High Crimes–Not Misdemeanors

Yesterday Sebastian Gorka posted an article at American Greatness titled, “ObamaGate: No Misdemeanors, Only High Crimes.” I understand all of us are getting tired of hearing about any of the garbage that went on in the Obama administration in terms of spying on the political opposition. However, because that issue has not yet been dealt with, it will remain in the news until those guilty of misusing federal agencies are held accountable.

Sebastian Gorka points out:

…Or look instead at Anderson Cooper, CNN’s putative doyen, who can’t even garner 0.3 percent of the population as viewers for his “flagship” program, and who recently accused Jared Kushner of “gaslighting” the nation over Russia; in other words of making statements aimed at convincing the listeners that they are insane.

This from the network that has so stoked the flames of Russia conspiracy-mongering every day for two years, that they publish outlandish pieces on Robert Mueller’s sealing indictments against the president, and as Cooper’s fellow show host Chris Cuomo qualifies the president’s public statements as those made by a convict already wearing an “orange jumpsuit,” statements that are less gaslighting than full on tinfoil-hattery.

And why was Kushner so calumniated? What craziness was he trying to sell to America as fact? His “gaslighting” sin was to state early last week that the Mueller investigation and the rest of the related farrago had done more damage to our republic and democratic practices than the original illegal actions of Russian actors on Facebook. Yet, ironically, Kushner was lambasted all over the corporate leftist media as the majority of Americans actually agreed with the president’s senior advisor.

The article concludes with some troubling information:

It has been brought to my attention by a former CIA station chief of some prominence and who has a legendary reputation inside the community of pre-Brennan operators, that Hillary Clinton’s loss did not curtail the worst activities of the outgoing Obama team. In fact, through the use of a walled-off team of contractors working inside the Intelligence Community, and for political realms alone, with no FISA-authorization or other national security justification, the Trump White House was spied upon after the January 20 inauguration. (Those responsible for this on-going crime are known to more than one investigative journalist and I have been told that the first of the new revelations will be published in the coming week).

Simply put: the Obama Administration used the most powerful intelligence capabilities in the world to attempt a penetration and subversion of the presidential campaign of the the opposing party. When that failed, they used a special prosecutor to divert attention away from that activity, log-jam the work of the new president, and clean up the evidence of what had been done to him and his team. And most un-American of all: the former intelligence leadership of the Obama Administration continued to spy illegally on Donald Trump and his closest advisers after they had moved into the White House.

Many take offense at the way President Trump uses language, at his tweets and at what they see as his hyperbole. But this week when he called the operations against him and the will of the people who chose him, a “coup” and an “attempted overthrow” of the government, he was making a simple statement of fact. One that will soon make Watergate an irrelevance.

The spying that was done in the Obama administration more closely resembles Soviet Russia than it does America. It is frightening to think that someone whose administration had so little regard for the law or the civil liberties of Americans sat in the White House for eight years. I don’t think a lot of Americans realize that the same force of government used against individuals in the Trump campaign and transition team could someday turn against them for no reason. The punishment for the actions taken against the Trump campaign and administration needs to be severe enough so that another coup attempt will never happen.

 

Really??!!

This article is based on information posted on The Federalist Papers Project.

There will be three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate before the election. That’s good news. Americans will get to see how the candidates respond to questions and charges, etc. However, the choice of moderators is simply ridiculous.

The first “Commander in Chief” forum on September 7 will be moderated by Matt Lauer, Mr. Lauer is a ‘notable’ member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Does anyone really believe that he will be an impartial moderator?

The first Presidential debate will be moderated by Lester Holt, Anchor, NBC Nightly News. Mr. Holt can be expected to be somewhat less than even-handed.

The second Presidential debate will be moderated by Martha Raddatz, Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and Co-Anchor of “This Week,” ABC and Anderson Cooper, Anchor, CNN. If you are okay with this, remember Candy Crowley in the Obama/Romney debate. It came out later that Romney was telling the truth and Candy Crowley was lying, but at that point the truth didn’t matter. Expect the same sort of tactics in this debate. I would like to note that this debate is up against an NFL football game between the Giants and the Packers.

