Is Some Democrat Waiting For The Right Moment?

There just doesn’t seem to be “THE” right one — the right Democrat running for President. Two dozen-plus seemed like a good number to begin with. After all, look at the 2016 Republican field of eighteen. The weeding-out process worked pretty well. But it just seems that there is not a “surprise” candidate among these Democrats that has the character and mental constitution to put distance between him or her and the field. They all pretty much seem alike. And they all have fallen in line with the “company line:” promise Americans everything for free.
This go-round, there certainly is no Barack Obama among the group. Don’t forget that Obama picked up and carried the Democrat banner for eight years. Say what you will about the former Illinois Senator, but he knew how to bring people together around common causes. And he brought the Democrat Party together in what seemed to be really easy for him. He was magnetic, a really good speaker, and had a smile that made most feel comfortable. Even though Obama’s two-term vice president Joe Biden is currently the favorite, Joe Biden is NO Barack Obama — no matter how hard Biden tries to make that comparison. Rank-and-file Democrats are desperate for an answer: someone who will — for the lack of a better term — provide Democrats “Obama Part II.”
Who could that possibly be?

The Democrat Party “Savior”

Rush Limbaugh thinks Team Obama may be strategizing a Michelle Obama run for president in 2020.  The radio host said Barack and Michelle are so ticked off that Trump won that they “want back in.”  Limbaugh cited Michelle’s extensive, never-ending book tour as a sign that the Obamas’ lust for power could result in the ever vicious and vengeful former first lady announcing her candidacy.

During a Spring 2019 promotional interview for her book at London’s O2 arena, Mrs. Obama sounded an awful lot like what she sounded like in 2008.  Who can forget Mrs. Obama’s inflated and anti-America rhetoric while campaigning for her husband? Eleven years later, she’s still fixated on Barack’s breaking the color barrier at 1600 Pennsylvania.  Michelle even suggested to the packed house in London that if presidents could run for a third term, Barack would have won in 2016.  No matter, she says, what “happened before” should sustain us for the time being.  Not surprisingly, Michelle didn’t mention the Democratic Party’s Spring flavor of the month, Pete Buttigieg, the candidate Joy Behar is calling the “second coming of Obama.”

Here’s what Michelle speaking in London was quoted as saying, according to Breitbart:

“I have to remind people that Barack Obama was elected twice in the United States. That really did happen[.] … That wasn’t make-believe.  The country actually did accomplish it and half the people who voted in the last election, if they could have, they would have voted for him for a third term. We have to remember that what is happening today is true, but what happened before was also true … that should give us some solace at some level.”

“Besides,” she continued, “for anyone who had any problems with Barack Obama, let’s just think about what we were troubled by — there were never any indictments.”

After reminding her British audience of the eight years Barack Obama was able to avoid being indicted (she failed to add because of a fawning press and the color of his skin), Michelle struck at President Trump via a swipe at “divorced dads.”  Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics indicate that nearly 40 percent of all non-custodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.  If Michelle Obama has her way, that number will be much higher.  When she was in the White House, the ex-mom-in-chief used to insult her husband and  lecture men “to be better fathers.”  Now she’s trashing millions of divorced American men in order to attack President Trump.  “America, under President Trump, is a ‘broken family,'” she said.

“We are a little unsettled.  Sometimes you spend the weekend with divorced dad.  That feels like fun but then you get sick. That’s what America is going through right now.  We are living with divorced dad.”

It doesn’t dawn on the Harvard law grad that if we are living with a “divorced dad,” President Trump, it is because “Mommy Dearest Barack” was an abusive and unfit parent.  The Great Divorce of 2016 was the best thing that happened to this country.  How many men does she disparage who lost their jobs and their families because of Obama’s economic policies?  How many despairing dads lost their businesses?

Michelle followed up this veiled contempt for dads who have endured the pain of divorce with praise for London’s diversity as compared to American cities.  It looks as though her “for the first time in my life I am proud of my country” anti-America campaign has begun anew:

“I was looking out over the city, London, a beautiful city, and the thing I love about it is truly representative of true international diversity in ways that you don’t see in cities mostly, in particularly even in the United States.”

Mrs. Obama thinks U.S. cities are not diverse enough. From her speeches and remarks about this “racist” country, we can conclude that Michelle thinks there are just too many white people in urban areas.

In recent weeks, many have wondered why Barack Obama has not come to the aid of his former vice president, Joe Biden. On his own speaking tour in Europe, Obama told a town hall group in Germany he’s worried Democratic presidential contenders are becoming too “rigid” and creating “a circular firing squad.”

What Could Trigger a Michelle Run?

Rush Limbaugh is not the only one who feels there’s a good shot that Michelle Obama will ultimately throw her hat into the ring. But Rush thinks certain things will have to happen before she jumps in:

“They will not pull the trigger and get in if they don’t think it is a lock that she would win,” Limbaugh said. “The last thing the Obamas can afford is for Michelle to get in there and not win.”

“One thing to keep in mind that if Michelle does pull the trigger, whatever she pulls to get in there, the money would immediately shift to her because everybody on that side would think that [Barack] Obama and [former Obama senior adviser] Valerie Jarrett are gonna be back in running things and she’s gonna be a figurehead stand-in. That’s what they want anyway.”

“There are days I think it’s automatic that she’s going to and other days, I can’t explain why, that I don’t. I think that they’re gonna be happy becoming hundred million dollar net worth plus people and living the life which is what leftists actually want to do,” Limbaugh explained. “It’s too soon to say.”

“I am convinced that The One (Barack Obama) wants back in. I think The One is sitting there seething over the dismantling of his agenda and the Trump verbal assault on it every day. But he can’t run again.”

Will Michelle Obama get in the 2020 presidential race? No one but Michelle can truthfully answer that question — and she DID, to Oprah Winfrey:

As the mainstream media go all-in for a different Democrat candidate every other day, the Obamas have stepped up their appearances here and overseas.  In general, neither has shown support for any particular candidate.  With Michelle’s venomous attacks on the rise again, Rush might be right about her.

(Our Summary today is via podcast only: it is a P.S. on yesterday’s mass shooting report and story. It’s short — only about 4-5 minutes. Please take a listen.)

Play

A “Realist” That is Mostly Conservative

Watching Victor Davis Hanson deliver his inspirational and intellectual analysis in a non-partisan way on television sometimes will put you to sleep because of his quiet, non-confrontational delivery. I’ve never seen him deliver anything he says with an “in-your-face” delivery. What’s really amazing is that he never berates anyone. That’s rare today. It seems that political pundits all seem tethered to some specific ideology and their career paths demand their exhibiting specific partisan messages when interviewed on radio or television. Those rules do NOT apply to Mr. Hanson.

Who is he?

Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National Review, The Washington Times and other media outlets. He is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and was a presidential appointee in 2007–2008 on the American Battle Monuments Commission.

But that’s not all.

Since 2004, Hanson has written a weekly column syndicated by Tribune Content Agency, as well as a weekly column for National Review Online since 2001, and has not missed a weekly column for either venue since he began. He has been published in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, The Daily Telegraph, American Heritage, and The New Criterion, among other publications. He received the  Eric Breindel Prize for opinion journalism (2002), and the William F. Buckley Prize (2015). Hanson was awarded the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award at its annual Churchill Dinner, and the Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2008.

We listed his credits so that everyone looking in will not summarily dismiss what he has to say. Part of our purpose in establishing his professional credibility is that he sometimes does special stories on CNN. Although that’s scary, apparently CNN feels obligated to sporadically present to their viewers  somewhat non-confrontational ideas about most of the political issues of the day.

I don’t think he is a Republican. I don’t think he’s a Democrat either. But I KNOW he’s a deep thinker and great reasoner. And his explanations of his opinions in his interviews are never confrontational and always informative.

You get one of those today. Here’s a list for you given to us by Victor Davis Hanson.

“Top 10”

Progressives wonder how in the world could anyone still support President Donald Trump. So here are ten reasons why more than 40% of the electorate probably does — and will.

1. Voters appreciate that the economy is currently experiencing near record-low peacetime unemployment, record-low minority unemployment, and virtual 3% annualized GDP growth. Interest and inflation rates remain low. Workers’ wages increased after years of stagnation. The US is now the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. And gasoline prices remain affordable. The President continues to redress asymmetrical trade with China, as well as with former NAFTA partners and Europe. He jawbones companies to curb offshoring and outsourcing. The current economic recovery and low consumer prices have uplifted millions of middle-class Americans who appreciate the upswing.

2. Trump does not exist in a vacuum. Many supporters turned off by some of his antics are still far more appalled by an emerging radical neo-socialist Democratic agenda. If the alternative to Trump is a disturbing tolerance among some Democrats for anti-Semitism, the Green New Deal, reparations, a permissive approach to abortion even very late in pregnancy, a wealth tax, a 70-90% top income tax rate, the abolition of ICE, open borders, and Medicare for all, Trump’s record between 2017-20 will seem moderate and preferable. Progressives do not fully appreciate how the hysterics and media coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings, the Covington teenagers and the Jussie Smollett psychodrama turned off half the country. Such incidents and their reportage confirmed suspicions of cultural bias, media distortions, and an absence of fair play and reciprocity.

3.Trump can be uncouth and crass. But he has shown an empathy for the hollowed-out interior, lacking from prior Republican and Democratic candidates. His populist agenda explains why millions of once traditional Democratic voters defected in 2016 to him — and may well again in 2020. Some polls counterintuitively suggest that Trump may well win more minority voters than prior Republican presidential candidates.

4. Trump may come across as callous to some, but to others at least genuine. He does not modulate his accent to fit regional crowds, as did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He does not adopt particular outfits at state fairs or visit bowling allies to seek authenticity. Like him or not, his Queens accent, formal attire, odd tan, and wild hair remain the same wherever he goes and speaks. Voters respect that he is at least unadulterated in a way untrue of most politicians. Big Macs convey earthiness in a way arugula does not.

