theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Saturday, November 30, 2019

RETRO-READ: Obama Administration was CORRUPT, More and More EVIDENCE Reveals Daily

His Loyalties were to His Power and Authority

This artwork by Paul Tong relates to Barack Obama's inauguration.
This artwork by Paul Tong relates to Barack Obama’s inauguration
- - Monday, May 21, 2018



ANALYSIS/OPINION:
There was so much hope in January 2009 when Barack Obama took office. Here was the first black president of the United States, promising to be a leader for all Americans, to halt the rise of the oceans and to be the most transparent administration ever. Even black Americans were saying the Civil War was finally over.
Unfortunately for America, it didn’t turn out that way. As more and more evidence is revealed daily on the evening news, it is now very clear the Obama administration was the most corrupt presidency in the history of the republic.
As Mr. Obama’s favorite, President Abraham Lincoln, warned us, the most dangerous threats can come from domestic enemies.
First of all, that bit about being a leader for all Americans, color-blind if you will, was a tall tale. Mr. Obama never missed an opportunity to sow racial divide. During his term in the Oval Office, racial relations literally went off the cliff. Mr. Obama and first lady Michelle promoted the false narrative that white America was literally guilty of hunting down blacks with glee. They whipped up resentment in minority communities against the police, even though a Harvard study found that blacks are no more likely to be killed by police than whites.
But the racial divisions, as painful and heartbreaking as they are, were not the worst of it.
The abuse of power started to become clear when it was revealed the Internal Revenue Service was biased against conservatives. I still don’t understand why that woman is not in jail. She sat there and lied to the American people and to Congress with no accountability.
Mr. Obama used the agencies, and the awesome power of the federal government, against his political enemies. He used the power of the state against those he didn’t like. This was full-on banana republic dictator kind of stuff.
The negligence at Veterans’ Affairs, the “stimulus bill” that was simply a redistribution to unions (those “shovel ready projects” weren’t so shovel ready after all), the sale of uranium to the Russians, the lies about Benghazi, the Clinton email scandal that was not prosecuted, the appeasement of the Iranians — even sending billions in cash in the middle of the night and bragging about how they lied to the American press and public, the use of financial penalties to fund leftist causes, the use of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) to take property from Americans, on, and on, and on. I literally could go on forever.
However, the coup-de-grace is what we are now learning about the 2016 election and the criminal spying on the Trump campaign.
The president of the United States was set up. Mr. Trump is exactly right. The weaponization of our intelligence and security services has damaged their reputation for generations, and the rule of law, to which this great nation is so committed, has been irreparably damaged as well.
I’ve said it before, the Obama administration was nothing more than highly organized crime.
Justice will be served. It may take a while, but the truth will continue to come out.
It’s a shame the administration of the first black president was also the most corrupt. Such a lost opportunity to better this great country.
It’s not that hard to understand. Still, it’s difficult to accept.
It shouldn’t happen here.

