Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Fifty five years ago this week, the Vietnam War was lost,

Friday, November 2nd, 2018

On October 29, 1963 President John F Kennedy authorized the coup that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem.

Diem and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, were murdered the next day by a South Vietnamese Army Captain as they sought shelter with loyal troops.


Records of the Kennedy national security meetings, both here and in our larger collection, show that none of JFK’s conversations about a coup in Saigon featured consideration of what might physically happen to Ngo Dinh Diem or Ngo Dinh Nhu. The audio record of the October 29th meeting which we cite below also reveals no discussion of this issue. That meeting, the last held at the White House to consider a coup before this actually took place, would have been the key moment for such a conversation. The conclusion of the Church Committee agrees that Washington gave no consideration to killing Diem. (Note 12) The weight of evidence therefore supports the view that President Kennedy did not conspire in the death of Diem. However, there is also the exceedingly strange transcript of Diem’s final phone conversation with Ambassador Lodge on the afternoon of the coup (Document 23), which carries the distinct impression that Diem is being abandoned by the U.S. Whether this represents Lodge’s contribution, or JFK’s wishes, is not apparent from the evidence available today.

Kennedy had recruited Lodge, who he considered a likely 1964 Republican opponent, as a way of embroiling him in the Vietnam situation and preventing him from using it as a campaign issue. Lodge, it turned out, was a more militant enemy of Diem than Kennedy anticipated.

Max Boot, who has lost his mind since the Trump election, wrote an excellent biography of Edward Lansdale called “The Road NotTaken,” which described Lansdale’s successful work in the Philippines as a CIA agent in suppressing the Huk Rebellion. Lansdale tried to adapt his methods that had succeeded in the Philippines to Vietnam.

There were considerable differences. For one, the Philippines were islands while South Vietnam was not and the Viet Cong had sanctuaries in Cambodia and North Vietnam was able to supply them via the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Still, Lansdale had had some success in trying to get President Diem to adopt some methods that had worked in the Philippines. Lansdale was vigorously opposed by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was absolutely opposed to psychological war techniques and wanted quantifiable measures, like body counts. McNamara blocked Lansdale from access to Diem in spite of Diem’s requests to meet with him.

The ultimate effect of United States participation in the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem was to commit Washington to Saigon even more deeply. Having had a hand in the coup America had more responsibility for the South Vietnamese governments that followed Diem. That these military juntas were ineffectual in prosecuting the Vietnam war then required successively greater levels of involvement from the American side. The weakness of the Saigon government thus became a factor in U.S. escalations of the Vietnam war, leading to the major ground war that the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson opened in 1965.

It also presented President Lyndon Johnson with an insoluble problem when he assumed office less than a month later after the Kennedy assassination.

Had the coup not been encouraged and occurred, the South Vietnam War might have been written off as an unsolvable problem and one we were not completely committed to. Instead, Johnson decided he could not “lose a war” and he sent thousands of American draftees to die in Vietnam for no useful purpose.

The Papadapoulos sting operation.

Thursday, November 1st, 2018

One of the branches of the FBI/CIA /DNC Trump operation has been to entrap and prosecute Trump associates. The first was The Michael Flynn prosecution.

General Flynn was DIA head at one time in the Obama administration. He became Trump’s National Security Assistant after the election. He was visited by FBI agent Peter Strzok on the pretext pf establishing the FBI presence in the White House, but, in fact, it was a setup to entrap him. The NSA had intercepted a telephone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, as part of his normal duties. The transcript of that call was used to charge Flynn with “lying to a federal officer” in spite of the fact that Strzok and the other agent reported that Flynn had not lied. Acting Deputy AG Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, decided to charge him anyway and he eventually pled guilty to avoid crushing legal fees and threats against his son.

Paul Manafort, a late hire of the Trump campaign, was similarly prosecuted by Mueller for actions taken years before he met Trump and probably at the instigation of Ukranian political figures who opposed the people Manafort worked for.

The most recent revelations concern George Papadopoulos, who was briefly a member of the Trump campaign but held no office in the Administration.

