Here’s how they cover it at The Hill:
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions is under mounting pressure from the right to appoint a second special counsel to investigate conservative allegations of abuse at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI.” (emphasis mine)
The above quote is the first paragraph in today’s story. The Hill is a steadfast establishment news outlet. Query: How often did we read about liberal allegations coming from the left when Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation of the Trump Administration? Answer: We didn’t. We never do when the target of an investigation is Republican.
That double standard is bad enough, however, it is extremely condescending to downplay legitimate concerns about malfeasance at the highest levels of the FBI and U.S. Justice Department as nothing more than … conservative allegations.
An expanding volume of evidence points to serious, perhaps criminal, wrongdoing. And it leans less toward President Trump than toward the Deep State and President Obama. Maybe … just maybe … that is why establishment media are suddenly suggesting it’s about politics more than truth and justice.
Have Democrats found a way to beat Republicans in the 2018 mid-terms? Democrat leaders seem to think so, offering something new, different and destined to work. But don’t be fooled … it’s a sham.
Case in point: Conor Lamb, the Democrat candidate in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District. He and Republican Rick Saccone locked horns in a race that is too close to call, even though voting took place yesterday. The difference between them is a few hundred votes; absentee and provisional ballots are in play, though Lamb has claimed victory. The kicker is that Donald Trump won in Pennsylvania’s 18th District by nearly 20 points in 2016.
Question: What gives? Answer: Conor Lamb ran like a Republican.
Democrats proffered a candidate, in Mr. Lamb, both young and attractive, which doesn’t hurt. They also positioned him as mainstream, even right of center on certain issues. And that is their strategy. Run like Republicans in order to beat Republicans. But there is nothing new in this.
It is exactly what Chuck Schumer and the Democrat leadership did in 2006. They recruited congressional candidates who ran as though they were Republicans, claiming middle-ground on issues that Republican voters cared about (they also benefitted from President Bush’s military quagmire in Iraq and congressional Republicans accumulating huge budget deficits). A key, often overlooked, ingredient in the Democrat’s 2006 victory was their calculated effort to run like Republicans, and thereby regain control of Congress.
Of course, once Democrats obtained super-majorities in 2008, they governed as leftists, hoisting Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, and other Obama-era travesties on the nation. Does anyone believe that, should he emerge victorious, Conor Lamb, who ran like a Republican, would actually govern like one? Answer: Of course not. He’ll do whatever the Democrat leadership tells him to do. So would any other Republican lookalikes the Democrats may dig out of the electoral woodwork. They may campaign like Republicans. But they govern like Democrats. And that’s nothing new.
Hillary Clinton’s instability gives witness …
Figuratively here … and literally here.
She has a tendency to lose her footing and collapse. The incident to which we linked, above, is not an isolated one. She has done so several times, most notably while campaigning in 2016, when she collapsed as though lifeless into the arms of her aides. How many times has this happened when cameras were not rolling?
She cannot accept her humiliating defeat in the 2016 election — of her own doing more than anyone’s — and wanders, unstable, delusional, among insouciant lingerers who eventually, one hopes, will wake up from the charade and move on.
Donald Trump may be a crass vulgarian. But one shudders, truly, at the prospect of what may have been wrought had enough electoral votes gone the other way.
One of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s earliest public supporters was U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, of Alabama. The Senator campaigned for Mr. Trump when few others would. He gave every indication that, should Mr. Trump beat the odds and become our next president, he would serve honorably and enthusiastically in a Trump Administration.
So … what happened? The Beltway is abuzz with competing narratives.
On one hand, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been AWOL, recusing himself from the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation, before finding evidence of an actual crime to investigate; allowing his dubious deputy Rod Rosenstein to oversee the straw-grasping of Special Counsel Robert Mueller; playing coy before congressional committees about ongoing efforts to root out Deep State corruption within the federal bureaucracy; declining to appoint a special counsel to investigate FISA Court irregularities and charges of corruption that still haunt Hillary Clinton and her shady cabal.
On the other hand, Mr. Sessions’ Justice Department recently brought a high-profile lawsuit against California over its ‘Sanctuary State’ policy, and Mr. Sessions illustrated his frame of mind by pointedly asking one California mayor, “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda?”; Mr. Sessions has recently indicated his department is looking into FISA Court irregularities and patterns of questionable activity by Hillary Clinton, the DNC and perhaps the Obama Administration; the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is due to present investigative findings this month, after which one may anticipate further clarification from Mr. Sessions regarding a second special counsel.