5. Even when Trump has hit an impasse, his supporters mostly continue to believe that he at least keeps trying to meet his promises on taxes, the economy, energy, foreign policy, strict-constructionist judges, and the border. So far his supporters feel Trump has not suffered a “Read my lips” or “You can keep your doctor” moment.

6. Voters are angry over the sustained effort to remove or delegitimize a sitting president. Many of the controversies over Trump result from the inability of Hillary Clinton supporters to accept his shocking victory. Instead they try any means possible to abort his presidency in a way not seen in recent history. Trump voters cringe at such serial but so far unsuccessful efforts to delegitimize the President: the immediate law suits challenging voting machines, the effort to warp the Electoral College voting, initial impeachment efforts, appeals to the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, and the calcified Logan Act, the Mueller investigation that far exceeded and yet may have not met its original mandate to find Russian “collusion,” and the strange Andrew McCabe-Ron Rosenstein failed palace coup. All this comes in addition to a disturbing assassination “chic,” as Madonna, Johnny Depp, Kathy Griffin, Robert DeNiro and dozens of others express openly thoughts of killing, blowing up, or beating up an elected president. The Shorenstein Center at Harvard University has found that mainstream media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in office ranged from 70-90% negative of Trump, depending on the week, an asymmetry never quite seen before seen but one that erodes confidence in the media. Voters are developing a grudging respect for the 72-year-old, less-than-fit Trump who each day weathers unprecedented vitriol and yet does not give up, in the Nietzschean sense of whatever does not kill him, seems to make him stronger.

7. Progressives seemingly do not appreciate historical contexts. By past presidential standards, Trump’s behavior while in the White House has not been characterized by the personal indiscretions of a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. His language has been blunt, but then so was Harry Truman’s. He can be gross, but perhaps not so much as was Lyndon Johnson. The point is not to use such comparisons to excuse Trump’s rough speech and tweets, but to remind that the present media climate and the electronic age of the Internet and social media, along with general historical ignorance about prior presidencies, have warped objective analysis of Trump, the first president without either prior political office or military service.

8. Globalization enriched the two coasts, while America’s interior was hollowed out. Anywhere abroad muscular labor could be duplicated at cheaper rates, it often was — especially in heavy industry and manufacturing. Trump alone sensed that and appealed to constituencies that heretofore had been libeled by presidents and presidential candidates as “crazies,” “clingers,” “deplorables” and “irredeemables.” Fairly or not, half the country feels that elites, a deep state, or just “they” (call them whatever you will) are both condemnatory and yet ignorant of so-called fly-over country. Trump is seen as their payback.

9. For a thrice-married former raconteur, the Trump first family appears remarkably stable, and loyal. The first lady is winsome and gracious. Despite the negative publicity, daughter Ivanka remains poised and conciliatory. The appearance of stability suggests that if Trump may have often been a poor husband, he was nonetheless a good father.

10. Trump is a masterful impromptu speaker. Increasingly he can be self-deprecatory, and his performances are improving. Even his marathon rallies stay entertaining to about half the country. He handles crowds in the fashion of JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama rather than of a flat Bob Dole, Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.”

The Mueller Debacle: Parts 1 and 2

Before the House Judiciary Committee and then before the House Intelligence Committee, Robert Mueller testified (if one can call it that) in Democrat’s pathetic attempt to with their last gasp try to garner support for filing Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. By all accounts, they came away empty-handed.

Sure, there are Democrats that are gloating once again, intimating that Robert Mueller laid out strong evidence from his Report proving that Mr. Trump was/is guilty of obstruction of justice. Honestly, even with a long-arm and a far-reach, I cannot come up with anything at all to support any excitement for the Media. In fact, the few in the Media who have even a shred of credibility remaining sighed sadly to see their already fleeting hope to “get Trump” fade into the sunset as their beacon of justice — Robert Mueller — fumbled to answer most of the questions. Actually, Mr. Mueller proved to many what had been suspected anyway: that he personally performed only minimal investigatory work over the last 2.5 years, relying on those 18 anti-Trump lawyers he made part of his team to do the heavy lifting. That was glaringly apparent as he in both House hearings often looked surprised at several of the questions and simply did not have answers.

I’ll make my prediction right here rather than wait as is normal to release in our summary. Then I’ll get to the point of this writing tonight:

Donald Trump WILL be re-elected in 2020. The only question at this point is how wide will his be margin of victory.

Now that we’ve put that mystery behind us, let’s get to the meat of today’s conversation.

Democrat Party Dysfunction

According to a Gallup poll released in May 2019, here are the top three concerns that will impact registered voters in the 2020 election:

  • Immigration
  • Government Leadership
  • The Economy

Those may change in the next year, but they certainly will play a key factor in the levers voters pull.

Democrats promised voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections if given control of the House, Democrats would immediately attack EVERY issue important to voters. It is safe to assume their promise included taking care of these three key voter issues.

That has NOT happened.

So what have Democrats done? Rather than simply list their accomplishments, let’s examine first what they have NOT done.

House of Representatives Democrat Control

When a party wins control of either the House or Senate or both, management and control switches to the new party. That applied to the midterm elections: Nancy Pelosi regained her spot as Speaker of the House. Doing so is a REALLY big deal. The Speaker of the House is one of the most powerful individuals in the U.S. government’s legislative branch. The leader of the national House of Representatives and second in the line of succession to the presidency, the speaker sets political agendas and advocates both on Capitol Hill and to the public.

The Speaker of the House’s official role is to lead and represent Congress’s House of Representatives, calling sessions to order and moderating debates on the House floor. However, the speaker spends the majority of her time in meetings and negotiations, planning the chamber’s legislative agenda. The speaker also has the power to appoint the committee and subcommittee chairs. Along with the vice president, the House Speaker is also responsible for signing bills to be presented to the president for signing. For this reason, the speaker often negotiates with the executive branch and can be a powerful force for or against the executive branch’s own political agenda.

Adam Schiff & Jerrold Nadler

In this current Congress amid the current U.S. political issues, the two most powerful House committees are the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was appointed by Speaker Pelosi as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA) to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Each chairman schedules committee hearings and sets the agenda for hearings.

Both of these committees have held a large number of 2019 hearings about many different topics. Their hearings have been dominated by Russian interference in the 2016 election and Immigration problems at our Southern border. Of late, their hearing agendas have been dominated by preparations for the Mueller hearings held July 24th.

It is uncontroverted that Russians did, in fact, make concerted efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. It is therefore critical that measures be taken by the U.S. government to stop any existing Russian interference processes and put measures in place to prevent any future Russian election interference from being successful.

Do something for yourself: conduct an internet search for the number of House Judiciary Committee 2019 hearings held specifically to address Russian election hacking and methods for the U.S. government to institute to stop those. Do the same search for the House Intelligence Committee. It probably comes as no surprise to you that NONE of their many hearings was to examine methods to use to stop any future Russian election attempts.

Then conduct the same internet search regarding House Intelligence Committee hearing agendas for 2019. You will see that though there were many hearings in which Russian interference was discussed in detail, NONE of those hearings included interviews with or testimony from experts regarding processes available to use to protect the American election system from future Russian election hacking attempts.

What’s Missing?

House leadership is what’s missing. When it comes to House agendas at every level, Speaker Pelosi and her various committee chairpersons have simply left Americans and their concerns behind. What are the top three concerns of American voters? Immigration, Government Leadership, and the Economy. Those concerns of voters are LOST on these Democrats.

The number one American concern — Immigration — HAD been discussed in House committee hearings, but only for the purpose of demeaning and blaming the entire illegal immigration travesty at the U.S. southern border on the Trump Administration. NO serious legislation has been put forth for House committee hearings and certainly not for House floor debate. In fact, for months House and Senate Democrat Party leadership laughed at President Trump’s constant expressions of horror at the immigration crisis. On numerous occasions, they called the President a liar for making such claims. All the while, they lambasted the President and rushed to liberal courts to file motions against every action the President took to try to get anything positive accomplished at the border. He attempted such actions because Democrats did NOTHING.

Democrats’ mouthpiece — the Leftist media headed by CNN — led in the laughter at the Trump stupidity for claiming a “fake” crisis. And when they FINALLY acknowledged action needed to be taken there to assist illegals that were living in horrible conditions, they never admitted they had been wrong in rebuffing the President’s crisis claims that were echoed by virtually everyone in border security from the Department of Homeland Security — both current employees and serving during the Obama presidency.

After four months of crying “foul” daily about Trump’s crisis claims and his begging for House financial assistance to meet those immigrants’ needs the House conceded and joined the Senate to authorize those funds. To my knowledge, they NEVER admitted being wrong.

Americans’ second stated concern for their 202o votes has been entirely ignored by House Democrats: Leadership in Government. Their ignoring voters’ concerns comes directly from their hearts. They are certain THEY are the only voices in Washington that matter, that THEY are the only ones who know and understand American voters and what all Americans need, and THEY are the only ones with any answers for any existing and future problems Americans face today and will face tomorrow. Further, THEY look at Donald Trump as the epitome of evil.

While Democrats KNOW Donald Trump has done nothing good and cannot do anything good for the U.S. during balance of his presidency, they do so with NO regard for the significant progress in his presidency.  What progress?

  • massive increases in private sector jobs resulting in the lowest unemployment in U.S. history in multiple sectors of American employment;
  • the U.S. for the first time becoming energy independent;
  • pharmacy drug prices for the first time began dropping due to Trump pressure on American drug companies;
  • foreign policy credibility returned that quickly resulted in massive increases in U.S. exports;
  • employee pay is on the rise;
  • Several trillion dollars held overseas for years by American companies were brought back into the U.S. that has spurred U.S. growth;
  • U.S. gross domestic product has steadily grown under Trump and has far exceeded what Obama told Americans could ever happen.

All of these positives that occurred under President Trump resulted with little or NO Democrat Party assistance or support.