'Conservative Obama,' PREGNANT MEN & Other Liberal Media FANTASIES

Stop letting the lie agenda get in the way of the truth and science

George Orwell
George Orwell


Robert Knight

What sets our current age apart from previous ones is not only technological wonders but the shocking abandonment of truth.  
For Marxists, a lie is as good as truth if it works to advance their cause. A case in point was a recent nearly full-page article on the front page of The Washington Post’s Sunday Outlook section. Next to a large, serious portrait, the headline proclaimed: “Barack Obama: Conservative.” Sure. And Bernie Sanders is a moderate Republican. 
Never mind that Mr. Obama was the most radically leftist president in U.S. history, with a background full of Communist mentors and connections. He appointed so many wackos to federal judgeships that our battered republic will be feeling the effects for years.  
There is method to The Post’s madness. If you can make the case that Mr. Obama was actually something of a conservative, this pushes anyone to his right into the abyss of extremism. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, only whether it succeeds in casting Republicans and even dwindling moderate Democrats as Nazis. 
We shouldn’t be surprised whenever The Post and other media reflexively deny self-evident truths. For years, they’ve pushed the entire pro-abortion and LGBTQ agenda, which depends on fake science, theological confusion and deliberate deception. For example, National Public Radio recently underscored its directive to staffers not to use the term “unborn” because it “implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman.” Never let the truth get in the way of the agenda. 
This sort of madness, which seems to be reaching a crescendo, began decades ago, beginning with Alfred C. Kinsey’s fraudulent sex studies in 1948 and 1953. Propelled by a compliant media, the “studies” gave the sexual revolution a faux scientific foundation. They were unmasked as fraud by Judith Reisman and her co-authors in “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud” in 1990, but the horse had left the barn, powered by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and other left-wing activists.  In 1994, The New York Times ran a piece titled “How to Get a Man Pregnant.” The writer, Dick Teresi, lit upon the idea at symposium in 1984 sponsored by the Kinsey Institute, the aforementioned fountainhead of fake sex science. 
Mr. Teresi wrote about it for Omni magazine, published by pornography magnate Bob Guccione. The article declared “there was no insurmountable biological or technical barrier to a man carrying a baby to term.”
Well, hello Dr. Frankenstein. Mr. Teresi admits that, “Of course, there are some minor problems. Men don’t produce the appropriate hormones. Men don’t have ovaries and thus don’t produce eggs. Men don’t have wombs.” But he cheerfully says all this can be overcome, citing sex-change operations as a guide to seemingly impossible outcomes. 
But wait. Now, you don’t even need surgery to pull a fast one on nature and nature’s God. Gender is all in the head, not the body.  
Dr. Rupal Yu, a family physician for North Carolina-based Piedmont Health Services, told NBC that she is “comfortable with the idea that a man can have a vagina or a woman can have a penis, that the identity was in the brain, and not our biological parts.”
In September, a liberal activist posted a picture on Instagram that went viral of her 4-year-old son with a sign that said, “Some men have periods too. If I can get it, so can you.”  
While we’re at this, we can insist that Brussels sprouts taste exactly like rocky road ice cream.        
Despite clear evidence over thousands of years that males and females are profoundly different in many ways, modern society’s quest for meaning without truth – that is, without God – has led to a self-contradictory conclusion: Sex is the most important thing in the world, but sexual behavior has no moral, social or personal consequences that would lead us to encourage any particular kind. 
The madness is spreading fast. Schools are rushing to add LGBTQ books to their libraries for children as young as kindergarten. Parents who object are wrong “to impose their personal viewpoints,” according to David Levithan, who wrote an article in a Northern Virginia newspaper touting the benefits of same-sex and transgender promotional materials, like his own authored books, “Boy Meets Boy” and “Two Boys Kissing.” 
He warns that “depriving students of access to these books creates a dangerous narrative that omits the experience of millions.” 
Apart from the obvious conflict of interest, consider that Mr. Levithan is a featured author at Scholastic, one of the largest providers of children’s books in the world.  
Is it any wonder that more and more children are confused about their sexuality? 
This is child abuse on a massive scale. When an entire generation is taught that truth is subjective, and that the only god they should heed is their feelings, they’ll fall for anything.  
Orwell warned in his dystopian novel “1984” about an all-powerful state suppressing the truth. Although no original citation has been unearthed, he’s been widely quoted as saying, “speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.”
Yes, and we’d better do so while it’s still mostly legal in America.  

New York City LEADS The Country In ILLEGAL Medicaid Enrollment

 In areas of The Bronx, 40 percent of all working-age adults with incomes exceeding eligibility thresholds were enrolled in Medicaid in 2017.
In areas of The Bronx, 40 percent of all working-age adults with incomes exceeding eligibility thresholds were enrolled in Medicaid in 2017.NY Post photo composite/Mike Guille



