Though her fellatio-focused father seems to get it, Chelsea apparently hasn’t yet grasped most everyone else on the planet would prefer her whining mother and she…along with the rest of her entire family…would simply…
Then there’s these next two memes forwarded by Jeff Foutch which accurately depict The Left’s unseemly love affair with MS-13…
…along with these demonstrating why we’ll never again tune into the NFL, or NBA for that matter:
Most importantly, if you…
Don’t kid yourself: had The Obamao ever accumulated similarly unrestricted control, his achievements wouldn’t have simply rivaled those…
…of his comrades to the South, they’d have…
…exceeded them!
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, in another must-read commentary featured at NRO, Andy McCarthy highlights the link which explains everything:
“Cruz just dropped out of the race. It’s going to be a Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable.”
It was a little after midnight on May 4, 2016. FBI lawyer Lisa Page was texting her paramour, FBI counterespionage agent Peter Strzok, about the most stunning development to date in the 2016 campaign: Donald Trump was now the inevitable Republican nominee. He would square off against Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ certain standard-bearer.
The race was set…between two major-party candidates who were both under investigation by the FBI.
In stunned response, Strzok wrote what may be the only words we need to know, the words that reflected the mindset of his agency’s leadership and of the Obama administration: “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.”
MYE.That’s Mid-Year Exam, the code-word the FBI had given to the Hillary Clinton emails probe.
“It sure does,” responded Page. Mind you, she was not just any FBI lawyer; she was counsel and confidant to the bureau’s No. 2 official,(now disgraced, confirmed liar)Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
If the thousands of text messages between Ms. Page and Agent Strzok are clear on anything, they are clear on the thinking of the bureau’s top brass.
In its Trump antipathy, the media-Democrat complex has admonished us to ignore the Strzok-Page texts. FBI officials are as entitled as anyone else to their political opinions, we’re told; and if they found Trump loathsome, they were no different from half the country.
That’s the wrong way to look at it. Regardless of their politics (which, the texts show, are not as left-wing as some conservative-media hyperbole claims), these FBI officials are a window into how the Obama administration regarded the two investigations in which Strzok and Page were central players: Mid Year Exam and Trump-Russia — the latter eventually code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”
The two investigations must not be compartmentalized.Manifestly, the FBI saw them as inseparably linked: Trump’s victory in the primaries, the opening of his path to the Oval Office, meant — first and foremost — that the Hillary investigation had to be brought to a close.
And that is because bringing it to a close was already known, by May 4, to mean closing it without charges — opening her path to the Oval Office. It was the calculation of the FBI, the Obama Justice Department, the Obama-led intelligence agencies, and the Obama White House that wrapping up MYE was essential to stopping Donald Trump.
Trump had won the nomination, so now the pressure was on to remove the cloud of felony suspicion hanging over Mrs. Clinton.
The mistake is often made — I’ve made it myself — of analyzing the tanking of the Clinton emails case in a vacuum.There are, after all, reasons unrelated to Donald Trump that explain the outcome: Obama was implicated in Clinton’s use of a non-secure email system; Obama had endorsed Clinton; many high-ranking Obama Justice Department officials stood to keep their coveted positions, and even advance, in a Hillary Clinton administration; the Obama Justice Department was hyper-political and Clinton was the Democratic nominee.
But the Clinton investigation did not happen in a vacuum.It happened in the context of Donald Trump’s gallop through the Republican primaries and, just as important, of the Obama administration’s determination to regard the Trump campaign as a Kremlin satellite.
Conveniently, the Strzok-Page text occurred in what we might call the “late spring.” As I outlined in yesterday’scolumn(which is well worth reading), the “late spring” is the vague timeframe former Obama-administration officials gave to the House Intelligence Committee when asked when the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, briefed the president’s National Security Council about Carter Page. An obscure Trump campaign adviser, Page was regarded as a likely clandestine Russian agent by the Obama administration, on what appears to be flimsy evidence.
So…let’s think this through.
By May 4, the Obama administration has already concluded that the Trump campaign is part of a Russian covert op that must be stopped — or at least has rationalized that the Trump-Russia storyline can work politically to damage the Republican candidate.
At the same time, even though MYE is not yet formally “finished,” even though key witnesses (including Clinton herself) have not been interviewed, even though essential evidence (including the laptops used to store and vet Clinton’s emails) are not yet in the FBI’s possession, Director Comey and his top aides are already drafting the exoneration speech he will give two months later, recommending against prosecution.
And everybody knows the fix is in.The Strzok-Page texts show that the pressure to schedule the Clinton interview is based onthe imperative to shut down the case, notto weigh what she had to sayfor investigative purposes. Clinton is permitted to have her co-conspirators represent her as lawyers at her interview — in violation of federal law, professional-ethics canons, and rudimentary investigative practice — precisely because no one regards the interview as a serious law-enforcement exercise.
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s shameful Arizona tarmac meeting with former President Clinton becomes a scandal in late June, she tries to mitigate the damage by announcing an intention to accept whatever recommendation the FBI makes. Lisa Page spitefully texts Peter Strzok. “And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.”
That was July 1. The very next day, the FBI does its just-for-show interview of Mrs. Clinton. Three mornings later, July 5 (at the start of the work week after Independence Day), Comey holds his press conference to announce that, of course, no charges will be brought.
To accomplish this, he effectively rewrites the classified-information statute Clinton violated; barely mentions the tens of thousands of official government business emails that she destroyed; claims without any elaboration that the FBI can see no evidence of obstruction; and omits mention of her just-concluded interview in which — among other things — she pretended not to know what the markings on classified documents meant.