The third Presidential debate will be hosted by Chris Wallace. This is an attempt to appease the Republicans. Chris Wallace is not a horrible choice–he is probably the most neutral moderator possible considering who controls the media. At least he occasionally has been know to hold Hillary Clinton‘s feet to the fire when she is lying.

Regardless of moderators, schedules, etc., there will be some things learned during these debates. How does Hillary look? It seems that in the course of her questioning by the FBI about her emails, she talked about a brain injury from a fall and the fact that she was only able to return to work part time. How will she look to the American voters? Make-up can do wonderful things, but it can’t hide memory loss or mental confusion. We shall see.

Meanwhile, stay tuned and get out the popcorn–there is going to be a show!

 

Sometimes Media Bias Is Very Subtle

One way the mainstream media is showing its favoritism toward Democrat candidates is the way the debates are conducted. A website called bizpacreview posted a story today about CNN’s plans for the debate.

This is the quote that says it all:

As much as CNN “trumped” up their Republican debate to get the candidates digging at each other, the network will handle the Democrats with kid gloves.  And nobody is expecting sparks to fly, with Rush Limbaugh calling it “a dryball.”

Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”

“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.

CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.

Translated loosely, what is being said here is simple–we are hoping that the Republican Presidential candidates will destroy each other and we can appear to be objective. However, we don’t want the Democratic Presidential candidates attacking each other, as that would provide ammunition for the Republicans during the actual Presidential campaign.

The article reports Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Monday:

So it’s Anderson Cooper who’s just out front here saying, sorry, we’re not gonna do that, we’re not gonna pit these people against each other…  [They] certainly don’t think they have to be critical of people on their own side for credibility, which, sadly, is what many Republicans still believe.  That the only way you can be credible as a Republican or as a conservative media person is to be critical of your own team.  That proves that you’re not biased.  That proves you are not afraid to criticize your own people.  Except it never happens on the left.  CNN would never, ever, do anything. Now, the candidates might, but CNN’s not gonna do anything to make any of these people look bad.  They rally the troops. They circle the wagons. They do everything they can to protect.

The political parties (and the people in them) are entitled to act in any way they please. It is just a shame that the mainstream media chooses to take sides and the American voters do not get a clear picture of their choices.

The ‘Unknown Motive’ In Ferguson

In an attempt to explain recent events in Ferguson, some of the major media sources (CNN and some of the networks) have referred to an ‘unknown motive’ on the part of Michael Brown. Yesterday World Net Daily posted an article that might provide the answer to what the ‘unknown motive’ was.

The article reports:

Reporting from the scene, Lemon (CNN’s Don Lemon) said, “Maybe a minute, two minutes ago we heard a gunshot and watched people scattering. And we’re watching people on the roofs of cars, on the tops of cars and … Obviously there’s a smell of marijuana here as well.”

“Lemon’s comments sparked fierce backlash on social media,” reported Toyin Owoseje of the International Business Times. She said “many members of the online community” accused him of “adding fire to the flames and promoting his own agenda.”

I am not saying that marijuana is to blame for the rioting–I am saying that marijuana impairs judgment and that people under the influence of the drug might do things that they might not do otherwise.

The article also points out something that I have not heard elsewhere:

Rathbone points out that Kevin Torres, a reporter for KUSA in Colorado, where marijuana is legalized, has done a balanced story on the issue, noting that researchers from Harvard and Northwestern University recently found “younger marijuana users are more likely to have learning and mental health problems.” He cited an article from the New England Journal of Medicine showing high THC use being linked to paranoia and psychosis.

Michael Brown was not only high on THC but was apparently preparing to smoke more dope when Officer Wilson caught him walking down the center of a street and asked him to move to the sidewalk. The swisher sweet cigars Brown had stolen from the convenience store are notorious for being used to make marijuana “blunts.”  (emphasis mine)

The media has attempted to paint Michael Brown as an angelic gentle giant. Clearly, that is not the case. Michael Brown was obviously as flawed an individual as the rest of us. His death was unfortunate, but was also the result of choices that he made. If you take the marijuana out of the equation, you have no theft and probably no reason to attack a policeman. Marijuana may be harmless at times, but obviously this time it was fatal.