Summary

Plain and simple, it was made abundantly clear that Democrats in the House have little or NO concern for what’s best for Americans. Their 2020 presidential candidates — virtually ALL of them — continue to in unison tout economic and political programs that would be impossible for the U.S. to sustain economically even if the American people would ALL want to be put in place. The Green New Deal, free college, the forgiveness of college student debt, Medicare for All, and Reparations along with free healthcare even for illegal immigrants are each being heavily promoted by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates.

Why would they even consider such impossible to implement programs?  For votes!

If everyone was honest, every American would agree that getting something important without any personal cost would be wonderful. That’s what Democrats are doing: telling Americans “The Government is going to pay all the costs for all these ideas and promises detailed above — FREE!”

If they were being honest with Americans, they would NEVER promise ANY of these things. Why? America cannot afford them! In fact, implementing just The Green New Deal would require the government to spend an amount of money each year for the next ten years equal to the total amount of federal revenue currently being received! And where would that money come from? Only one place: taxpayers.

That cannot and will not happen.

Plain and simple, Democrats have lost all sense of reality. House Democrats are consumed by one thing: hatred for Donald Trump. Why is their hatred so intense? Because the cards were all stacked for Hillary Clinton to be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and to now be ushering in the “new” Socialist concept of governing for the U.S.

Why are Democrats so “in the tank” for Socialism? Socialism always sounds good to the people, but in every case in World history, Socialism works well for only one group of citizens: political elites. And in every example of Socialism in history, they always fall apart when the general populace of those countries are awakened to the erosion of their social and economic infrastructure at the hands of those political elites who pilfer the economic benefits from everyday citizens.

Democrats want a shot at that system. And they are so self-absorbed and consumed by their greed and narcissism, they are convinced THEY could be the first to make it work.

Donald Trump and his absolute belief in everyday Americans and the American ideal have become the only obstacle to their achievement of creating their own Nirvana.

They gnash their teeth when they hear the cries from Americans: “Keep America Great!”

 

“Obstruction of Justice”

Boy, have we heard that phrase “Obstruction of Justice” a few times in the last few years? I’m sick and tired of it. No matter, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) opened his hearings purported to be “to clarify the findings of the Mueller Report” with the lengthy testimony of John Dean. Dean served as an attorney for then-President Richard Nixon. And Dean knows a lot about “Obstruction of Justice.” He was charged with that, plead guilty to stay out of jail in the Watergate Affair. Archibald Cox was the appointed Special Prosecutor in the Watergate investigation. Here’s a summary of Dean’s involvement:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19—John W. Dean III, the former counsel to President Nixon, pleaded guilty today to plotting to cover up the truth about the Watergate break‐in. He made his plea as part of a bargain with the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox, under which Dean agreed to be a prosecution witness in future proceedings against alleged participants in the cover‐up — including, potentially, against President Nixon.

Mr. Cox allowed Dean to plead guilty in Federal District Court here to a single felony count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the United States, punishable by a maximum five‐year prison term and a $10,000 fine, with sentencing deferred until the bargain is kept. Mr. Cox also promised not to prosecute Dean for any other Watergate‐related crime, reserving only the right to prosecute the lawyer for perjury.

We at TNT have so far stayed away from what is being called the “Nadler Mueller Redo Circus” until today. If you didn’t look-in on that hearing on Monday, June 9, 2019, you missed a true circus. John Dean testified and answered questions for hours. Republicans, as you can imagine, fried Mr. Dean. Several questions and responses are worthy of repeating. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Dean unmercifully:

That was just the beginning.

The Nadler Circus

Democrats in the wake of the release of the Mueller Report which recommended no legal actions against the President are standing in line to attack President Trump: STILL. They’re universal talking point: “No president is above the law.”

Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said his panel has an obligation to investigate “who stood to benefit from the attack” on the U.S. election system “and the extent to which the Trump campaign welcomed it.”

He added that “the committee has a responsibility to do this work, to follow the facts where they lead…and to craft legislation to make certain no president, Democrat or Republican can ever act in this way ever again.” Nadler also noted the political divide the Russia probe has since created in Washington, saying that both parties should at least proceed with a common understanding that the U.S. was attacked.”

“We were attacked by a foreign adversary. President Trump’s campaign took full advantage of the attack when it came.  The descriptions of obstruction of justice in Volume II go to the heart of our legal system. If we can agree on this common set of facts as our starting place, and agree to follow the facts and the law where they take us, I believe we can make a great deal of progress in this hearing today,” he said.

And they dare to say to Americans “We want to get to the Truth! Though we told everyone who can see and listen for 2.5 years that Robert Mueller was THE most capable person on Earth to investigate this President and find any wrongdoing that was committed, we now know Mueller is inept and didn’t find what the President did wrong. SO WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT!”

John Dean

Who is John Dean really? One thing is for certain: he doesn’t like Donald Trump! How do we know? First, because he has tweeted continuously during the Trump presidency. “That’s not uncommon,” you say. But of his tweets, 970 have been negative. I think that would for certain move the “Like” or “Dislike” checkmark way over to the “Dislike” box.

John Dean (born October 14, 1938) is a former attorney who served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. Dean is known for his role in the cover-up of the Watergate scandal and his subsequent testimony to Congress as a witness. His guilty plea to a single felony in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution ultimately resulted in a reduced sentence, which he served at Fort Holabird outside Baltimore, Maryland. After his plea, he was disbarred as an attorney.

Shortly after the Watergate hearings, Dean wrote about his experiences in a series of books and toured the United States to lecture. He later became a commentator on contemporary politics, a book author, and a columnist for FindLaw’s Writ.

Dean had originally been a proponent of Goldwater conservatism, but he later became a critic of the Republican Party. Dean was particularly critical of the party’s support of Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, and of neoconservatism, strong executive power, mass surveillance, and the Iraq War.

I forgot to mention one thing: John Dean’s guilty plea of a 1-count felony: do you know what he plead guilty to? Obstruction of Justice. Of course, according to Nadler, his doing so made him an obvious “expert” on obstruction of justice and qualified him to “clear the air” on the Mueller Report.

When asked if he had read the report, Dean’s reply was “No.” When asked if he knew anything about the Mueller Report that members of Congress or even those in the general public did not know. Dean’s answer was “No.”

So what was Dean’s qualification as an expert to appear before one of the most powerful and most important House Committee? He had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate case!

One more important fact about John Dean when serving under Richard Nixon. When it was uncovered that President Nixon had secretly recorded all meetings in the Oval Office, the famous psychologist and memory researcher Ulric Neisser analyzed Dean’s recollections of the meetings, as espoused in his testimony, in comparison to the meetings’ actual recordings. Neisser, a sharp critic of studying memory in a laboratory setting, saw “a valuable data trove” in Dean’s recall. Neisser found that, despite Dean’s confidence, the tapes proved that his memory was anything but a tape recorder. Dean failed to remember any conversations verbatim and often failed to recall the gist of conversations correctly. Yet, Neisser did not explain the difference as one of deception; rather, he thought that the evidence supported the theory that memory is not akin to a tape recorder and, instead, should be thought of as reconstructions of information that are greatly affected by rehearsal, or attempts at a replay. Neisser further concluded that Dean’s memory, and likely everyone’s, merely retains common characteristics of a whole series of events.

In other words, Dean was pretty much a regular guy with a regular memory and that those “memories” of Watergate events about which he testified were probably recreated (or created for the first time) to make him appear in a good light. Honestly, if Nixon had not erased those tapes, Dean would almost certainly have served MORE time than he did and would have been convicted for far more than the 1 felony to which he plead.

Here’s what is hard to believe: Nadler has put the entire nation on notice of a serious investigation that carries with it HIS serious allegations that though lost by Robert Mueller and his 19 Democrat staff attorneys in their 2.5-year investigation, Nadler and other Democrats swear are backed with evidence. This hearing was supposed to bring that evidence forward to — as Nadler promised the World — “show that no one in the United States is above the law.”

We’ve seen no evidence, no credible witnesses, and instead of REAL facts in evidence, we watched a felon guilty years ago of obstruction of justice who has become nothing more than a “professional trial witness.”

“Once a famous witness, he’s made a life of being a witness,” Stephen Hess, a White House aide to Nixon and official under three other presidents, told Newsmax, “I feel sorry for John. It’s not the way I would like to spend my life.”

Hess said that Nadler’s calling on Dean to testify “seems to want to suggest a parallel between Nixon and Watergate and ‘Trumpgate.’ But political scientists don’t see the parallel at all.” He recalled how then-White House staffer Pat Buchanan was a highly impressive witness defending Nixon before the same committee as Dean.

“I say if you’re going to invite John Dean to testify, then give equal time to Pat Buchanan,” Hess told us.

We’ve been told that Buchanan was invited to speak but declined. I would too to keep from embarrassment in front of a national television audience.

Summary

For such committee hearings that are so important, Congress is always certain to release the hearings schedule including who will testify and the subjects of their testimony. But Representative Nadler’s hearing schedule was released in the following manner:

The House Judiciary Committee is planning a series of hearings on Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, starting with an appearance by Nixon White House Counsel John Dean on June 10.

“Russia attacked our elections to help President Trump win, Trump and his campaign welcomed this help and the president then tried to obstruct the investigation into the attack,” committee chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York said in a statement. “Mueller confirmed these revelations and has now left Congress to pick up where he left off.”

The committee also plans to consider in these hearings “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters,” according to a committee statement released Monday.

You know what the insanity of this debacle really is: Democrats led by Nadler think Americans are too dumb to see through this sham investigation. Americans watched phase one of this sham develop over 2.5 years! Let’s face it: Mueller was much smarter at hiding specifics of his investigation while passing out just enough data tidbits to keep the voracious media hounds satisfied! Nadler is not that crafty.

If Americans are to believe that members of the Trump Campaign were guilty of obstruction of justice and/or collusion with Russians during the campaign, then Americans must believe that previous presidential candidates and even presidents got away with the same crimes they are accusing Trump of? Hillary Clinton did it. Barack Obama did it. AND ROBERT MUELLER ASSISTED IN IT!