George Papadopoulos and his wife Simone Mangiante approached in Greece by a known CIA/FBI operative, Charles Tawil. Mr. Tawil enlists George as a business consultant, under the auspices of energy development interests, and hands him $10,000 in cash to take back to the U.S. Upon arrival at the Dulles airport Robert Mueller had FBI agents waiting. Papadopoulos was stopped and searched; however, he never had the cash because he smartly left it in Greece with his lawyer. Further:

[W]hen he was arrested at Dulles Airport on July 27 after coming off a flight from Munich, prosecutors had no warrant for him and no indictment or criminal complaint. The complaint would be filed the following morning and approved by Howell in Washington.

This was a setup in an attempt to “turn” a Trump associate and force him to testify about alleged Russian possession of Hillary Clinton emails.

The FBI who met Papadopoulos at the airport had no warrant, no indictment and no criminal complaint…. because they believed George would be carrying the evidence they would need to structure their legal leverage.

The FBI behavior became a scramble, and the DOJ needed their hastily constructed indictment to be sealed, because their initial leverage fell through. The $10,000 was a set up.

Unless the Democrats can take over the House and the Intelligence Committee, this will likely blow wide open the whole Mueller witch hunt.

One more question about Mueller and his operation. What, if anything, did Mueller have to do with the Whitey Bulgar hit in prison this week ?

89-year-old Boston mob boss James ‘Whitey’ Bulger was killed in prison by a ‘fellow inmate with mafia ties’ shortly after he was transferred to a West Virginia federal prison.

Bulger was reportedly wheeled away from security cameras and beaten with a lock in a sock and also had his eyes gouged out.

Sources told The Daily Mail that Whitey Bulger was about to out people in the FBI, specifically FBI officials of the informant program.

Mueller was described by Representative Gohmert as Acting US Attorney in Boston during the years that Bulgar was an FBI informant.

Gohmert’s report is here.

Celebrities and Trump.

Wednesday, October 31st, 2018

We have yet another threat to move to Canada today. Barbra Streisand will move to Canada if Republicans do not lose the House of Representatives next week.

How many threats does this make?

The Huffington Post had a long list in 2016, before the election.

Neve Campbell’s biggest fear? President Donald Trump.

The Ontario-born actress from “House of Cards” and “Scream” is no stranger to dark politics or horror stories, but said she’s “terrified” by Trump. And she’s moving back to Canada if he wins the election, she told The Huffington Post UK on Tuesday.

Campbell’s not the first celebrity to threaten to flee the country if The Donald becomes POTUS. Canada may get a lot more star-studded should Trump’s political rise take him all the way to the White House.

Stars from Whoopi Goldberg to Al Sharpton to Rosie O’Donnell have said they’ll leave the United States if Trump gets elected.

I don’t know who some of these people are but I do know of Al Sharpton and Whoopi Goldberg. I would be willing to make a small donation toward their expenses if necessary.

Who else ?

Samuel L. Jackson, too, said he’d move to South Africa “if that motherf***er becomes President.”

He was pretty good in a couple of movies but seems to be a nasty piece of work personally.

Did anyone actually leave ?

It seems at least one did leave.

9. Natasha Lyonne

Where was she headed? A mental hospital.

Where is she now? …not a mental hospital. (According to her Twitter, she’s in the U.K.)

At least she did not enter a mental hospital, yet.

One that promised to leave for New Zealand, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is still here on the Supreme Court, worse luck.

The Trump-Russia conspiracy becomes clear.

Thursday, October 25th, 2018

The election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 was a catastrophic event for a segment of the US government. It had been assumed by the entire “Ruling Class” that Hillary Clinton would, at last, be elected president. Books have been written about her reaction to the loss. One was titled, “Shattered” and recounted her reaction. A pretty good analysis in this Amazon book review.

To be fair to the authors, they lay the blame for her loss squarely on her. They sort of feel bad about it but their close access makes it obvious to them and they are objective enough to report it. The other main person held responsible is campaign manager Robby Mooks, who is so enamored with ‘analytics’ that he can’t see the forest for the trees. The canary in the coal mine is Bill Clinton, who senses that his wife and her campaign are not connecting with the white working class, but is ignored by the team who consider him washed-up and out of date.

What happened after she lost ? The Russia Collusion story was concocted.

Here is an analysis of How it began and why.

It turned out, however, that the dossier was a Clinton-campaign opposition-research project, the main allegations of which were based on third-hand hearsay from anonymous Russian sources. Worse, though the allegations could not be verified, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI used them to obtain surveillance warrants against Page, in violation of their own guidelines against presenting unverified information to the FISA court. Worse still, the Obama Justice Department withheld from the FISA court the facts that the Clinton campaign was behind the dossier and that Steele had been booted from the investigation for lying to the FBI.

