Saturday, May 20, 2017

NOT “ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN”---WHY DONALD TRUMP WILL SURVIVE, WHERE NIXON DID NOT. (PART ONE)




(Editor’s note:  Because of the extensive length, this article will be posted in 2-3 parts, if necessary.  Part one will cover the day of the 2016 Presidential Election forward to the current status of this Presidency. (I’m certain there’s much left out, and I reserve the privilege to insert “other material” or links as needed, and will note the edits at the bottom of each post).  In part two, I will attempt to expand on how much today’s all-out assault on this President completely differs from the resignation of President Nixon, where there are far more "players" than just Woodward and Bernstein. And, there is no cover-up of a criminal action.  There is, however a strong possibility that this whole Trump/Russian/Collusion Conspiracy was created by "Hillary's men". Part three will cover the ramifications and the responsibilities that will be placed on the offending party, “if” and when the truth comes to light that Hillary Clinton’s loss did indeed produce a WITCH-HUNT, not witnessed in modern times, by the Democratic Party, the Washington Establishment, and the Mainstream Liberal Media in an attempt to discharge a sitting U.S. President.)

Onward............... 

In one of the most stunning upsets in U.S. Presidential Elections, (especially to the Democratic Party and the Liberal Media), Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton to become the 45th President on November 8th, 2016.  From that day forward, the left has yet to come to terms with the election results by 1) calling for numerous election recounts, and attempting to literally invalidate/steal electoral college votes---all that proved futile, and 2) founded/created a boogeyman to explain their candidate’s loss.  It must be noted that President Trump defeated candidate Clinton in the Electoral College 304-227.  Out of 3,141 counties in the U.S., Trump won 3,084 to Clinton's 57.  Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote, (including the illegal votes, which will not be covered in this story)

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

In total shock of the election results, (and, the so-called Russian interference/meddling in the process), the Democrats, the D.C. Establishment, and their complicit Media, have mounted a campaign to remove a sitting, and duly-elected President.  At the premise of their campaign---Donald Trump and the Russian Government Colluded to defeat Hillary Clinton.  Not to be left out of this equation/campaign, on December 9th, outgoing President Barack Obama ordered the Intelligence Community to open a full investigation into the Russian’s involvement.  Later, Obama would revise an intelligence sharing method by an executive order. 

The United States Intelligence Community, a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities is headed by the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, who, at the time was James Clapper. (John Brennan was also involved as the Director of the CIA)

On January 6th Clapper and the Intelligence Community released a declassified version of their report/findings that confirmed Russian interference, but no actual compromise of voting machines or the election process/results.  The IC’s report also indicated the Russian Government “developed a preference” for Trump:

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” the report said. 

With this “new information”, the Democrats, the D.C. Establishment, and their complicit Media believed they had their “smoking gun”, stretching out the report to conclude/surmise that the favoritism towards Mr. Trump MUST MEAN COLLUSION.  How the hell they arrived at this assumption or the validity of it, is at the very heart of their conspiracy theory---interference, collusion, and now the big one, a cover-up.

Under further pressure from the left, (and the full weight of the Democrats, the D.C. Establishment, and their complicit Media---which, from this point on, I will refer to as the “ATOM”: Anti-Trump Opposition/Media---the Republican-controlled House & Senate have opened investigation committees to look into the extent of the Russian involvement in an American election, including “if” the Trump Campaign directly colluded with the Russian Government to facilitate Trump’s victory.

It must be noted, that shortly following the release of the DNI report, CIA Director James Clapper said in an on-camera interview and in testimony before a Senate Select Committee, that, to date, he found NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government. On May 8th, the Washington Examiner released this report:  

"James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday that he still has not seen any evidence of any kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian foreign nationals.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."


On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."


Yet on May 13th, CNN posted this alternative/fake news story:

"James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence"

With Attorney General Jeff Sessions prematurely recusing himself, (under pressure from the left, because Sessions had actively campaigned with Mr. Trump), the Department of Justice essentially hand-cuffed themselves, but the FBI and the NSA were fully involved.

Around the 20th of March, during testimony at a congressional hearing FBI Director James Comey confirmed there was an ongoing investigation into Russian interference, but did not, and would not specify or confirm there was an investigation on President Trump.

