Dershowitz: Mueller’s Trump Report Will Be ‘Devastating’ But Won’t Lead To Charges

A bit of overselling?

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday that he does not believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Donald Trump will show any criminality.

Dershowitz told George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s “This Week,” that he does think Mueller’s impending report about Trump and Russia will be politically “devastating.” However, he guessed that there will not be anything in the report that will lead to charges against the president.

“I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and we know the president’s team is already working on a response,” Dershowitz explained. “The critical questions are largely political — when I say devastating, I mean it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very devastating.”

“I still don’t think it’s going to make a criminal case because collusion is not criminal,” he asserted, adding that conspiracy is “too much of a stretch.”

First, Dershowitz really has no clue in the matter. He's lately made himself a regular on cable news as a reluctant defender of Trump in the Mueller farce, but he has no clue what the final report will be. In fact, no one will until the AG determines whether to release it.

Mueller is expected to wrap things up now that the midterms have concluded, and so far no proof of conclusion or interference in the 2016 election has occurred. Remember the primary reason this mess began is really just because people simply believed that something had to occur to allow Trump to beat Clinton in 2016. The decision to appoint a Special Council was based as we know now on false evidence and election meddling, most illegal activities of the FBI and IC (spying on Trump) during the campaign. Strong evidence that the Obama administration was behind most of it.

The "politically devastating" reference Dershowitz makes is likely to how the media and the newly minted Democrat congressional majority will attempt to use it to hound Donald Trump out of town(impeach?), or at least paralyze his remaining term and kill chances at a 2020 run.

While that may be true, I doubt it based on polls that the American public, except those with their minds made up (Democrats), will really buy it. Recent polls show Americans mostly believe the probe is politically motivated.

DOJ to look into Trump's claims Obama WH may have directed campaign 'infiltration'

As it's become know, especially after the news from The Daily Caller that the FBI informant in fact being University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, President Trump demanded that the DOJ investigate to get all the facts official. Demand met.

"The Justice Department asked its watchdog to look into any alleged "impropriety or political motivation" in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the DOJ said Sunday night -- hours after President Trump ordered a review looking into whether federal agents infiltrated or surveilled his campaign for political purposes.

"I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes -- and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!" the president tweeted."

The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election. As always, the Inspector General will consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney if there is any evidence of potential criminal conduct," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told Fox News.

She also released a response from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein: "If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action."

As I said before, ever since the NY Times story broke of Operation Cross Hurricane, they, and the rest of the media have been trying to backpeddle, disavow and generally change the story to say that it was basically a nothingburger, with John Brennan - a known perjurer - attempting to convince us that it was all for our own good.

The heat of the Russian investigation has now switched now that it's become apparent that the entirety of the situation was manufactured to discredit Candidate Trump, and then ramped up after he beat the odds and became President. Now apparently we'll find out the truth.

CONFIRMED: FBI covert spy was inserted into Trump campaign to frame him

As the so-called Trump campaign / Russian collusion narrative collapses, over the last month it's been discovered that the FBI created a covert operation in the Trump campaign to frame President Trump. Fired FBI director James Comey freely participated in the campaign along with other principle players, but also points to direct involvement by former President Barack Obama. All of this activity led to the creation of the Special Council which Robert Mueller has been running for over a year and still hasn't uncovered any collusion reference to Trump and Russia.

Newly installed Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani detailed a New York Times piece that confirmed that there was a spy or spies planted among the Trump campaign, to thwart his run for president.

"Giuliani, who is now assisting the president with the legal aspects of the ongoing Mueller probe, held up The Times piece as evidence of serious corruption.

“Well it would change a lot of things,” the former mayor began.

“First of all, we’re going to have to look into it as a result of The Times’ article. Thank you New York Times — they usually don’t help us,” he said.

In Giuliani’s view, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” could mean that the entire Mueller investigation against the Trump administration may have been founded on false pretenses.

“In this case, I think we’re going to have to look into whether we can challenge the legitimacy of the entire investigation,” he pointed out. “Maybe a special prosecutor, a special counsel, never should’ve been appointed.”

RELATED: WSJ Reporter: We’ve Confirmed the Worst – US Intel Truly Was Spying on Trump Camp

The New York politician, who became famous for his leadership after 9/11, didn’t shy away from using the term “spy” to describe what the FBI allegedly did to Trump’s campaign.