The suspected crimes and sundry misdeeds of Hillary Clinton, Deep State bureaucrats, Democrat Party officials and others may finally receive a thorough, long overdue vetting. There yet may be hope for ‘equal justice under the law’ in America. Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be just the man to make it happen.
We shall know soon enough.
Imagine a world wherein there is no ‘Russia-gate’ scandal. No congressional committees investigating said scandal, no special counsel or wall-to-wall media coverage.
Imagine that … you were to suggest Russia actually colluded with American politicians to interfere in America’s 2016 elections; that they attempted to hack into our electoral systems and used social media to impact how we voted for our president; that your concerns warrant investigation by Congress and a special counsel to further investigate; and that Russia is now to be counted among America’s worst enemies … Imagine a world in which making these charges would get you written off as a crack-pot conspiracy theorist, and see you driven from the public square in shame and ridicule.
Imagine such a world … as the real world … and you begin to see what things would look like had Hillary Clinton won the presidency in 2016.
The Democrat party line on ‘Russia-gate’ would still be based on President Barack Obama’s words at the White House in October of 2016 (see a video clip by clicking here), when he declared that no one could “rig” America’s elections, that any such suggestion was not to be taken seriously.
The Liberal Media Complex would have joined the Democrat chorus to establish a narrative supporting Mr. Obama’s claim and, thereby, supporting Mrs. Clinton’s claim to presidential legitimacy. And the voluminous evidence of actual collusion between the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, the Obama Administration and, yes, Russians — so as to “rig” the 2016 election against Mr. Trump — would have gone largely, if not completely, unnoticed.
If Mrs. Clinton had won — as the political establishment expected — concerns about Russian meddling in our elections would now be seen as petty and ludicrous; and the liberal media would attend such concerns only so as to delegitimize them. That is, for example, how Democrats and the Liberal Media Complex dealt with Mr. Obama’s Benghazi scandal — they focused on it just long enough to label it as partisan, scandal mongering by Republicans; and after a requisite amount of uninspired media coverage, the Benghazi scandal was cast aside.
By this point in a Clinton presidency, there would have been no appointment of a special counsel, and America would have moved well past ‘Russia-gate’ to focus on other matters … such as …
To be continued …
Following last week’s horrific school shooting in Florida, wherein a killer took seventeen innocent lives, our nation pauses to consider the ramifications. Political rallies have been held, featuring teenage survivors of last week’s shooting; more will follow. The President hosted a White House listening session, featuring heartfelt testimonials from some of those most directly impacted by the shooting.
Among the responses being discussed is an age requirement for purchasing firearms. With age comes life experience. Thus, it seems reasonable that a minor not be allowed to buy something as potentially lethal as a firearm. In seeking perspective, however, might we ask whether deciding to buy a gun is more momentous than deciding to have an abortion?
Of those who buy guns in this country, only a fraction use them to take human life. By contrast, every legal abortion results in the actual taking of an innocent human life. And, while the particulars vary from state to state, minors can get abortions, often without parental knowledge and/or consent.
There is no intent here to draw a comparison between gun violence and abortion, rather to draw a contrast between the level of concern and focus our society applies to one versus the other. It is estimated that between 50 and 60 million pregnancies have been aborted in America since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973.
Seventeen dead in Florida is a tragedy. 50 to 60 million dead in America is a statistic. When might we pause, as a nation, to consider the ramifications of that?
In a current iteration of Trump hatred, one of the Liberal Media Complex’s hugely underwhelming talking heads, a guy named John Oliver, assures his viewers that President Donald Trump is wildly unpopular in virtually every country in the world. And that we Americans, in turn, should feel humiliated having such a man in the White House.
When you take on the Liberal Media Complex — which is, make no mistake, international in scope — they are going to do what they can to destroy you. Mr. Trump knew this going in. He is immune to their insults, clearly. Just read his tweets for a week. Or watch him at one of his well-attended, public rallies. So, the liberal media have taken to shooting past President Trump, aiming their insults at anyone who supports him.
To those who offer aid and comfort to their enemy, the liberal media’s message is … Don’t you dare! And if you even consider it … then you, like Trump himself, are an idiot! Don’t you know that everyone … and we mean EVERYONE … hates this guy? Come on … join the haters.
How well Trump supporters stand up to this steady barrage will determine how long Mr. Trump stays at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.