During the final days of the Obama administration, Barack Obama issued an executive order that expanded the powers of the NSA---the sharing of intelligence information among the other 16 intelligence agencies:

"The new rules were issued under section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 after approval by two Obama Administration officials: Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Director of National Intelligence Director, James Clapper." (link)

The ensuing dissemination of "intelligence" unleashed an unprecedented volley of leaks within the Obama administration, and continues unabated to this day.

On the 9th of May, President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey for a plethora of reasons, (the least of which is his constitutional right to do), and the ATOM goes bizzerk. Despite the hypocrisy of the Democrat's call for Comey's removal shortly after Clinton's loss, suddenly, the narrative changes to "how dare this President perform his executive right while under investigation", (an accusation that to date, has yet to be confirmed or substantiated).  The faux outrage that ensued was wall to wall indignation, and the leaks poured out of the Trump White House like a worn out dam.





Enter, The Washington Post & The New York Times, aka the anti-Trump opposition Media…………  

Though a series of leaks, (much of it both classified and illegally transferred), the Washington Post and the New York Times began publishing stories in the vain of Watergate---complete with unverified and unsourced material---accusing the President of everything from obstruction of justice to high crimes and misdemeanors.  The "stories" became so intense, some in the Democratic Party were calling for impeachment with still NO EVIDENCE:

No Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion... James Clapper (DNI)
http://www.theamericanmirro...

No Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion... James Comey (FBI)
https://www.nytimes.com/201...

No Definitive Proof Of Any Trump-Russia Connection... Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
http://www.realclearpolitic...

No Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion... Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
http://www.newsmax.com/Poli...

No Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion... Senator Chris Murphy (D-FL)
http://thepoliticalinsider....

No Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion... Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
http://www.theamericanmirro...

In an extensive editorial opinion, (written by the Wall Street Journal and titled: Comey’s Deserved Dismissal), the WSJ lays out the many reasons for Comey's dismissal:

"President Trump fired James Comey late Tuesday, and better now than never. These columns opposed Mr. Comey’s nomination by Barack Obama, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director has committed more than enough mistakes in the last year to be dismissed for cause.

Mr. Trump sacked Mr. Comey on the advice of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a former U.S. Attorney with a straight-up-the-middle reputation who was only recently confirmed by the Senate. In a memo to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein cited Mr. Comey’s multiple breaches of Justice Department protocol in his criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material.


The FBI isn’t supposed even to confirm or deny ongoing investigations, but in July 2016 Mr. Comey publicly exonerated Mrs. Clinton in the probe of her private email server on his own legal judgment and political afflatus. That should have been the AG’s responsibility, and Loretta Lynch had never recused herself."


“It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement,” Mr. Rosenstein wrote. “The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.”


Mr. Rosenstein added that at his July 5 press appearance Mr. Comey “laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do. (all emphasis mine)

With the firing of James Comey, and the unsubstantiated, (sources that may never be revealed) reports that the President "told Comey to back off on investigating General Flynn", Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein makes the move to appoint a Special Counsel to take over the investigation of Russian influence in the Presidential Election.  

From The Hill:

"The Justice Department has appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's involvement in the U.S. election, a momentous step that darkens the legal cloud hanging over President Trump’s White House.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the appointment of Mueller, a former prosecutor who served 12 years at the helm of the FBI and is respected on both sides of the aisle.


"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command."  (link) (again, all emphasis's are mine)

While the Hill’s Katie Bo Williams contends, (fictitiously), that the appointment "darkens a legal cloud" over this White House, it can, and will be debated among the pundits if the appointment brings about a positive and focused investigation that could benefit the President, or produces nightmares, if the investigation stretches beyond the scope of Mueller's directives stated above.

Currently, it is all understood perfectly where Mr. Trump stands on this issue:

Saturday, May 6, 2017

OPPOSITION/ANTI-TRUMP MEDIA WON'T AIR WHITE HOUSE AD

In the non-stop attempt to delegitimize President Trump with fabricated stories, or refusing to report actual facts, the Opposition Anti-Trump Media has decided to not air Mr. Trump's first campaign ad since his victory over Hillary Clinton.  It appears the Democrat's "owned media" doesn't care to be labeled FAKE NEWS:



How did the Mainstream Liberal Media react to this ad? Sadly, to get at the heart of the story, one has to read an overseas online media:

"Donald Trump's ongoing feud with TV networks not named 'Fox News' has clicked into a new gear as ABC, CBS and NBC have all joined CNN in refusing to run an ad from the president's re-election campaign committee.