Now, more analysis is coming from Sheryl Atkinson.

Taken together in context, the evidence points to two important findings. First, U.S. government insiders, colluding with numerous foreign citizens and governments, conspired to interfere in the 2016 election. Second, after the election, these figures conspired to undermine, oust, and perhaps even frame Trump and some of his associates.

The methods used, according to factual accounts and witnesses, include collusion with reporters and politicians, leaks to the press, and paid political-opposition research. Officials in the intelligence community were involved in the effort, which included the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), domestic and foreign informants or spies, and electronic surveillance.

Both articles are worth reading in full. The fact that other diversions are appearing, like the hoax bomb story, suggests that the Democrats know the Mueller “investigation” is going to be ended soon with a dud.

We are still dealing with reaction from Angelo Codevilla’s “Ruling Class.”

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

This is how we got Trump and why there is a well funded effort to get rid of him him any way possible.

Joel Kotkin has a good analysis.

Over the past few decades, the U.S. has developed essentially two economies. On the one side is the widely celebrated “post-industrial” economy: software, entertainment, media, and financial and business services. These sectors flourished as the stock market soared in the ultra-low interest-rate environment fostered by the Obama administration, whose recovery strategy was built around bailing out major banks, all headquartered in deep-blue cities. The winners under Obama included urban real estate, financial-service firms, and the tech oligarchs. These elements now constitute the Democratic Party’s burgeoning financial base, allowing it consistently to spend more than the GOP in key congressional races, while the GOP still gains support in energy and other less heralded “legacy” industries.

The whole thing is well worth reading and explains a lot about why the big money is backing Democrats.

What to make of the Kavanaugh thing.

Wednesday, September 19th, 2018

UPDATE #3 Now we have the latest “accuser” courtesy of Michale Avenatti.

The 55-year-old certified systems engineer Swetnick, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC, identified herself as a resident of Washington, D.C.

A 1980 graduate of Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, she said she has has held multiple work clearances for work done at the Treasury Department, U.S. Mint, IRS, State Department and Justice Department, among others.

If there are dates, Kavanaugh’s calendar should help but these accusations will probably be just as vague as Ford’s.

A third accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday publicly identified herself and alleged that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties with intoxicants to make it easier for them to be gang raped.

The woman, Julie Swetnick, said Kavanaugh was in line with other boys, including his close friend Mark Judge, waiting to rape those girls at many parties, and that she once became a victim herself. The allegations were detailed in an affidavit released by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and signed under penalty of perjury.

Swetnick’s stunning claims, made on the eve of scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Kavanaugh and his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, came in an affidavit sent to a senior committe staffer. Ford claims Kavanuagh held her down on a bed and groped her during a gathering in the 1980s while Judge watched.

Swetnick’s accusations against Kavanaugh, who currently serves as a federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., could make an already imperiled nomination to the Supreme Court even less likely to succeed.

Kavanaugh said, in a statement about Swetnick: “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.”

“I don’t know who this is and this never happened,” Kavanaugh said. He had told Fox News earlier this week that “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone.”

In a letter to Judiciary Committee leaders made public after Swetnick’s claims came to light, Kavanaugh vowed not to withdraw his nomination.

She says that she shared the story of her own alleged gang rape with “at least two other people” shortly after it occurred.

I expect those two”witnesses” will be quickly sworn in. I’m afraid the Democrats have won this one. I see only delay until after the election.

UPDATE #2 The conclusion is likely to arrive tomorrow with the hearing about the Ford allegations. I do not expect her to appear. Her lawyers have been sending increasingly hostile notes to Senator Grassley which suggests they are making an excuse story for her non-appearance. Grassley is having none of it.

Ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat has apparently sought to call off tomorrow’s hearing with Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Senator Feinstein has sought the postponement of the hearing on the pretext of the New Yorker’s Deborah Ramirez story. The Ramirez story is all the buzz among Yale students who think they have something valuable to offer the rest of us, but it died of humiliation shortly after publication. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley responded to Senator Feinstein’s request for postponement by letter yesterday. Senator Grassley has a good handle on what is happening here.

This appears to be a weird ploy to assist Democrats in the coming mid-term elections. The red state Democrats are facing a choice.