Brian Blase

From 2013 — the year before ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion took effect — to 2018, there has been a surge of Medicaid payments out of compliance with legal criteria. In fact, improper Medicaid payments more than tripled.
While states bear some of the burden for improper spending, most of the bill is picked up by the federal government. We estimated that improper payments now exceed 20 percent of federal Medicaid expenditures, an amount above $75 billion each year.
As a result of ObamaCare’s more generous Medicaid funding, many states — including New York — have stopped properly assessing whether applicants are eligible before they enroll.
While the health-care industry, particularly insurance companies, has benefitted from ObamaCare’s windfall of federal cash and improper Medicaid enrollment, traditional enrollees face a harder time obtaining care — and taxpayers are stuck with an enormous tab.
‘We estimated that improper payments now exceed 20 percent of federal Medicaid expenditures, an amount above $75 billion each year’
The inspector general at the federal Department of Health and Human Services found substantial problems with New York state’s process for reviewing Medicaid eligibility. The state made large numbers of errors and did not always maintain documentation. An audit of the entire state’s program found 15 percent of applicants improperly enrolled. The size of the error was staggering, with the inspector general estimating that New York state improperly claimed more than $1.8 billion in a six-month period on behalf of more than 900,000 ineligible enrollees or people who were enrolled without having submitted all the proper documentation.
In order to get a handle on its budget crisis, New York should conduct targeted eligibility reviews in The Bronx and Queens. If the state doesn’t act, the federal government must step in and require eligibility reviews in these hot spots and others around the country. Some level of government owes it to taxpayers and to those who are truly eligible to get enrollment right.
Brian Blase, a special assistant to President Trump at the National Economic Council from 2017-19, is president of Blase Policy Strategies. Aaron Yelowitz is an economics professor at the University of Kentucky and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. They are co-authors of the new Mercatus Center study, “The ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: A Review of Ineligible Enrollees and Improper Payments.”

Friday, November 29, 2019

If Trump Designates CARTELS As TERRORIST Groups, He Should Go To WAR With Them

Washington is waking up to the threat of Mexican drug cartels and the growing chaos in Mexico. But is Trump prepared to take robust action?


Photo U.S. Marines




John Daniel Davidson



In an interview posted online Tuesday, President Trump said he would designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, marking a major shift in U.S. policy toward Mexico, where cartels now exercise effective control of much of the country.

In the interview, with former Fox News has Bill O’Reilly, Trump said his administration has been working on the designation for the last 90 days, well before the massacre of nine American women and children on November 4 by cartel gunmen in the Mexican state of Sonora, not far from the U.S. border. The victims, some as young as eight months old, were members of the LeBaron family, a Mormon community that’s lived and farmed in northern Mexico for decades. One woman was shot point blank as she begged for her children’s lives.

The brazen killings, along with the spectacular defeat of a detachment of Mexican National Guard troops by heavily armed Sinaloa cartel forces in the city of Culiacan in October, have brought increased public attention to violence in Mexico’s and the country’s descent into cartel wardlordlism. Homicides have been at record high the last two years, and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has no real plan to combat the cartels or deal with the violence, instead he repeats his facile campaign slogan of “hugs, not bullets.”

Trump’s designation comes just as lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are waking up to the reality that Mexico is in crisis. On Monday, Sens. Ben Sasse and Mike Lee sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and FBI Director Christopher Wray urging them to level sanctions on the Mexican drug cartels responsible for the massacre.

“While we wait for these butchers to be identified and brought to justice,” the senators wrote, they want the Trump administration to “consider the full and creative use of existing sanction authority” in these departments, citing sanction authority currently authorized under the Kingpin Act and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

This is a slightly different approach than the one proposed by House Republicans like Rep. Chip Roy, who in March introduced a bill that would designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. The freshman congressman, who represents a Texas district not far from the U.S.-Mexico border, has been outspoken about the need to secure the southwest border and combat powerful cartels that Roy says have “operational control” over the border.

Although the bill languished after Roy introduced it, the killing of the American family by cartel gunmen has renewed interest in the proposal. Roy recently told The Daily Caller that there’s been “significant interest” in the bill, which has been adding co-sponsors in recent weeks. And just this week, the LeBaron family launched an official White House petition to designate the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, as well as a website to raise awareness about the deteriorating conditions in Mexico.