The ad shows hosts from all four networks under a banner that reads 'FAKE NEWS.'

It's the Trump campaign's first commercial since winning the White House, and although it is three years out from the next election, it declares the nation has 'rarely seen such success.'

The ad blasts the 'fake news' media for failing to see things that way – and includes CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Also included are MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Andrea Mitchell, CBS's Scott Pelley and ABC's George Stephanopoulos in its rogues gallery."

Via AOL:

"Apparently, the mainstream media are champions of the First Amendment only when it serves their own political views," Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and campaign consultant, said in a statement Friday.

"Faced with an ad that doesn't fit their biased narrative, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have now all chosen to block our ad. This is an unprecedented act of censorship in America that should concern every freedom-loving citizen," she added.

In statement on Tuesday, CNN said it had no problem airing the ad if the network agrees to remove the offending graphic. "CNN requested that the advertiser remove the false graphic that the mainstream media is 'fake news,'" the cable channel said. "The mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false and per policy will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted."

NBC issued its own statement saying that,"Consistent with our policies, we have agreed to accept the ad if the inaccurate graphic — which refers to journalists as 'fake news' — is corrected."

Got that folks?  It's a "false graphic" and must be corrected, revised, or otherwise EDITED to be considered for airing on these fake news outlets.

Never mind that since the early morning hours of November 9th, these "protectors of the first amendment" have mounted a FALSE CAMPAIGN of their own with the non-stop accusation that the Trump Campaign Colluded with the Russian Government to defeat Hillary.

CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post---all extreme left-wing news media outlets---still can't come to the conclusion there was no collusion.  Case in point is this live interview between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Diane Feinstein:

"After months of accusations about President Donald Trump colluding with Russian officials in the run up to the 2016 election, leading Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday there is no evidence to support the claim.

Appearing on CNN, the California lawmaker was asked by Wolf Blitzer if Democrats have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russia during the campaign and without hesitating, Feinstein said they do not.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

The bluntness of her answer prompted  Blitzer to reply, “Well, that’s a pretty precise answer.”

Precisely Mr. Blitzer---THERE IS NO EVIDENCE---because the entire "story" was made up in the minds of a liberal media still in complete denial that Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States.

You want to lose the label of FAKE NEWS? Start by not reporting FAKE NEWS.


Friday, May 5, 2017

House Passes ObamaCare Replacement Bill

In a fourth quarter comeback, of sorts, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act on a 217-213 vote.  As expected, not one Democrat voted for the bill as 20 nervous moderate Republicans joined the Democrats in voting no.  Just six weeks earlier the bill was pulled from the floor for lack of support, but several revisions/amendments to cover people with pre-existing conditions moved just enough Republicans into the "yes" column to get the bill into the end zone and on to the Senate

President Trump, along with VP Pence, and Speaker Paul Ryan, addressed a cheerful crowd of Republicans in the Rose Garden, saying “And this is, make no mistake, this is a repeal and replace of Obamacare.”

The Death of a Federally Mandated Tax

As the Democrats in the House frog-marched their representatives to the floor attacking the Republican plan, not one would admit that ObamaCare was a complete failure.  Indeed, the claim that ACA "was not a tax" on Americans proved to be a fabrication as Supreme Court Justice Roberts did his own revision on the "deemed policy", officially claiming it was a tax, and not a mandate, that could have over-turned the bill.

Not to be outdone, (in providing fabrications/lies), the Democrats and the Liberal Media immediately began their campaign of "winners and losers", regurgitating the CBO score from the original bill, claiming 24 million would lose their coverage, (by 2026)---14 million next year alone.

What the idiots failed to explain to their audience was the fact that most of the provisions in AHCA won't take effect until 2019, meaning 14 million will lose their coverage UNDER OBAMACARE.

The possible end/repeal of ObamaCare has ONLY passed its first phase, with the Senate now taking up the policy, and then onto the Conference Committee, long before it gets to Mr. Trump's desk.  But, make no mistake, the Democrats and their complicit anti-Trump Liberal Media will spread their lies far a wide on what the final legislation will look like.

Yet, one of the many lies made by Mr. Obama himself, may be coming to an end:


$2,500 savings per family and keeping your doctor? This is not a tax?  Your premiums will go down? Not under the nightmare of ObamaCare.

Repeal and replace?  We shall see.