  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign funded the Russian Christopher Steele dossier! And besides that, her campaign press secretary even volunteered to go to Russia to get dirt on Donald Trump if necessary:

    Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign, once said he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm dirt about then-candidate Trump. “Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it,” Fallon told The Washington Post in October 2017. “I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election.”

  • Remember during his re-election campaign when Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling then Russian President Medvedev? It is unclear what was the subject of Obama’s comments when he told Medvedev to pass this along to Putin: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” More flexibility for what? Was Obama discussing “colluding” with Russia?

  • Robert Mueller when serving as Obama’s FBI Director personally flew a sample of U.S. Uranium to Moscow for the Russians to examine while negotiations were underway for the purchase of Uranium One. Mueller certainly was not there on behalf of the American people. What would the FBI Director be doing taking a U.S. uranium sample to Russia other than to somehow impact an ongoing deal with somebody or some people and Russia?

In closing, remember this: if every candidate for president is required to have NO contact with any foreigner during their campaigns, very few who run for President would be able to meet that requirement. Why? Most are business people who often have international business. Others are U.S. political leaders at the federal and/or state levels and certainly interact with foreign business and government leaders on behalf of their states and the U.S.

Why is all this happening? SO DEMOCRATS CAN KEEP A FAWNING SEGMENT OF LEFTIST MINIONS SATISFIED ENOUGH TO CONTINUE TO MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND TO PULL THAT BLUE LEVER IN 2020.

This all has nothing to do with the Truth. It has to do with one thing only: Get rid of Donald Trump either today or in November of next year.

Play

For The Greater Good?

It is common knowledge that the Left in America feel the country is in a downward spin socially, economically, environmentally, in healthcare, immigration, and foreign policy in the Trump Administration. It is also common knowledge that the Left in America is beyond absolute certainty that “They” have all the answers for any and all of the absurd policies thrust on Americans by the Trump Administration.

But who is to determine if The Trump Administration is correct or is the Left?

Great news: IT’S US!

As of this moment, we have not seen any solution from the Left to right the great ship America which, by their definition, is sinking with Donald Trump at the helm. And the Left demands a new captain. Right now there are 20 Leftists who each feel they are the best “hire” to replace the guy now in charge. But, as of today, not one of the 20 has offered any tangible package of proposed solutions to “fix” all those horrible Trump policies. But they claim their’s —whatever they are — will make America the great ship she once was and they think should be once more. AND, they each claim they are the best qualified to bring to Americans all the “things” that are “For The Greater Good.”

So, Let’s look closer.

Economically: Tax Cuts

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of all Americans received a tax cut under TCJA, averaging approximately $2,200. Tax rates are lower at every single income level, especially those at low-to-middle income levels, with 80.4 percent earners receiving a tax cut––including 91.3 percent of the middle class–– while only 4.8 percent of the population saw their taxes go up, most of which are higher-income earners living in high-tax states.

In addition to the analysis from the Tax Policy Center, H&R Block recently reported that the average taxpayer saved roughly 25 percent on their tax bill and that refunds are up 1.4 percent compared to last year. These savings happened because the TCJA let families keep more of their money through a doubled child tax credit, doubled the standard deduction, and lower rates across the board. Those changes combined with bold pro-growth cuts to the corporate tax rate, estate tax or “death tax”, alternative minimum tax, and creation of a new 20% small business deduction have increased take-home pay for families and improved the economy.

BUT….Take what then-House Minority Leader now Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicted about TCJA when she said passage would mean “Armageddon” for America and that the bill “is probably one of the worst bills in the history of the United States of America.” Or when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman guaranteed a “global recession, with no end in sight.”  The unrepentant gaslighting that has taken place over tax reform is rooted in dividing Americans for political gain or more clicks, rather than reporting facts.

Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and former VP Joe Biden want to dump the Trump tax cuts. In fact, Kamala Harris said she would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “on day one.”

Harris said:  “On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill that benefited the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country. Get rid of the whole thing,” Harris said.

Economically: “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

Remember James Carville making the above statement during Bill Clinton’s campaign for his second term? He was asked if the Clinton impeachment would be THE reason voters rejected Mr. Clinton. In response, he made his famous statement above. And Clinton won re-election.

Those 20 Dem candidates are wanting to replace the Trump Economic Agenda. Hmm…..

As of 4/30/2019, The U.S. has:

  • lowest African American unemployment in history.
  • The lowest unemployment among Women.
  • The overall US unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent in April 2019 from 3.8 percent in the previous month, below market expectations of 3.8 percent. It was the lowest jobless rate since December 1969.
  • Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates declined in April for adult men (3.4 percent), adult women (3.1 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Asians (2.2 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent). The jobless rates for teenagers (13.0 percent) and Blacks (6.7 percent) showed little or no change. Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 186,000 over the month to 2.7 million.
  • Hourly wages increased 3.2 percent over April of 2018.
  • Gross Domestic Product in the first quarter of 2019 blew the doors off expectations: 3.2% was well ahead of the consensus 2.3% estimated, which itself had been cranked up from the sub-1% expectations many analysts had been expecting prior to Q1 earnings season. 2019’s First Quarter GDP was the strongest Q1 read since the 3.3% we saw in 2015.

Healthcare: “Medicare For All”

The President in the 2017 Congress backed the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — the current healthcare FINANCE plan that has cripple American healthcare. One last-minute vote by former Arizona Senator John McCain prevented the House-passed version to go the Senate floor for debate. The House bill (and the President’s promise to voters during the 2016 campaign) was dead at the hands of a few Republicans. However, as the cost to Americans of Obamacare continue to skyrocket, a conservative healthcare plan is set to be rolled out after the 2020 election if not sooner. In the meantime, 2020 candidates are pushing hard for the largest and many say the most egregious legislative item in U.S. History: Medicare for All. The cost of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) bill? $32 Trillion over 10 years. (Sanders proposed the plan years before did Alexandria Ocasio Cortez)

First, the plan. Just a few bullet point mentions of what we KNOW Medicare for All would do:

  • Rationed Healthcare for All. An immediate shortage of physicians would occur because of the massive reductions in payments for services by doctors, who would run for the exit to new careers. Just like as in the U.K and Canada, patients would find themselves waiting for months for a heart procedure, knee replacement, or eye surgeries. Though U.S. Leftists rail against claims of a “Death Panel” that might be installed in such a plan, that would probably occur. There would be (because of healthcare finance reductions) unelected bureaucrats — not patients with their doctors as is the practice today — determining which patients should receive certain procedures, including some life-and-death procedures.
  • Costs. The unbelievable costs for such a plan would be astronomical. All Americans would be covered with medical costs being paid by the government. Where does the government get that money? Higher taxes. Tax revenue in our government would have to be more than doubled to pay for healthcare costs. That means the average American taxpayer would see their federal income tax bill increase by approximately 150%. That’s above the astronomical premium increases under Obamacare — sometimes doubled — when Obama promised the average premium cost per U.S. family would be reduced by $2500 per year.

There is no doubt there needs to be financial changes in our healthcare system — but not at the expense of destroying American healthcare.

Immigration

”We HAVE a crisis at the southern border.” President Trump

We are on track to the apprehension of more than 1 million illegals this year crossing our southern border. Add that to whatever the number of those who Border Patrol agents do NOT apprehend that get in! Imagine what that number is. But……

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro doubts there’s a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border so much he’s calling it “B.S.” When asked about the growing situation of immigrants trying to enter to the U.S. illegally and the president mulling closing the southern border temporarily, Castro tossed it aside.

“I don’t believe their narrative,” he said. “I don’t believe the B.S. that women and children who are fleeing dangerous circumstances present a national security threat to this country.”

Who knows for certain how many illegals are in the U.S. today? Estimates range from 10 to 60 million. Either number would be a travesty. Regardless of what you hear, the drain on the entire U.S. national infrastructure is happening at a far too rapid pace just because of massively increased numbers drawing from those resources. Public schools, criminal justice, subsidized food, healthcare, and housing, cost the U.S. today billions of dollars. Our social system is stretched to the max.

But then there’s the obvious thought: “Aren’t those who cross into our country illegal breaking the law?” 

Environment

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated factually that the World as we know would be over in 12 years unless we immediately initiated plans to do away with all fossil fuels, make every building in the U.S. green efficient, do away with cars, airplanes, and jets, and find ways to stop cows from farting. 19 of the Democrat candidates for President have signed-on to that deal. AOC’s Green New Deal is being touted as the only solution to emissions problems for the U.S. and that they’re fatal.

Then there’s this: the U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest levels since 1950. 2017 U.S. per capita CO2 emissions were 15.8 metric tons per person, their lowest levels in 67 years. Overall U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992 and have declined 13 percent since 2005.

But according to the Green New Deal’s author, we are all to become extinct in 12 years without the deal. It’s cost? $72 Trillion.

Where do the candidates stand?

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted “I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change.”
  • Sen. Cory Booker likened the GND to fighting Nazis and going to the Moon.
  • Sen. Kamala Harris, via C-SPAN: “We have to have goals. It’s a resolution that requires us to have goals and think about what we can achieve and put metrics on it.”
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she is “excited” to back the GND after initially saying she backed the general “idea” of it.
  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “I see it as aspirational, I see it as a jump-start. So I would vote yes, but I would also if it got down to the nitty-gritty of actual legislation as opposed to, ‘Oh, here are some goals we have,’ that would be different for me.”
  • Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand: “It’s got this aspirational goal of net zero carbon emissions in ten years.”

Foreign Policy

Trump’s shortlist of Foreign Policy achievements:

  • Leaving or announcing intention to leave globalist agreements, including the UN Population Fund, Global Compact on Migration, Paris climate agreement, and UNESCO.
  • Reducing U.S. contributions to the UN and challenging other NATO states to increase their contributions.
  • Reversing the Obama Administration’s lenient Cuba policy.
  • Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
  • Leaving or announcing intention to leave the United Nations Human Rights Council, Global Compact for Refugees, Iran nuclear deal, and the Universal Postal Union, and taking a tough stance against the International Criminal Court.
  • Giving another strong pro-sovereignty speech at the UN General Assembly.
  • Taking steps to reduce foreign aid when not in U.S. interests, such as to Pakistan and the PLO.
  • Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  • Taking an increasingly tough stance on China, criticizing South Africa’s leftist land policy, and promoting ties with Latin America’s conservative leaders.
  • Created a coalition which has all but eliminated ISIS.