Do they vote for the nomination to save their Senate seats? Or do they follow the party line and lose ?

“It is very important that we send a signal out of the gate that this is a winnable fight,” said Brian Fallon, the head of a new Democratic judicial advocacy group called Demand Justice. “By throwing in the towel before there was an opportunity to really pressure the pro-choice Republicans, you would have a sense of deflation among progressives that is the last thing you should want going into the midterms.”

UPDATE: There are now some findings that suggest why Christine Blasey Ford deleted her social media before airing her allegations. She even deleted the online version of her high school year book and now we know why.

President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaaugh for a position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

(more…)

What if China is behind the Russia hysteria ?

Sunday, August 12th, 2018

We have been subjected to a year and a half, almost two years, of constant hysteria about Russia and whether they helped Trump win the 2016 election. There has been no evidence of any collusion and the Mueller “special counsel” investigation seems to be winding down.

Rush Limbaugh has some interesting ideas about what is going on.

So the only possible way they can get rid of Trump here is via politics, and that’s to drive his approval numbers down so that Republicans in Congress have no reason to support him. If Republicans in Congress — the House and Senate — could be forced to abandon their support for Trump, as happened to Nixon, then he would have to go. I don’t know if Trump would play ball even in that scenario like Nixon did. I think Trump would dare them to impeach him and try to remove him. I don’t think Trump’s gonna play ball the way the establishment thinks.

Democrat voters are highly motivated to vote in the November election, at least in part, to impeach Trump. Why ?

There seems to be no letup in the frenzy to demonize Trump.

In 21st-century America, it is difficult to conjure the possibility of the federal government taking an eraser to the map and scrubbing away an entire ethnic group. I had arrived in Columbus at the suggestion of a Cleveland-based lawyer named David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Leopold has kept in touch with an old client who attends the Mauritanian mosque. When he mentioned the community’s plight to me, he called it “ethnic cleansing”—which initially sounded like wild hyperbole.

“Mosque.” Hmmm.

(more…)

Is Trump the herald of “Localism?”

Wednesday, July 25th, 2018

Donald Trump is the source of great pain on the left and also in the professional politician class of the GOP.

Why ?

He was an outsider in GOP politics but the GOP politicians had failed a lot of the voters, including me. Like Ross Perot in 1992, he attracted a lot of people who were tired of being taken for granted by the regular politicians.

Now there are some interesting theories of what is happening.

Henry Kissinger, who knows Trump personally, has said some interesting things about him.

The 93-year-old Nobel laureate told CBS show Face The Nation that the Republican’s unconventional style could be an asset and an ‘extraordinary opportunity’ for the US.

‘Donald Trump is a phenomenon that foreign countries haven’t seen. So it is a shocking experience to them that he came into office, at the same time, extraordinary opportunity,’ Kissinger said.

‘And I believe he has the possibility of going down in history as a very considerable president,’ he added.

Naturally, this has disturbed some of the usual Trump opponents.

Now, as Donald Trump signals that he wants a more cooperative relationship with Moscow, the 93-year-old Kissinger is positioning himself as a potential intermediary — meeting with the president-elect in private and flattering him in public. Like Trump, Kissinger has also cast doubt on intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia sought to sway the election in Trump’s favor, telling a recent interviewer: “They were hacking, but the use they allegedly made of this hacking eludes me.”

The headline, of course, smears Kissinger, always hated by the left, as “a longtime Putin confidant.”

What is going on ?

(more…)

Manafort’s case

Tuesday, July 10th, 2018

In the summer of 2016, just before the GOP convention, the Trump children hired Paul Manafort and fired Cory Lewandowski who had been the campaign manager since 2015 and all through the primaries.

The rationale for Manafort was that he knew how to round up delegate votes at the convention.

Mr. Manafort, 66, is among the few political hands in either party with direct experience managing nomination fights: As a young Republican operative, he helped manage the 1976 convention floor for Gerald Ford in his showdown with Ronald Reagan, the last time Republicans entered a convention with no candidate having clinched the nomination.

He performed a similar function for Mr. Reagan in 1980, and played leading roles in the 1988 and 1996 conventions, for George Bush and Bob Dole.

Mr. Manafort has drawn attention in recent years chiefly for his work as an international political consultant, most notably as a senior adviser to former President Viktor F. Yanukovych of Ukraine, who was driven from power in 2014.