It’s Going to Take More Than Sanctions

Trump, along with Lee, Sasse, and Roy all have the right idea, and it’s certainly worth considering both sanctions on individuals and an official designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations as initial steps. But whatever the policies are, the goal should be to send a message to the cartels and the Mexican government that killing any Americans in Mexico will come at a very high cost. That might mean sanctions and freezing U.S. assets of certain cartel-connected businessman and government officials in Mexico, but it could also mean something more robust.

If we’re going to treat cartels like terrorist groups, then there’s no reason not to go after their leaders and networks just as we go after ISIS and al-Qaeda. Unilateral, no-permission special forces raids into Pakistan and Syria took out Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and similar capture-or-kill missions could be launched into northern Mexico against the cartels responsible for the LeBaron massacre. Such a move, while certain to provoke international outrage, would nevertheless send a clear message to the cartels that killing Americans isn’t worth it.

Currently, the FBI is assisting Mexican authorities in their investigation of the killings, at Mexico’s request. But let’s be honest: cartel crimes almost always go unpunished in Mexico, where less than 15 percent of murder cases are ever even brought to court. The Mexican government’s investigation will almost certainly come to nothing, with or without FBI involvement.

To be sure, going to war directly with the cartels would be a major foreign policy and national security undertaking, and it would come with considerable risk. But what’s certain is that the status quo in Mexico is untenable. Whether treating Mexican drug cartels like terrorist groups takes the form of sanctioning them or going to war with them, the United States can no longer ignore them.

Source>https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/27/if-trump-designates-cartels-as-terrorist-groups-he-should-go-to-war-with-them/

BET Founder Says 2020 Election Is Trump’s To Lose

BET founder, billionaire has surprising 2020 presidential insight

Edmund DeMarche

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in an interview Friday that he does not believe that there's a Democrat in the 2020 field today who can prevent President Trump from winning a second term.
Johnson, a lifelong Democrat who has in the past praised Trump, told CNBC that his opinion was based on facts and he did not want to make it political.
"I think the president has always been in a position where it’s his to lose based on his bringing a sort of disruptive force into what would be called political norms,” he said.
Johnson said it would be wise to disregard polling that shows Trump losing his grip in battleground states and said if you took a "snapshot" today the election would be Trump's to lose.
In July, Johnson – the country’s first African-American billionaire – warned that the Democrats have become too liberal and said at the time that he isn’t supporting a particular 2020 candidate.
“I think the economy is doing great, and it’s particularly reaching populations that heretofore had very bad problems in terms of jobs and employment and the opportunities that come with employment,” Johnson said at the time. “African-American unemployment is at its lowest level…  I give the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that’s benefiting a large amount of Americans.”
Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report

Trump's THOUGHTS On Withholding Military Aid To Ukraine NOT A Crime


Are Thought Crimes Impeachable?
Illustration on criminalizing thought by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
Illustration on criminalizing thought by Alexander Hunter