For The Greater Good?

Tax Cuts. Do they really want to repeal those tax cuts that have put more money back in the pockets of Americans and increased wages 3.2%? Yes, they do.

Employment. Do they really want to do away with the Trump policies that have dropped unemployment to historical lows and put more Americans in the workforce than ever before in history? Yes, they do.

Immigration. Do they really want to abolish ICE, do away with border patrol, and allow the continued massive increases in illegals coming into the U.S. costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year? Do they really want open borders which effectively is no borders? Yes, they do.

Healthcare. Do they really want Medicare for All which will result in certain rationed care, long waits for things as simple as X-rays and heart caths, sometimes as long as 1 year and cost $32 Trillion? Yes, they do.

Environment. Do they really want the Green New Deal at the price of $72 Trillion that will take away all cars and airplanes, all fossil fuels, mandate 100% clean energy-efficient buildings throughout the U.S. and create massive tax increases on all Americans? Yes, they do.

Foreign Policy. Do they really want the amazing foreign relationships Trump has rebuilt with the numerous American allies that under Obama had been destroyed to be eliminated to be replaced by the Obama “American Apology Policy” with no trust in the U.S.? Yes, they do.

Summary

Each of the Left’s announced candidates promises to (if elected) overturn each of the policies implemented in the Trump presidency. Why? Doing so — according to each of them — would be better for every American than those in place today.

“For The Greater Good” is a phrase that Gellert Grindelwald used to justify his horrific actions in the 1940s global wizarding war and it was engraved over the entrance of Nurmengard, the prison he constructed to house those who opposed him. The Leftist candidates claim that doing away with each of those Trump policies would be “For the Greater Good.”

It sounds like Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Kamala Harris, ex-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. John Delaney, Miramar, Fla., Mayor Wayne Messam, author Marianne Williamson, and former tech executive Andrew Yang, might all be taking a page from Gellert Grindelwald’s playbook.

In the hearts and minds of most Americans, making such a change would NOT be “For The Greater Good.”

What do I say? In Louisiana we have a special way of responding to that: we say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

Play

Liberals Outnumber Conservatives in Only 6 States, Down From 9

Do you ever wonder — based on all you hear from your friends, business associates and even family members — why you never hear anything from the media that could possibly be construed as “complementary” about the current conditions of anything and everything in the U.S. as it pertains to government actions?

Today, I heard Democrat FOX News contributor Juan Williams say, “Republicans have pinned their hopes on the re-election of Donald Trump in 2020. Those hopes are unrealistic in light of the fact that “most” Americans HATE Donald Trump!” You know what the reality is? As of today — May 10, 2019 — 50% of all American adults approve of President Trump’s presidency. In comparison, Barack Obama on the same day of his first term in the White House had an approval rating of 48%. (both are from Gallup) Does that mean “most Americans HATED Barack Obama?”

But it gets even better. Everyone knows that the “left” coast is really “Left” — politically, as it the upper East Coast. And according to political national newsprint and broadcast organizations, American turned “Blue” in 2018’s midterm election. Granted, Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives. But votes counted in Congressional races are NOT national votes: they’re state-by-state. Of course, California and New York contain 60 million Americans or more than 20% of the U.S. population. So it should not be surprising to know that almost all of the national political news emanates from California and New York, with Illinois and Massachusettes jumping in classified as Blue states.

Just because the news reports it doesn’t mean it’s true! And, Mr. Williams, it should come as no surprise that America is really turning Red.

Take for instance these latest numbers by State from 2018:

  • The number of states where liberals outnumber conservatives has dropped more than 30 percent, with just six now in that category: Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Washington, New York, and New Hampshire.
  • According to the latest Gallup survey, in every other state but California, where conservatives and liberals split 29 percent to 29 percent, conservatives lead.
  • Nationally, those who identify themselves conservative hold a nine-point lead.

Hmm….we may be onto some “new” news here.

If you’re interested in a state-by-state analysis, take a look at the map below. (Please note the map’s explanation of the colors)

 

vbxijunpyuoyr2wdggsc3g.png

Here’s a state breakdown by percentages identifying (state-by-state) Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, and Conservative Advantage:

Screen Shot 2019-02-22 at 11.00.45 AM.png

Summary

The bottom line is this: there are far more Conservatives in the U.S. than the U.S. media lead us to believe.

“So why did so many Democrats get elected to the House of Representatives in 2018?” you ask. That’s simple: Congressional races are NOT national elections and not even “State” elections. They’re Congressional District elections. For instance: no one in Texas could vote for or against Nancy Pelosi who ran in her San Francisco district. That fact deeply impacts the mix by ideology in EVERY Congressional race every two years.

The daily travesty in all this is — just as did Juan Williams — Leftist members of media skew their reporting demonstrably toward anti-conservative news and news results: especially poll numbers.

The REAL problem in all this is that conservatives, (in spite of the Leftist characterization of all conservatives as stupid and mind-numbed) are more knowledgeable about current important political issues than are Democrat and other left-leaning Americans. And those media partisans know that and take advantage of it.

There’s much more going on regarding this issue that needs to be fleshed out. To that end, we are over the next few days publishing the answers to some heretofore unanswered questions asked regarding exactly what the Left is specifically complaining about in America today and their plans for the replacement of after the 2020 elections. You will be shocked while at the same time being enlightened with what you see.

Stay Close!

“Left”

Hmmm…I’m sure our title made you ask a few questions about today’s story. We could mean “Left, as in Democrats and those politically left of Democrats.” Or we could mean “Left, as in ‘Left Behind.'” (That’s a Christian movie that depicts how people here respond after the Rapture happens. The Rapture is the Biblical event when Christ reappears to take Christians who are alive to Heaven) But our story today doesn’t reference either. Today we are looking at “Left,” as in “What is remaining.” It may have been more appropriate to title today’s offering as “What is Remaining.”

It is pretty simple for every American to know what has not been left in current American governing: “Investigate.” We have just completed 2+ years of a federal Special Counsel investigation of the President and his 2016 campaign for the purposes of establishing the validity of claims that he or his campaign staff members or both worked with Russia to impact the 2016 presidential election results in his favor. Special Counsel Mueller left NOTHING to question in his 488-page report detailing their findings. Mueller made it abundantly clear that through that intense investigation in which 37 indictments were issued, none of which were for the President or those in his campaign for working with the Russians or even having ties to the Russians regarding his campaign.

During the investigation, Democrats along with several Establishment Republicans feared that President Trump would somehow either fire Mueller or interfere with his investigation. There were serious discussions on Capitol Hill about passing legislation to prevent the President from doing so. No such legislation was passed. And it certainly came as a surprise to those Democrat and Republican worriers that the President nor anyone in his administration made any attempt to fire Mueller, interfere with the investigation in any way, or even to use a declaration of Executive Privilege to shield from the public any of the Mueller findings that directly impacted the investigation of the President. You probably know this: the President had every legal right to fire Mueller and/or to exert Executive Privilege, both of which he declined to use.

But even with the exhaustive Mueller report, Democrats 2+ years of fawning over “their guy” Mueller and how he was the only person in D.C. with any legal credibility, and that he certainly would find any dirt on the President who they all knew had worked with Putin to change the election results, Democrats en masse refuse to accept Mueller’s results. Instead, they have another plan: “INVESTIGATE!” And it has already turned into a three-ring circus. Who is surprised?

Everyday Americans find themselves staring into a quagmire of government today that they depend on for protection, for governing, and for assurance that everything is O.K. Yet those Americans see their elected officials abandon THOSE necessary and committed to accomplishing tasks. In their abandonment, they are simply today doing one thing and one thing only in their governing responsibilities: INVESTIGATE President Trump.

They are doing so in spite of the fact that their proverbial “Good Guy” — Robert Mueller — found NOTHING to justify taking any action against President Trump. Yet Democrat leaders are totally committed to forcing Trump out of office. In doing so, if they are successful, they will accomplish one thing and one thing only: the subversion of the results of a legal presidential election. In doing so, if successful they will negate the votes of over 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump.

To that end, today we are bringing to the forefront a question that few are yet asking and even fewer are concentrating on: What things in D.C. are NOT getting done — “Left” undone — that our lawmakers could and should be doing? We at TruthNewsNetwork have done the “deep-dive” for you, and the results are below. They will certainly shock you. But more than shock, they will anger you — as well they should. Take a ride with us on today’s “Deep-Dive.”

What’s “Left?”

Before we look at what’s “Left” that is undone in Congress, would you like to see just how busy Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives is this week? After all, their promise was that if voters gave Democrats back the House, they would push through all the legislation that Republicans failed to implement that are critical to the U.S. and its citizens. They won the House. And, Boy, they are really busy! Here is the full agenda of the House of Representatives for the last 3 days: April 22,23, and 24 of 2019. (This story is being written Wednesday, April 24, 2019, to be published Thursday, April 25)

Monday, 4/22

Mondays are usually really busy when the House is in session. That’s the day that lawmakers file most of the bills to be considered during that week. This past Monday, they loaded up their agenda for legislation for the entire week:

1. H.R.2348 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To require automatic sealing of certain criminal records, and for other purposes.

2. H.R.2349 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Climate Change Education Act

3. H.R.2350 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 23d Headquarters, Special Troops, and the 3133rd Signal Service Company, in recognition of their unique and highly distinguished service as a “Ghost Army” that conducted deception operations in Europe during World War II.

4. H.R.2351 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Protecting Airport Communities from Particle Emissions Act

5. H.R.2352 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, and coastal States to sustain healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems by maintaining and sustaining their capabilities relating to oil spill preparedness, prevention, and response, and for other purposes.

