’d like to talk later instead of now….

We may have a chance to say it in the not-too-distant future. But even then, I wouldn’t say it because when I take back the jobs, and when I take back all that money and we get all our stuff, I’m not going to rub it in. Let’s not rub it in. Let’s not rub it in. But I never liked that term….

Truth be told, this is one of the most refreshing statements on American exceptionalism that I have heard uttered by a politician in a long time. Conservatives, especially, have come to take for granted chants of “American exceptionalism” as a campaign rallying cry–as something merely to be celebrated rather than an achievement that must continually be renewed. This is one of the underlying problems I see with American conservatism today.

On this point, Prof. Harvey Mansfield offered perhaps the best discussion of American exceptionalism in a 2011 essay in the New Criterion:

The wisdom of the American Founders does not come to us in authoritative phrases such as “Confucius says” or in what we have unfortunately come to call our “values,” but mostly in the form of a Constitution….

Publius announces on the first page [of the Federalist] that the new American Constitution proposes to make an experiment for mankind to see whether a republic can actually be “good government” in practice as well as imagination. America will be exceptional rather than unique: exceptional in being the first to make a republic work, to prove its point by its success, thus to lead the way—rather than unique because of its values or circumstances….

[Anti Federalists] had no care for the weaknesses of republics, amply revealed in the sorry history of republics, which features instability, inaction, and surrender to tyranny.  Recent experience in the Revolution and afterward had produced a situation called by Publius “almost the last stage of national humiliation” (Federalist 15)….

The utopian theories behind the [Anti-Federalist] tradition that The Federalist disparaged were republican theories far distant from the realities of politics and human nature. It insisted, rather, that republicanism be held to the standard of “good government,” meaning government that works, one that provides the energy and stability that are requirements of all government, and one that cannot be wished away with the assumption that republicanism is good in itself….

The Constitution, therefore, is not a guarantee of good government; it is not a machine that runs itself. Each generation has the responsibility to make it a success, and the wisdom of the Founders is more a challenge to choose freely and well than a solution we have merely to accept.

Of course, for Mansfield as well as for us, the ideas and principles of the American founding and Constitution are critical aspects of American exceptionalism and American nationhood more generally. We certainly agree with that position and have written about it elsewhere.

But, it must be added, merely celebrating our principles or history does not in and of itself make America exceptional, no more than the many failed republics from the past and the present. Too many conservatives seem to have forgotten that merely pronouncing ourselves exceptional does not make us exceptional. As Obama said, every country does that. In fact, the recent shift in defining American exceptionalism as a fact rather than an aspiration–and the seeming obsession with discussing it–suggests a fundamental and probably appropriate insecurity.

In contrast, by speaking of American exceptionalism as an aspiration to be realized, Trump is on firmer ground. And the aspiration is realized not when we tell the world that we are exceptional but when we are acknowledged by others–perhaps silently, perhaps grudgingly–to be exceptional. That is accomplished not by principles alone but also by demonstrating success–greatness, if you will–through those principles.

Now, admittedly, Trump does not mention those principles (at least in the above quotation) and it is fair to question whether he has any grasp of them at all. That is as much a concern for us as for the many #NeverTrump conservatives who have made that point. As we have said before, we would have designed a more perfect candidate if that were an option.

Yet Trump’s critique of the frankly complacent, conventional conservative version of American exceptionalism cannot be ignored. Indeed, Trump’s version of American exceptionalism, imperfect though it may be, seems much more suited to the present moment than another Independence Day speech.

As Trump says, other countries, if not necessarily eating our lunch, seem to have less and less to find admirable in us. For all our talk about vibrant Constitutional democracy, our legislature abdicates more and more of its responsibilities every year. Our laws are increasingly made by unelected bureaucrats and judges, or, more recently, established by executive ukase. A sizeable portion of our political class seems to think the presidency ought to be swapped back and forth between two or three families every few years. Meanwhile, wages have been stagnant for 30 years; productivity is declining; inequality is extreme while social mobility has fallen; cultural cohesion is shattered; the number of single parent families is through the roof; our education system seems to perform worse and worse every year; drug addiction is up; life expectancy is down; the prisons are swelling, and on and on and on.

So conservatives want us to talk about the wonderful exceptionalism of our democracy? Great. Hugo Chavez did that, too. There’s really nothing exceptional in talking about the greatness of your own system, especially when it is in decline.

Most of the world laughs at the stupidity of both our foreign and economic policy. You want someone to go lecture them about our exceptionalism? The most exceptional thing about this country right now is its inability to win wars despite massive military superiority.

Trump is where he is precisely because he recognized the laziness of TrueConservatism’s™ version of American exceptionalism. His opponents lost because they were too wrapped up in their ideology to see it.

Trump was not afraid to call Iraq a failure because it is (we can have an academic debate about the reasons for that, but, to coin a phrase, what difference, at this point, does it make?). He did not pretend that all our economic problems were simply the result of Obamacare and tax rates. This is not the place for a complete policy discussion, but we discuss these issues at greater length here and elsewhere.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Trump has any solutions to these problems. There are plenty of reasons for skepticism on that score.  But admitting the problem is the first step toward solving it, and Trump’s opponents–and too many conservative pundits and intellectuals–could not even do that. Getting over our complacent version of American exceptionalism is a good start.

So go ahead and criticize Trump for a poor grasp of Constitutional principles. Criticize him for an apparent lack of policy depth or for saying inflammatory or stupid things all too frequently.

But refusing to mouth platitudes about American exceptionalism? That’s the best thing any presidential candidate has done in years.