His “experience” was 20 years in the past and he proved to be a rapacious employee, demanding $5 million dollars for “outreach” soon after being hired.

The Lewandowski book, “Let Trump be Trump” is a very good description of the campaign, written with David Bossie.

In August, after sidelining him for a month, Trump fired Manafort, and, according to Lewandowski, it was because he learned that Manafort was “a crook.”

Mueller, and his traveling road, show is now holding Manafort in prison awaiting trial which keeps getting postponed.

A Washington, D.C., judge on Wednesday set a trial date of Sept. 17 for Paul Manafort, just weeks before the 2018 midterm elections, a spokesperson for the former Trump campaign chairman confirmed.

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to numerous charges in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including money laundering, tax fraud and bank fraud conspiracy.

Nowhere in the charges is there any allegation of contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. Manafort is being charged with financial crimes related to work he did for Ukraine a decade ago.

Now it seems, that serious misbehavior occurred with the DOJ and FBI in this case.

The gist of the story is that Andrew Weissmann was meeting with AP reporters in April of 2017, approximately a month prior to the formal construct of the Robert Mueller investigation. The information from the meeting, which was essentially based on research provided by the “reporters” about Paul Manafort, was then later used in the formation of the underlying evidence against Manafort to gain a search warrant.

I would not be terribly surprised to see the whole case thrown out for prosecutorial misbehavior.

The truth is finally starting to seep out about the FBI spy on Trump.

Saturday, May 19th, 2018

Way back during the transition from the Obama Administration, the evidence of illegal surveillance of the Trump Campaign began to appear. First, Admiral Mike Rogers warned Donald Trump, the president-elect, that he was under surveillance by the Obama Administration.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held. Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.

On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

Trump moved his transition team to his private golf course immediately.

The other Mike Rogers, a Republican who was deeply compromised by the Benghazi matter, was quickly dropped from the Trump transition team.

This worried the DNC mouthpiece WaPoo. Admiral Rogers probably also warned Trump about the former Intel Committee Chair.

The FBI surveillance and CIA complicity has continued with the appointment of insider Mueller.

Then they took down Mike Flynn who had once written a letter supporting the complaint of a woman named Robyn Gritz, an FBI agent who had worked with McCabe’s team, and accused him of sexual harassment.

In 2013, she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against her FBI supervisors alleging sexual discrimination and hostile work environment. In 2014, she amended her complaint by averring that she suffered “a hostile [work] environment, defamation of character through continued targeting by Andrew McCabe.”

The FBI’s response claimed that she had become “underperforming, tardy to work, insubordinate, possibly mentally ill…”

She was forced out.

In May 2014, Flynn provided a letter on Pentagon stationery which stated that Gritz “was well-known, liked and respected in the military counter-terrorism community for her energy, commitment and professional capacity, and over the years worked in several interagency groups on counter-terrorism targeting initiatives.” He added, “Her work consistently produced outstanding results in the most challenging environments.”

That is the back story of why the FBI went after General Flynn. Plus, of course, he had resisted Obama’s out reach to Muslims.

Despite his underlings’ concerns, McCabe’s plan of retaliation against Flynn proceeded apace. According to Joseph diGenova, the newest member of President Trump’s legal team, McCabe set up Flynn for the interview that led to the general’s indictment for lying to the FBI. One of the agents who was tasked with this maneuver sought private legal advice.

Now, the New York Times, at last, admits the presence of a spy in the Trump campaign. Of course, the Times’ version is the FBI/CIA version with enough spin to make the left feel justified.

President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia..

The “informant’ was a man named Stephan Halper who has a history with the CIA and MI-6, the British SIS. Why the British let themselves get entangled in this mess is a mystery. Somewhere Kim Philby is laughing.

Andy McCarthy has some corrective thoughts on this. He has been following this for a year. No fan of Trump, his is the cold reality opinion.

As we contended in rebuttal on Thursday, the Times’ facts are selective and its narrative theme of disparate treatment is hogwash: Clinton’s bid was saved, not destroyed, by Obama’s law-enforcement agencies, which tanked a criminal case on which she should have been indicted. And the hush-hush approach taken to the counterintelligence case against Donald Trump was not intended to protect the Republican candidate; it was intended to protect the Obama administration from the specter of a Watergate-level scandal had its spying on the opposition party’s presidential campaign been revealed.