6. H.Con.Res.35 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States is committed to ensuring a safe and healthy climate for future generations, and to create solutions for restoring the climate.

Whoo-Who! They worked their butts off, didn’t they? Gotta’ seal those criminal records; plan to educate today’s tender youth to the vast truths about climate change; award those mighty men who served as a “Ghost Army” in WWII  (definitely a worthy cause); Particle emission police desperately needed for Airport communities; Earth would disappear without NOAA’s exhaustive preparations for that next oil spill; and that resolution to tell the World that Congress is committed to Climate Change!

Wednesday, 4/24

The House had no floor action on Wednesday and had one committee meeting:

Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment and Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity joint field hearing entitled Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Ensuring the Success of our Student Veterans

But wait: you forgot about Tuesday!

They were so worn out from Monday’s massive workload, they decided to take care of ZERO legislation on Tuesday of this week.

But one thing is certain: there were dozens and dozens of House meetings — many were one-on-one — to discuss the latest plethora of intricate plans to initiate the most important legislation of this century: IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP!

Let’s Get to “What’s Left”

This is not really a hard one. We’ve all known for the 2 years since the 2016 election and even the 2 years before what the most important issues in American’s lives are. But just in case you forgot, we’ll mention them here:

  1. Immigration  To Americans, (depending on what’s happening on any one day in the U.S.) fixing the immigration system is the #1 issue, or at least always in the top 3. The promises to totally repair our broken legal immigration system, stop ALL illegal immigration, and to first build a wall on our southern border was the #1 reason Americans voted Donald Trump into office. The President put several bills in front of Democrats in his first 2 years. One of them even included the Holy Grail of immigration for Democrats: a path to citizenship for DACA recipients! Democrats have screamed for that for years. But Democrats obviously turned down that offer and every other immigration reform offer from the President. Why do you think that is? Simple: they refuse to do ANYTHING in legislation that any American will consider something initiated by President Trump. They simply don’t want to give him a win on anything. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of illegals flock to our southern border every week and are — because of judicial political partisanship — crushing our financial, educational, and medical systems by pushing the usages of those processes beyond their capabilities. And let’s not even think about the hundreds of thousands of felonies committed by many of these illegals that not only have filled our prisons but have raped, murdered, robbed, and invaded homes of thousands of Americans while the immigration system looks exactly like Barack Obama left it: broken, wide-open, and dangerous. (No House Immigration legislation being considered this week)
  2. Healthcare is another big reason why Donald Trump was elected President. The American Healthcare System does NOT need to be fixed: it’s in great shape and is one of the best in the World. Healthcare “finance” is broken and needs a drastic change. Don’t confuse the two. ObamaCare was and is a nightmare for Americans. You all know the horrors of its financial structure and the lies told by everyone at the top of the Obama Administration (including Obama himself) to shove it down the throats of a willing American populace. Candidate Trump and almost every GOP member of Congress ran for election and re-election on the promise of “We’ll repeal and replace Obamacare if elected!” They were elected — and, thanks to the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ), could not even bring it to the floor of the Senate to debate alternatives after the House sent over a bill passed to repeal ObamaCare. Healthcare finance’s traumatic condition is about to tear our nation’s healthcare system apart. Democrats promised — if they won the House — to fix healthcare finance. (No House Healthcare Finance legislation being considered this week)
  3. Infrastructure America’s highways, including interstate routes, are in almost universal disrepair. This was the one American political issue most thought could easily get done. Donald Trump while campaigning made a promise for legislation he would get Republicans to offer and pass in a Trump administration. In his first year as president, he sent an infrastructure bill to Congress that was a behemoth. It’s framework including massive spending made possible by federal, state, and private entities working together to underwrite and implement the greatest U.S. infrastructure rebuilding program in history. It did not even get to first base! Democrats, however, promised to (with a win in the House in 2018) make Infrastructure their priority. They won the House, but no Infrastructure bill has shown up. (No House Infrastructure legislation being considered this week)
  4. Middle-Class Tax Cuts Many in America laughed at President Trump’s campaign promises to reduce federal income taxes on the Middle Class if he was elected. And he did just that. 95% of all Americans saw their 2018 personal income taxes reduced. Democrats, however, clung to a lie for the entire year of 2018, telling Americans that those tax cuts benefited only America’s wealthy. When “Tax Time” for 2018 tax filing began, surprise, surprise: the Middle-Class tax cuts were confirmed! Democrats promised that with a win of the House, THEY would give the Middle Class a well-deserved tax cut. (No House Middle-Class legislation being considered this week)
  5. Foreign Policy Democrats have always fashioned their party to be the only group to have legitimacy with citizens and leaders of foreign nations. Americans watched during the 8-year Obama presidency as American credibility overseas dwindled dramatically. Foreign leaders did not feel comfortable that they could trust the U.S. to fulfill its promises and its obligations to their countries. Democrats spent the first 2 years of Trump’s term deriding his attempts to bridge gaps that had become so rampant and obvious between the U.S. and other countries. But, lo and behold, respect for America zoomed back to the world stage with President Trump. Democrats promised with their control of the House they would reclaim the once stellar foreign policy reputation with government counterparts around the world. Speaker Pelosi even made a world tour to Europe during the Christmas/New Years holiday to assure our foreign allies that Democrats would now control foreign policy legislation and that SHE has the same power as the U.S. President. By all accounts, Pelosi was virtually laughed out of Europe! (By the way: No House Foreign Policy legislation being considered this week)

Summary

We could go on and on, but we won’t. Americans on the most part see and recognize that President Trump — even with 95% negative slant of all media stories about him, those in his administration, his policies, his haircut, and even members of his family, this President has accomplished almost all of the things on which he campaigned. And those he has failed on were due to the unwillingness of Congress to pass his proposed legislation. No other President in my lifetime has achieved nearly as much in their first 2 years as Donald Trump.

AND MOST AMERICANS DON’T EVEN KNOW THE MAJORITY OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WHY? THE MEDIA DO NOT REPORT THEM!

Do you know what Democrats are doing instead of conducting the business of America, which is supposed to be legislating? They ONLY look ahead to the next election. All of their activities are to assure their existing power in that election while hopefully adding the Senate AND the White House to their “power-stash.”

So what’s their plan? What’s their platform? What are they going to do for Americans if they get that additional significant power?

ANSWER: Whatever they want to do. And certainly with little or NO regard for the desires of the American electorate.

Don’t be shocked; don’t be angry at TruthNewsNetwork for telling you that. You’re all plenty capable to grasp what’s going on. In case you missed it, here in brief bullet point format to close today is exactly what Democrats are doing now and plan to do through the 2020 election.

Now they are doing this:

  • Investigating Donald Trump

What else are they going to do until the 2020 election?

  • Investigate Donald Trump

What is the Democrat Party Platform for 2020?

  • Investigate Donald Trump
C’est tout!” (French for, “That’s All, Folks!)

 

 

Play

Russian Hacking: It’s True Part 2

In Part I of this revelation, we proved to our readers/listeners that there actually WAS Russian hacking attempts that in some cases were successful during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. There really is “there-there.” Today as promised we go into “who” and “how” it happened.

This is really important information — stuff Americans need to understand. Read and listen closely! And make certain you look-in to our Summary at the completion of this story.

Leaks and Counterfeit Profiles

Russia has been quite open about playing its hacking card. At a conference in Moscow, a top cyberintelligence adviser to President Vladimir Putin hinted that Russia was about to unleash a devastating information attack on the United States.

“We are living in 1948,” said the adviser, Andrey Krutskikh, referring to the eve of the first Soviet atomic bomb test, in a speech reported by The Washington Post. “I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having something in the information arena that will allow to us to talk to the Americans as equals.”

Mr. Putin’s denials of Russian meddling have been tongue-in-cheek. He allowed that “free-spirited” hackers might have awakened in a good mood one day and spontaneously decided to contribute to “the fight against those who say bad things about Russia.” Speaking to NBC News, he rejected the idea that evidence pointed to Russia — while showing a striking familiarity with how cyberattackers might cover their tracks.

“IP addresses can be simply made up,” Mr. Putin said, referring to Internet protocol addresses, which can identify particular computers. “There are such IT specialists in the world today, and they can arrange anything and then blame it on whomever. This is no proof.”

Mr. Putin had a point. Especially in the social media realm, attributing fake accounts — to Russia or to any other source — is always challenging. The Central Intelligence Security Agency concluded“with high confidence” that Mr. Putin had ordered an influence operation to damage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and eventually aid Donald J. Trump’s. Facebook published a public report on information operations using fake accounts. It shied away from naming Russia as the culprit until when the company said it had removed 470 “inauthentic” accounts and pages that were “likely operated out of Russia.” Facebook officials fingered a St. Petersburg company with Kremlin ties called the Internet Research Agency.

Russia deliberately hides its role in influence operations, American intelligence officials say. Even skilled investigators often cannot be sure if a particular Facebook post or Twitter bot came from Russian intelligence employees, paid “trolls” in Eastern Europe or hackers from Russia’s vast criminal underground. A Russian site called buyaccs.com(“Buy Bulk Accounts at Best Prices”) offers for sale a huge array of pre-existing social media accounts, including on Facebook and Twitter; like wine, the older accounts cost more, because their history makes hacking harder to spot.

The trail that leads from the Russian operation to the bogus Melvin Redick, however, is fairly clear. United States intelligence concluded that DCLeaks.com was created in June 2016 by the Russian military intelligence agency G.R.U. The site began publishing a collection of hacked emails, notably from George Soros, the financier and Democratic donor, as well as a former NATO commander and some Democratic and Republican staffers. Some of the website’s language — calling Mrs. Clinton “President of the Democratic Party” and referring to her “electional staff” — seemed to contradict its pose as a forum run by American activists.

DCLeaks would soon be followed by a blog called Guccifer 2.0, which would leave even more clues of its Russian origin. Those sites’ posts, however, would then be dwarfed by those from WikiLeaks, which American officials believe got thousands of Democratic emails from Russian intelligence hackers. At each stage, a Large group of Facebook and Twitter accounts — alongside many legitimate ones — would applaud the leaks.