Victor Davis Hanson

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
During special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, his legal “dream team” tried to make a secondary case that Donald Trump also obstructed efforts to prove Trump-Russian “collusion.”
President Trump was said to have advised his lawyers and other subordinates, past and present, not to cooperate fully with the Mueller investigation. Yet the special counsel did not pursue any actionable cases of egregious interference by the White House.
Indeed, Mr. Mueller would never have concluded his $35 million, 22-month investigation had he not enjoyed cooperation from the White House.
White House employees were questioned freely by the special counsel. Documents were released. When the special counsel’s exhaustive investigation into purported Trump-Russia collusion found no such crime, the fallback claim of obstruction arose. Mr. Trump allegedly wanted to curtail Mr. Mueller’s parameters of inquiry into something that was proven not to be a crime.
Mr. Mueller found no grounds for a criminal referral on obstruction of justice. But he repeatedly hinted that Mr. Trump had thought about obstructing the non-crime of collusion.
In the Ukrainian melodrama, Mr. Trump is accused of the thought crime of considering the withholding of military assistance unless Ukraine investigated possible Ukrainian tampering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and also former Vice President Joe Biden’s intervention in Ukrainian politics on behalf of his son.
Mr. Biden had bragged at a Council on Foreign Relations conference that his threats to withhold non-military assistance to Ukraine led to the dismissal of a prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. It turns out Mr. Shokin may have been considering an investigation of the energy company where Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s son, had been given a lucrative position on the board of directors.
Two questions arise from hours of impeachment inquiry testimony before the House Intelligence Committee:
One, did Mr. Trump cut off military assistance, prompting the compliant Ukrainians to launch investigations to ensure that endangered military aid was not curtailed?
Two, did Mr. Trump reverse prior U.S. foreign policy by cutting off military assistance, thus threatening the security of Ukraine?
Regarding question No. 1, military assistance was delivered to Ukraine after a delay. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy never announced investigations of the Bidens or election tampering.
In response to question No. 2, the Obama administration’s policy was to deny significant military assistance to Ukraine. Even non-military aid was apparently leveraged by Mr. Biden to force the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor whose role in looking into Hunter Biden’s company is still murky.
In other words, Mr. Trump is accused of thinking about cutting off aid as a lever to force Ukrainian investigations. Yet the prior administration never extended significant military aid and threatened to cancel non-military aid over a bothersome prosecutor.
That disconnect prompts another question: Is thinking about cutting off military aid to Ukraine a greater crime than declining to provide Ukraine with significant military aid?
Mr. Trump is also accused of the thought crime of contemplating bribery. Critics allege that Mr. Trump wanted Ukraine to do him a “favor” of inestimable value by launching those investigations.
Mr. Trump supposedly used the gifting power of the U.S. government to obtain a personal political benefit to his 2020 presidential candidacy.
But that premise is shaky on a number of grounds. Mr. Trump did not receive any such investigatory help from Ukraine. Yet even if Ukraine had announced the investigations that Mr. Trump had sought, the fact that Joe Biden chose to run for president in 2020 does not exempt him from government scrutiny of his suspect behavior with regard to Ukraine when he was vice president.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree that corruption is endemic in Ukraine and demands constant vigilance as a condition for foreign aid. Moreover, the public did not learn about the bad optics of the Bidens in Ukraine from Trump-pressured Ukrainian leaks. Instead, Mr. Biden publicly bragged of his own clout in strong-arming the Ukrainians — and ostensibly about how tough he would be as a future president. Any benefit to Mr. Trump of showcasing Mr. Biden’s bad behavior came not from thinking about pressuring Ukraine, but from Mr. Biden’s own braggadocio.
Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, smeared Joe Biden’s reputation.
Mr. Trump has been accused of thought crimes, not actual crimes. Mr. Trump can be indiscreet, even crude, in his speech. But alleged bad thoughts are not crimes — at least not outside George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”
• Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author of “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won” (Basic Books, 2017).

Clarence Thomas COMPARES ‘Modern-Day LIBERAL’ To A KLANSMAN In New Film

The Supreme Court justice says in the new documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," that the “biggest impediment” to his life and legal career was not the KKK but the “modern-day liberal.”
Clarence Thomas calls out Joe Biden and other Dems in "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words." Getty Images


Joe Tacopino

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has blasted Democrats, including former Senate Judiciary Committee and now-presidential candidate Joe Biden, over the sexual-misconduct allegations against the jurist during his 1991 confirmation hearings.
Thomas opens up about the process in a new documentary and claims the “biggest impediment” to his life and legal career was not the KKK but the “modern-day liberal.”
“I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me,” Thomas says in the film “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” according to ABC News.
“We were told that, ‘Oh, it’s gonna be the bigot in the pickup truck; it’s gonna be the Klansmen; it’s gonna be the rural sheriff.’ But it turned out that through all of that, ultimately the biggest impediment was the modern-day liberal.”
Thomas said Dems on the panel, headed by Biden, plotted against him “because they have one issue or because they have the power to caricature you.”
The film highlights Biden’s questioning of Anita Hill, a law professor who testified on Thomas’ alleged sexual harassment. Thomas has denied Hill’s allegations, which during the hearings he called a “high-tech lynching.”
“Do I have like stupid written on the back of my shirt? I mean, come on. We know what this is all about,” Thomas said in the film, alluding that the accusations were part of a sinister plot.
“People should just tell the truth: ‘This is the wrong black guy; he has to be destroyed.’ Just say it. Then now we’re at least honest with each other. The idea was to get rid of me. And then, after I was there, it was to undermine me.”
Thomas was confirmed in the Senate by a narrow 52–48 vote. The documentary is set to be released early in 2020.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