He lays out the whole connection between the Hillary salvage job and the effort to take down Trump to save her campaign. It’s worth reading the whole thing. Conservative Tree House has been the source of the minutiae of the story but McCarty does the best summary.

The OIG report is coming out in a week or two. Battlefield prep has begun by the FBI/CIA/DNC.

The Collusion story is becoming clear now.

Thursday, March 8th, 2018

I was a little late coming to the trump supporters, but it was interesting almost back to the beginning.

Then it began to form a preference cascade.

Can the GOP really be so out of touch with the legions of out-of-work Americans — many of whom don’t show up in the “official” unemployment rate because they’ve given up looking for work in the Obama economy? With the returning military vets frustrated with lawyer-driven, politically correct rules of engagement that have tied their hands in a fight against a mortal enemy? With those who, in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino massacres by Muslims, reasonably fear an influx of culturally alien “refugees” and “migrants” from the Middle East?

April 206:
Trump is a coward, four time bankrupt loser, con artist, bully, 12 time business failure, WWE character, hypocrite, liar, dullard, loose cannon and has very poor character. He will lose in November and people need to wake up to that fact. Otherwise, hello President Hillary.

A year later, that commenter is a supporter.

Trump was in touch with them.

The result was “Deep Confusion.”

I left Queens for Brooklyn to meet Dany L. Esquilin, a Republican I met in the first week of this assignment, aboard a train to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Mr. Esquilin was not a stereotypical Trump supporter. His parents were born in Puerto Rico, he is black and he had once been a Democrat. (Then again, so had Mr. Trump.) A retired private investigator, Mr. Esquilin worked to marshal Republican votes from Jews, Russians and Chinese-Americans.

Oh Oh.

Shortly after the election, The Hillary team came up with an explanation for her loss.

It was the Russians.

The book (Shattered) further highlights how Clinton’s Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook, less than “within twenty-four hours” after she conceded:

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.

The Russia Collusion story is till going although a bit weak these days.

Andy McCarthy has pretty much demolished these arguments.

To repeat in closing, I believe it is specious to claim that a president can be found guilty of an obstruction offense, under federal criminal statutes, on the basis of acts that are within his lawful authority, even if the acts spring from malign motivations. Contrary to my friend Gabe Schoenfeld’s claims, this is not because I believe that the president is above the law. It is because our law’s check on presidential maladministration is impeachment, not criminal prosecution. If Congress concluded that a president committed acts that interfered with FBI investigations, and that were corruptly motivated even if technically within the president’s lawful authority, Congress could impeach the president. Were that to happen, it would not matter that the acts were not indictable obstruction crimes under the federal penal code.

More is now coming out about the real story.

Following close on the heels of those two pass-through DC-based “scoops,” Entous was lead byline on an April 3, 2017, story reporting a meeting in the Seychelles between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian banker, reportedly to set up a back channel between Trump and Putin. After publication of the story, Prince said he was shown “specific evidence” by sources from the intelligence community that his name was unmasked and given to the paper. “Unless The Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles,” Prince told the House Intelligence Committee in December, “the only way that’s happening is through SIGINT [signals intelligence].” Recent news reports suggest that Prince’s meeting has become a key focus of the Mueller investigation. If those reports are accurate, it seems even more likely that classified intelligence was purposefully being leaked to put pressure on Prince.

These are felonies. We will see if anyone goes to jail.

Th real story is as follows.

At the same time, there is a growing consensus among reporters and thinkers on the left and right—especially those who know anything about Russia, the surveillance apparatus, and intelligence bureaucracy—that the Russiagate-collusion theory that was supposed to end Trump’s presidency within six months has sprung more than a few holes. Worse, it has proved to be a cover for U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement bureaucracies to break the law, with what’s left of the press gleefully going along for the ride. Where Watergate was a story about a crime that came to define an entire generation’s oppositional attitude toward politicians and the country’s elite, Russiagate, they argue, has proved itself to be the reverse: It is a device that the American elite is using to define itself against its enemies—the rest of the country.

We are in a lawless era. I recently read Pat Buchanan’s book, “The Nixon White House Wars.”

I highly recommend it. The press and the FBI managed to drive Nixon and Agnew from office. I doubt they can do so with Trump.

I am more worried about assassination.