During its first weeks online, DCLeaks saw no media attention. But The Times found that some Facebook users somehow discovered the new site quickly and began promoting it on June 8, 2016. One was the Redick account, which posted about DCLeaks to the Facebook groups “World News Headlines” and “Breaking News — World.”

Melvin Redick’s Facebook Profile

Inconsistencies in the contents of Mr. Redick’s Facebook profile suggest that the identity was fake.

  1. Neither Central High School nor Indiana University of Pennsylvania has any record of Mr. Redick attending.
  2. According to his profile, Mr. Redick was born and raised in Pennsylvania, but one image shows him seated in a restaurant in Brazil, and another shows a Brazilian-style electrical outlet in his daughter’s bedroom.
  3. Mr. Redick’s posts were never of a personal nature. He shared only news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.

The same morning, “Katherine Fulton” also began promoting DCLeaks in the same awkward English Mr. Redick used. “Hey truth seekers!” she wrote. “Who can tell me who are #DCLeaks? Some kind of Wikileaks? You should visit their website, it contains confidential information about our leaders such as Hillary Clinton, and others http://dcleaks.com/.”

So did “Alice Donovan,” who pointed to documents from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations that she said showed its pro-American tilt and — in rather formal language for Facebook — “describe eventual means and plans of supporting opposition movements, groups or individuals in various countries.”

Might Mr. Redick, Ms. Fulton, Ms. Donovan and others be real Americans who just happened to notice DCLeaks the same day? No. The Times asked Facebook about these and a half-dozen other accounts that appeared to be Russian creations. The company carried out its standard challenge procedure by asking the users to establish their bona fides. All the suspect accounts failed and were removed from Facebook.

On Twitter, meanwhile, hundreds of accounts were busy posting anti-Clinton messages and promoting the leaked material obtained by Russian hackers. Investigators for FireEye spent months reviewing Twitter accounts associated with certain online personas, posing as activists, that seemed to show the Russian hand: DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, Anonymous Poland and several others. FireEye concluded that they were associated with one another and with Russian hacking groups, including APT28 or Fancy Bear, which American intelligence blames for the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails.

Lee Foster, who leads the FireEye team examining information operations, said some of the warlist Twitter accounts had previously been used for illicit marketing, suggesting that they may have been purchased on the black market. Some were genuine accounts that had been hijacked. Rachel Usedom, a young American engineer in California, tweeted mostly about her sorority before losing interest in 2014. In November 2016, her account was taken over, renamed #ClintonCurruption, and used to promote the Russian leaks.

Rachel Usedom’s Twitter account was taken over and used to post political leaks.

Ms. Usedom had no idea that her account had been commandeered by anti-Clinton people who used her account to spread propaganda . “I was shocked and slightly confused when I found out,” she said.

Notably, the warlist tweets often included the Twitter handles of users whose attention the senders wanted to catch — news organizations, journalists, government agencies and politicians, including @realDonaldTrump. By targeting such opinion-shapers, Mr. Foster said, the creators of the warlists clearly wanted to stir up conversation about the leaked material.

J. M. Berger, a researcher in Cambridge, Mass., helped build a public web “dashboard” for the Washington-based Alliance for Securing Democracy to track hundreds of Twitter accounts that were suspected of links to Russia or that spread Russian propaganda. During the campaign, he said, he often saw the accounts post replies to Mr. Trump’s tweets.

Mr. Trump “received more direct replies than anyone else,” Mr. Berger said. “Clearly this was an effort to influence Donald Trump. They know he reads tweets.”

Only a small fraction of all the suspect social media accounts active during the election have been studied by investigators. But there is ample reason to suspect that the Russian meddling may have been far more widespread.

Several activists who ran Facebook pages for Bernie Sanders, for instance, noticed a suspicious flood of hostile comments about Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Sanders had already ended his campaign and endorsed her.

John Mattes, who ran the “San Diego for Bernie Sanders” page, said he saw a shift from familiar local commenters to newcomers, some with Eastern European names — including four different accounts using the name “Oliver Mitov.”

“Those who voted for Bernie, will not vote for corrupt Hillary!” one of the Mitovs wrote on Oct. 7. “The Revolution must continue! #NeverHillary”

While he was concerned about being seen as a “crazy cold warrior,” Mr. Mattes said he came to believe that Russia was the likely source of the anti-Clinton comments. “The magnitude and viciousness of it — I would suggest that their fingerprints were on it and no one else had that agenda,” he said.

Both on the left and the pro-Trump right, though, some skeptics complain that Moscow has become the automatic boogeyman, accused of misdeeds with little proof. Even those who track Russian online activity admit that in the election it was not always easy to sort out who was who.

“Yes, the Russians were involved. Yes, there was a lot of organic support for Trump,” said Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media. “Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”

Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts “Kremlin trolls” based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.

“Hillary’s a warmonger,” said Marilyn Justice, 66, who lives in Nova Scotia and tweets as @mkj1951. Of Mr. Putin, she said in an interview, “I think he’s very patient in the face of provocations.”

Another of the so-called Kremlin trolls, Marcel Sardo, 48, a web producer in Zurich, describes himself bluntly on his Twitter bio as a “Pro-Russia Media-Sniper.” He said he shared notes daily via Skype and Twitter with online acquaintances, including Ms. Justice, on disputes between Russia and the West over who shot down the Malaysian airliner hit by a missile over Ukraine and who used sarin gas in Syria.

“It’s a battle of information, and I and my peers have decided to take sides,” said Mr. Sardo, who constantly cites Russian sources and bashed Mrs. Clinton daily during the campaign. But he denied he had any links to the Russian government.

But if Russian officials are happy at their success, in 2016’s election and beyond, they rarely let the mask slip. In an interview with Bloomberg before the election, Mr. Putin suggested that reporters were worrying too much about who exactly stole the material.

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” he said, in a point that Mr. Trump has sometimes echoed. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public.”

Summary

In the wake of the nonstop claims from absolutely everyone on the Left about Russian meddling in 2016 and even some Republicans, it’s good to finally have verification that it really happened. Even though the world knew the Russians were proficient and committed to diligently working to thwart the wills of voters not only in the U.S. but in other countries, it has been extremely puzzling to locate, identify, and confirm factual occurrences of their election tampering attempts. It’s even more difficult in the case of the 2016 U.S. election to find factual confirmation of any of their efforts having any substantial impact yet alone that they changed or affected actual vote counts.

But what it most certainly has done is alert Americans — ALL Americans — to the fact that several countries have been and are trying to interfere with our elections. I’m certain part of their hopes in doing so is to distract Americans and the government from foreign policies that impact their countries directly. Let’s be honest: the U.S. has consistently and diligently worked hard to do the same things in the elections of our foreign foes.

Intelligence spying capabilities throughout the world have far exceeded the capabilities that in the 1970s were seen and heard only in James Bond movies that we all thought were impossible and would never be achieved. Yes, in part we conduct such activities to keep Americans safe and our country free from outside interference from other countries. But let’s be clear about this: we are at a tipping point in how we not only listen-in and watch through spying and electronic surveillance the activities of our foreign enemies, we found out daily just how much our government is using these tactics in the name of the Law to monitor every aspect of AMERICANS’ lives. No matter what the leaders of the “Spook” agencies tell us, that capability with very little accountability to Americans is deadly. The scary stories contained in Orwells 1984 are actually reality today and have been for much longer than we even thought was possible.

What about Russia? No doubt they’re our #1 enemy. Even with our weakened economy for 8 years from Obama Administration financial starvation, we still have the #1 military on Earth. With the rebuilding of the military and our intelligence infrastructure being cleaned of those who have perpetrated these frauds on our public, we’re well on our way to putting significant space between us and Russia. But we better be smart. Unearthing their attempts to tamper with our elections is a big victory for us, but only if we take demonstrative actions.

Let their secrecy from those in the Obama Administration going unseen by our CIA, NSA, and FBI during the 2016 election cycle a warning. Unless we take care of our own country using every opening available to ferret out their foreign intelligence ploys, they will be here in great force very soon. Vladimir’s greatest desire is to instigate processes through KGB leftover ideas that dismantle the intelligence structure of the U.S., thereby forcing us to our knees. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he promised to rebuild and re-establish the American military might and he’s started that process with a vengeance.

We close with this: did Russia change by their actions any votes from Hillary to Trump in 2016? We probably will never know. But what we DO know is they could have and almost certainly will going forward unless we take demonstrative steps to prevent those.

I know secrecy is critical regarding many elements of these efforts by our intelligence community. But certainly there are ways of communication they can use to make Americans feel comfortable that these agencies are really working for us. And instead of Congress chasing cameras all day every day to talk about Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment, how about they instead pass meaningful legislation to make and keep America safe?

And they might start with stopping the aliens from storming our southern border. Those aliens are actually breaking the law!

Russian Hacking: It’s Real, Part I

I as well as millions of other Americans tired long ago about the reports we saw and heard over and over that “experts” continued to harass us with claiming “We know factually that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election in coordinated efforts to denigrate Hillary Clinton and to assist Donald Trump’s win of the White House.”

”Factually” is the word that perked me up: at TruthNewsNetwork we research, always digging for facts. I’m sure you will understand that when we are told by “experts” that something politically is “factual,” our stomachs turn and our heads ache because the belief that what political “experts” tell us today are “facts,” we are pretty certain they are NOT facts.

But in our patience and continued research, we have unearthed some facts about 2016 that support those Russian interference claims in 2016 with apparent attempts to discredit Clinton. We had significant help from other news sources in putting this together. (See credits at the end of this report) But saying this has been a difficult task and that there has been little cooperation from our normal sources is a gross understatement.

This report will be our ONLY such report going forward, so it is lengthy and detailed. We will present it in two parts to make it easier to digest. And we’ll hold our Summary until the end of Part II that you’ll see tomorrow.

Read carefully! There’s much “meat” in this. And it explains much and answers many questions you may have. But it will also initiate new questions for you. Let’s go!