MIGRANTS from 30 NATIONS Apprehended In ONE Texas BORDER SECTOR Since September 30



Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/Del Rio Sector


Bob Price

Del Rio Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended migrants from at least 30 different nations since the beginning of October. Sector officials report significant variations in the demographic nationalities of migrants being apprehended this fiscal year.

“The apprehension of migrants from countries such as Brazil, Haiti, China, and countries of Africa have increased significantly this fiscal year,” Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Raul L. Ortiz said in a written statement. “We continue to work with our law enforcement partners to combat threats in an effort to protect our country and the community.”

Sector officials report the apprehension of migrants from at least 30 separate nations other than Mexico during the first two months of Fiscal Year 2020 (which began on October 1). This is up from 15 nations during the same period in FY2019.

Border Patrol officials previously told Breitbart Texas the apprehension of migrants from this diverse range of countries presents unique challenges for Border Patrol agents who much figure out how to communicate, feed, and house these migrants.

“The introduction of this new population places additional burdens on processing stations, to include language and cultural differences,” Chief Ortiz said in June. “Our agents continue to meet each new challenge as the ongoing humanitarian crisis evolves.”

Chinese nationals represent the largest migrant group currently being apprehended outside of Mexican and Central American migrants, Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol officials told Breitbart Texas during a recent tour of the border. During a ride-along with riverine agents, Breitbart Texas witnessed the apprehension of three Chinese migrants and the arrest of an alleged human smuggler. During Fiscal Year 2019, agents in this sector apprehended 708 Chinese nationals — 1077 nationwide.
Source>https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/11/27/migrants-from-30-nations-apprehended-in-one-texas-border-sector-since-september-30/

How The OBAMA Administration's SPYGATE Trumps WATERGATE

Were FBI and CIA agents working together to spy on Trump operatives?

Illustration on the Horowitz and Durham reports by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
Illustration on the Horowitz and Durham reports by Alexander Hunter