On the very same day, the FBI’s legal attaché in Rome travels to London to interview Christopher Steele, who has already started to pass his sensational dossier allegations to the bureau.And with the help of CIA director John Brennan and British intelligence, the FBI is ready to run a spy — a longtime CIA source — at Carter Page in London on July 11, just as he arrives there from Moscow.
With the pressure to finish MYE in the rearview mirror, Hillary Clinton looked like a shoo-in to beat Donald Trump.By mid September, Lisa Page was saying as much at a meeting in Deputy Director McCabe’s office. But Strzok was hedging his bets: Maybe “there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Soon, as the campaign wound down, the FBI and the Obama Justice Department were on the doormat of the FISA court, obtaining a surveillance warrant on Carter Page, substantially based on allegations in the Steele dossier — an uncorroborated Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed. Meanwhile, the FBI/CIA spy was being run at George Papadopoulos, and even seeking a role in the Trump campaign from its co-chairman, Sam Clovis.
Or maybe you think these things are unrelated…
If so, we’ve got some prime Florida real estate…
…you should find of interest.
And let’s not forget Hillary’s use of her private email server and the subsequent criminal cleansing thereof is just one of a myriad of crimes for which she should be under indictment:
In a related item also courtesy of NRO, McCarthy details the Deep State’s latest iteration of Slick Willy’s infamous “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is”:
“…In the Trump–Russia affair, officials of the Obama-era intelligence agencies suggest that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was in a traitorous conspiracy with the Kremlin. What grounds?They’d rather not say. You’ll just have to trust them as well-meaning, non-partisan pros who (all together now) can’t be expected to divulge methods and sources.
Countering that are not only Trump fans but growing ranks of security-state skeptics. The Obama administration blatantly politicized the government’s intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus. Their Chicken Little shrieks that public disclosure of FISA warrants and texts between FBI agents would imperil security have proven overblown at best (and, in some (that’s “some”, spelled “m-o-s-t”!) instances, to be cynical attempts to hide embarrassing facts). “Trust us” is not cutting it anymore.
In the end, it is not about who the spies are. It is about why they were spying. In our democratic republic, there is an important norm against an incumbent administration’s use of government’s enormous intelligence-gathering capabilities to — if we may borrow a phrase — interfere in an election. To justify disregarding that norm would require strong evidence of egregious wrongdoing. Enough bobbing and weaving, and enough dueling tweets.Let’s see the evidence.“
Which makes inquiring minds all the more curious why The Donald doesn’t just make it so.
Next up, writing at Townhall.com, Bernie Goldberg explains…
“…My friend Lee Habeeb, a conservative radio executive who appears on cable TV from time to time, has written a piece in Newsweek about how too many journalists have played down — and often downright ignored — the murder of young black men in places like Chicago. (You know, where guns bans have only served to remove firearms from the hands of the law-abiding!)
“In Chicago, it’s Parkland every week,” Habeeb writes about a city that had more than 1,400 homicides in 2016 and 2017.And in just the first week of May 2018, 84 people were shot — nine of them wound up dead.
Journalists, of course, care very much about young black men who are shot — when the person doing the shooting is a cop.(Particularly if the cop in question is WHITE!) Then, news organizations, even those based a thousand miles away, report the names of the dead — like Michael Brown who was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri — and (rightly) give as much information as possible about their deaths.
“But Americans know none of the thousands of innocent (sometimes…sometimes not!) young black men and women killed by other black men in our nation’s third largest city — and across America,” writes Habeeb. “There’s a reason.A young black male’s life is not worth reporting when it is taken by another black male. That’s the real racism that prevails in America’s newsrooms. The marginalization of black urban life.”
Habeeb believes that liberal journalists don’t like the storyline. “Journalists and activists can’t blame the deaths on assault style weapons like the AR-15. Or the National Rifle Association.”
It’s true. Black on black murder doesn’t fit the liberal journalists’ template — and not only because assault weapons aren’t involved. Liberals journalists don’t feel comfortable when it comes to reporting dysfunction in black neighborhoods in places like Chicago. If white kids in tony suburbs were being gunned down in such horrific numbers, you can be sure that the liberal media would more than simply take note. They’d run stories on Page 1 for days on end.
Does that mean that liberals think white lives matter more than black lives? It’s not that simple — not when you introduce paternalism and white liberal guilt into the mix.
When it comes to the slaughter of black young men, liberal journalists fear that playing up this kind of bad news could give ammunition to bigots, who might use the information to bolster their already nasty opinions of African-Americans.
And since much of the killing is the work of fatherless young men, that’s another important story the national media would rather play down, and for the same reason. More dysfunction amounts to more ammo for the bigots…”
Why? Because the causative factors resulted from Progressive policies first promoted in the 60’s with Lyndon Johnson, the third-worst President in American history.
And in News You Can’t Use, it appears “experts” in France…
Which will come as a shock to Progressives, who believe he escaped Berlin and is now residing at…
…1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And in yet Another Sign the Apocalypse is Upon Us, the U.S. Geological Survey actually found it necessary to compose a response to this incredibly idiotic question:
Yeah,…whatever; have at it, hemorrhoid! At least future generations will benefit from your absence in the gene pool. Hat tip to G. Trevor for what we can only describe as the aftereffect of too much muy caliente salsa the night before.
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a day with two moving Memorial Day remembrances, the first courtesy of Jim Freeman and Best of the Web…
…and the second this moving tribute from Kathy Thorp, the wife of our dear, departed friend and classmate Owen, as forwarded by another old and bestest buddy Chris Wilson:
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.