The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election

I knew that the Russians had attempted on numerous occasions to impact the elections of foreign countries. So do the Chinese, and, for that matter, so does the United States! We’ve reported on those in previous reports here at TruthNewsNetwork. That being said, my assumption has always been that the NSA and the CIA as the two foremost U.S. intelligence agencies on the frontlines of defense of the nation’s IT infrastructure stopped every threat. Surely their protections extended into our election system. Because of the cloak of secrecy that covers both agencies, I assumed it was for that secrecy that none of their methods were known to the public.

I was shocked to learn that those “experts” probably were right. What was a bigger surprise was the way the Russians had sneaked into our IT infrastructure.

It’s not surprising the Russians use spies. They always do. We do, China does, and every other country on Earth does too. But apparently, the Russians in 2016 didn’t (at least on the most part) use actual Russian spies. They created “fake” Americans to be their spies.

Russian Spies in America

Melvin Redick of Harrisburg, PA, a friendly-looking American with a backward baseball cap and a young daughter, posted on Facebook a link to a brand-new website.

“These guys show hidden truth about Hillary Clinton, George Soros and other leaders of the US,” he wrote on June 8, 2016. “Visit #DCLeaks website. It’s really interesting!”

Mr. Redick turned out to be a remarkably elusive character. No Melvin Redick appears in Pennsylvania records, and his photos seem to be borrowed from an unsuspecting Brazilian. But this fictional concoction has earned a small spot in history: The Redick posts that morning were among the first public signs of an unprecedented foreign intervention in American democracy.

The DCLeaks site had gone live a few days earlier, posting the first samples of material, stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers, that would reverberate through the presidential election campaign and into the Trump presidency. The site’s phony promoters were in a cyber army of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled.

The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the onslaught of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far more difficult to trace was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into the sources of deception and propaganda.

An investigation by The New York Times and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. Recently, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign.

On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages. Many were automated Twitter accounts, called bots, that sometimes fired off identical messages seconds apart — and in the exact alphabetical order of their made-up names, according to the FireEye researchers. On Election Day, for instance, they found that one group of Twitter bots sent out the hashtag #WarAgainstDemocrats more than 1,700 times.

The Russian efforts were sometimes crude, with a trial-and-error feel, and many of the suspect posts were not widely shared. The fakery may have added only modestly to the din of genuine American voices in the pre-election melee, but it helped fuel a fire of anger and suspicion in a polarized country.

A Times investigation reveals missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of a campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

Given the powerful role of social media in political contests, understanding the Russian efforts will be crucial in preventing similar, or more sophisticated, attacks in the 2020 congressional races and the presidential election. Multiple government agencies have investigated the Russian attack, though it remains unclear whether any agency is focused specifically on tracking foreign intervention in social media. Both Facebook and Twitter say they are studying the 2016 experience and how to defend against such meddling.

“We know we have to stay vigilant to keep ahead of people who try to misuse our platform,” Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, wrote in a post about the Russia-linked fake accounts and ads. “We believe in protecting the integrity of civic discourse.”

Critics say that because shareholders judge the companies partly based on a crucial data point — “monthly active users” — they are reluctant to police their sites too aggressively for fear of reducing that number. Remember: Facebook and Twitter are free to users. Advertising pays the bills AND investors their stock dividends. The more accounts, the more ads get sold and at higher prices.

The companies use technical tools and teams of analysts to detect bogus accounts, but the scale of the sites — 328 million users on Twitter, nearly two billion on Facebook — means they often remove impostors only in response to complaints.

Though both companies have been slow to grapple with the problem of manipulation, they have stepped up efforts to purge fake accounts. Facebook says it takes down a million accounts a day — including some that were related to the most recent French election and upcoming German voting — but struggles to keep up with the illicit activity. Still, the company says the abuse affects only a small fraction of the social network; Facebook officials estimated that of all the “civic content” posted on the site in connection with the United States election, less than one-tenth of one percent resulted from “information operations” like the Russian campaign.

Twitter, unlike Facebook, does not require the use of a real name and does not prohibit automated accounts, arguing that it seeks to be a forum for open debate. But it constantly updates a “trends” list of most-discussed topics or hashtags, and it says it tries to foil attempts to use bots to create fake trends. However, FireEye found that the suspected Russian bots sometimes managed to do just that, in one case causing the hashtag #HillaryDown to be listed as a trend.

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent who has closely tracked Russian activity online said that Facebook and Twitter suffered from a “bot cancer eroding trust on their platforms.” But he added that while Facebook “has begun cutting out the tumors by deleting false accounts and fighting fake news,” Twitter has done little and as a result, “bots have only spread since the election.”

Asked to comment, Twitter referred to a blog post in June in which it said it was “doubling down” on efforts to prevent manipulation but could not reveal details for fear of tipping off those trying to evade the company’s measures. But it declared that Twitter’s “open and real-time nature is a powerful antidote” to falsehoods.

“This is important because we cannot distinguish whether every single Tweet from every person is truthful or not,” the statement said. “We, as a company, should not be the arbiter of truth.”

Part I Wrapup

During an interview with the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, Barack Obama denounced the conspiracy theory that Russians tampered with the American voting process. “We were frankly more concerned in the run-up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of,” he admitted. “And we’re confident that we can guard against.”

Then Breitbart.com reported that: Obama downplayed the hack of a private email account of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, defending his administration for revealing in October that the Russian government was connected.

“None of this should be a big surprise,” Obama said, “Russia trying to influence our elections dates back to the Soviet Union.” Obama dismissed the hack and the leaked emails as “not very interesting” and lacking “explosive” revelations. He puzzled as to why it was an “obsession” by the news media despite the knowledge that the Russians were responsible.

He also criticized President-elect Donald Trump for calling on the Russian government to hack Hillary’s emails to reveal the contents of the deleted emails from her private server, and reminded the audience that Trump had campaign officials connected to Russia.

“What’s happened to our political system where some emails that were hacked and released ended up being the overwhelming story, and the constant source of coverage – breathless coverage – that was depicted as somehow damning in all sorts of ways when the truth of the matter was it was fairly routine stuff?” he said.

Watch (and Listen) closely to exactly what Obama said to Trevor Noah about Russian hacking in 2016:

What I find interesting is how the former President of the United States, who had just completed 8 years in office, downplayed in this interview just after the election of Donald Trump the seriousness of the role the Russians played in the 2016 election and apparently in previous elections — perhaps even his own in 2008 and 2012!  The book is still out on that.

In Part 2, we will look further into what actually happened with the Russians in 2016 and how it happened. We discuss the impact it made on vote totals and what has happened regarding Russian election hacking in our elections since 2016. You don’t want to miss it! Catch it first thing tomorrow at www.TruthNewsNet.org!

 

Play

“The Polls! The Polls! The Polls!”

It’s hard to fathom that we have already begun campaigning for 2020. It seems like November of 2016 was yesterday! But it wasn’t. The presidential campaign cycle begins earlier and earlier every 4 years. And maybe that’s a good thing. After all, being that lengthy usually means more and more candidates jump into the race just to see if America likes them enough to give them a shot at the White House. Then, just as quickly as they jump in, they begin to jump out of the race one at a time. The race for 2020 already has about 20 in the race with several heavy hitters undeclared.

In that race for candidates to start swimming the “election river” are all the polling entities. Nowadays it seems that everyone has a poll. And it seems they will take a poll on ANYTHING! It’s really comical to watch. And as you’d bet, the polls have already begin in earnest to tell Americans who every other American likes, who is the best presidential candidate in the race, who has the best shot of winning the most vote and who has the best shot to win the electoral college, and the list of poll types goes on and on.

And you can bet the polls themselves will go on and on, too!

Polling History: Not So Good

90% of the polling entities that were active during the 2016 election period were wrong in their predictions: 90%. In fact, there was only one poll that accurately predicted Donald Trump would take the oath of office. You would think polling companies would simply throw in the towel because of their dismal results and how wrong they were. But, no: “They’re BAACK!”

I’ve seen already about 50 polls regarding 2020. And they change from day-to-day and during each day during day-parts. We’re not going to dig into what and how polls are done and what impacts their results. Let it suffice to say this: polling methodology can be tweaked in about 50 ways to sway the results of each poll for the benefit or detriment of any candidate however the polling entity wishes to do. Facts do NOT matter when it comes to polling. Because of that, pollsters have become very important, very expensive, and an absolute necessity.

The recent polls to no one’s surprise have been all over the place, too. I saw one yesterday that showed Bernie Sanders “if the presidential election was held today” would beat Donald Trump with a double-digit margin of victory! When I saw it, I just shrugged it off, because I know “it’s a long time before we’ll know who’s going home to the White House in January 2021.

Yet there are people who simply live and die by the presidential polls they see. To that end, and to illustrate to all just how unreliable and off the mark pollsters are almost all the time, TruthNewsNetwork today is cutting our story short and giving you an in-depth synopsis of how and what the pollsters did — along with political pundits with their predictions — regarding who the 2016 presidential race winner would be. This video is in detail, it covers a broad spectrum of pundits, news broadcasters, talk show hosts, U.S. Senators and members of the House, former presidential candidates, and even President Obama. Watch it in detail and relish every minute:

We hope you enjoyed it!

In spite of what polls say today, tomorrow, next year, and even the morning of November 3, 2020 — election day — NO POLL, NO POLLSTER, NO NEWS PERSON, POLITICAL CANDIDATE, FORMER PRESIDENT, AND NOT EVEN ANY AMERICAN VOTERS WILL KNOW WHO’S GOING TO WIN!

What’s fun will be that even with the video you just watched above that exposes their misses, vitriol, crazy ideas and predictions, the same people on the same shows and networks, the same writers and talk show hosts will take “the poll of the day” and make the same stupid mistakes again!

By the way, the “elephant” in the room will be the same guy that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now. Elephants are pretty hard to move unless and until they want to. It’s going to be tough to get this elephant to move until 2025!