 R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

Last week toward the end of the week, there appeared in our finest newspapers — The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal — a spate of news stories that set official Washington’s mind at ease. 
As one of the great gazettes put it, “The Justice Department’s internal watchdog [that would be Inspector General Michael Horowitz] is expected to find in a forthcoming report that political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI investigation into possible coordination between Russian and the Trump campaign in 2016 ….”
Nonetheless, the report will be criticizing “the bureau for systematic failures in its handling of surveillance applications, according to two U.S. officials.” 
We shall have to wait until Dec. 9 to hear from Inspector General Horowitz as to what those “systematic failures” were. Do these early reports on his work forecast a whitewash? It would appear so. But can anyone really take seriously that those “systematic failures” took place in the absence of bias?
Such a claim requires a great deal of contortion. And the spate of the stories last week suggest the form that contortion will take: Blame will fall not on Peter “We Will Stop Him” Strzok, the virulent Trump hater who orchestrated the spying on the Trump campaign, but on a low-level lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith.
We are led to believe by these stories that while Mr. Clinesmith was biased against Mr. Trump — Mr. Trump’s victory had “devastated him,” he wrote in an email — that bias never “tainted” his work or infected any of his colleagues. Many of whom, incidentally, are on record as sharing his bias. He was, you see, simply sloppy or so the report is purported to say. 
I read these happy, trouble-free news stories very carefully, and one thing struck me. Nowhere in any of the stories did anyone bother to ask the question: What precisely triggered the need for this investigation of the investigators? It did not start in a vacuum. Was it not largely precipitated by the discovery of the FBI’s pervasive use of the Hillary-financed Steele dossier upon which the Strzoks of this world relied on for their spying on Trump officials, all of whom turned out not to be Russian agents, as the FBI alleged.
Naturally these stories skirt that issue. If Mr. Horowitz skirts that issue too, his report will not amount to much, and we will have to look to Justice Department prosecutor John Durham for real answers. In April, Attorney General William Barr said, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.” It has not ceased to be a big deal, even if Mr. Horowitz breezes over it.
What real predicate did the Obama administration have for its spying? That has never been satisfactorily explained. Consider the irony here. During the impeachment hearing, we heard Democrat after Democrat intone gravely that nothing is more abusive than a president seeking to get foreigners to spy on a “political rival.”
Yet is that not exactly what President Obama did in letting the Brennans and Strzoks loose to spy on the Trump campaign with the help of foreign intelligence bodies, such as MI6? If it was wrong for Mr. Trump to try to get our ally Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, as the Democrats assert, how can they possibly justify the Obama administration’s use of foreign intelligence bodies to spy on Mr. Trump?
“Now what you’re going to see, I predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country,” said the president of the coming revelations from John Durham. Let us hope he is right. Spygate dwarfs Watergate in seriousness. After all, the Obama administration was not caught in a third-rate burglary but in a high-level scheme to weaponize both domestic and foreign intelligence instruments against a political opponent.
For more than two years, I have been predicting the Justice Department would find evidence of FBI and CIA agents working together to spy on Trump operatives. The Durham investigation will bear this out. The media, of course, will try to pit Mr. Horowitz against Mr. Durham. Do not fall for it.

MSNBC's Nance COMPARES Trump Supporters To ISIS: 'They're Dead-Enders'

Matthews agrees as MSNBC guest compares Trump supporters to ISIS


Julia Musto

Fox Nation host David Webb said Wednesday that an MSNBC contributor's recent comment comparing supporters of President Trump to ISIS terrorists is par for the course and emblematic of where the Democratic Party is as a whole.
Appearing on "Hardball" with host Chris Matthews, former Naval intelligence operator Malcolm Nance said on a panel that the "behaviors" he was seeing from the president's backers remind him of ISIS members.
"The behaviors I'm seeing here, and this is anecdotal, are very similar to the way that ISIS members are. They are true believers, this is their reality, and they will not surrender it. You know, they're dead-enders," he said.
"I love your attitude," Matthews told Nance later in the segment.
Appearing on 'Fox & Friends" with hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Emily Compagno, Webb said it was "ridiculous" for Democrats to paint 63 million Americans as "cultists."
Click Photo For VIDEO
He told the "Friends" hosts that Nance - who has a history of making claims about Trump's ties to Russia - is using the inflammatory rhetoric to try to sell copies of his book and is choosing sensationalism over "substance."
"We need a moment of honesty in this country," Webb said. "The binary choice is bad. ... Most Americans sit here in that window in the middle in different issues, so why not appeal to those people?"
Webb argued that Republicans should let the far-left "go as far as they want."
"Let the American people see this march toward socialism for some, dragging others even closer to worse leftist policies. Let them keep going and after the 2020 elections they can all cry again," he said. "They can all start a new resistance. But, 63 million Americans may well improve in number for President Trump."
He said that Democrats "need to put you in a box," which is "going to be their downfall."
"'How dare you, America, not think the way we tell you you should think?' This is what it's all about," he concluded.
During the height of the Russia investigation, MSNBC thrived in viewership, particularly its liberal primetime star Rachel Maddow, but even Nance's rhetoric reportedly was too much for the anti-Trump network to handle.
MSNBC brass reportedly notified show bookers that they had to seek the approval of higher-ups in order to have Nance on their shows and he was later "unbooked" on several MSNBC programs by the top brass during the week the Mueller report was released.
Nance claimed earlier this month in an MSNBC interview that Trump had been compromised by Russia as far back as 1977.
Fox News' Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.