“I’m shocked to hear that they put a spy in the campaign of a major party candidate or maybe two spies,” he acknowledged. “And now I’m going through my brain, because you know I was a big part of that campaign — I’m trying to figure out who was the spy.”

Giuliani also confirmed what was on everyone’s mind: The use of the FBI as a political enforcement wing of the Obama administration, with James Comey as head of the operation, would make the Nixon era look quaint in comparison.

“That would be the biggest scandal in the history of this town, at least involving law enforcement,” he declared."

It would, and I believe it is. However I doubt the liberal New York Times wouldn't reveal this without some underlying reason and with the coming IG report, my bet is that the Times is expecting the news to be worse and far more explosive and is trying to soften the blow.

Senate Intelligence Committee Wonky Report on Russian Meddling

Something is amiss with the Senate Intelligence report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Specifically that their last interviews are with many of the principles who are known to have participated to some degree in the meddling.

Via Fox News:

"Senate Intelligence Committee leaders on Wednesday backed the 2017 intelligence community report that formally accused Russia of trying to interfere in the U.S. presidential election to boost then-candidate Donald Trump.

Their statements followed a final closed-door interview on the matter with top Obama administration officials. The committee, led by Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., spoke Wednesday with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan and former National Security Agenda Director Michael Rogers (who retired earlier this year).

Former FBI Director James Comey was invited but did not show up -- skipping the closed-door session due to a “previously scheduled engagement,” his attorney said. Comey, who was fired last May, has been on a media blitz in recent weeks promoting his memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” in which he is highly critical of now-President Trump.

Despite Comey’s absence, the committee leaders announced afterward they were able to complete the review of the intelligence community’s Russia assessment.

“Committee staff have spent 14 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft, and analytic work, and we see no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Burr said in a statement. “There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections. I look forward to completing the Committee’s inquiry and issuing our findings and recommendations to the American people.”

Warner said, “After a thorough review, our staff concluded that the ICA conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”

Note the last paragraph is exactly the Democrat talking points since the beginning. Read here. Again, all these players interviewed were in some way involved in somehow spiking Trump before the election as well.

Additionally, previously reporting showed that the Russians had actually played both sides of the fence to throw confusion by benefiting both candidates.


Let's also not forget that major player Fusion GPS who was behind the Trump Dossier was paid for the opposition research by the Clinton Campaign. Moreover the SIC report is in conflict with the reporting of the House Intel Committee report published last week.

Black Trump Supporter Harassed at South Florida Cheesecake Factory

You think opinionated employees would learn that this kind of stuff leads to the unemployment line by now.

"The Cheesecake Factory is investigating an incident at one of its Miami locations after a black customer claims he was verbally attacked by staff over his “Make America Great Again” hat, The Daily Wire reports.

Eugenior Joseph, 22, was reportedly dining with his girlfriend’s family at the Dadeland Mall location of the restaurant on Mother’s Day. His MAGA hat allegedly drew the attention of a female staff member, who gathered her co-workers to confront him, a witness told the site. The witness further claimed about a dozen of those employees circled his table, pointing fingers.

"So then all the employees started standing there, saying things out loud, like, 'I'm going to knock his head in so hard his hat's going to come off," the source said.

Other witnesses for The Daily Wire said some employees used the n-word in reference to Joseph when speaking among themselves, while another brandished his fists.

Joseph himself told The Daily Wire that one employee stood behind him, "balling his fists, smacking his fists, trying to scare me."

At one point, Joseph claims he and his girlfriend got up to use the restroom and, upon exiting, were greeted by the employees, who were “clapping and yelling, and just screaming things at me.”

The kitchen staff also allegedly booed him as he walked by."

Cheesecake factory has reportedly looked into the incident and found it has some merit, have to see how it works out. Since one of the employees used racial slurs it too may qualify under hate crime statutes as well.

Democrat's Midterm Generic Ballot advantage Bleeding - Down to One Point

Whatever the poll, the fact is that Democrats are losing their advantage, once in the double digits. For all the analysis, two factors can't be ignored on election day. First, Trump and his ability to command his supporters to show up and take over the polls, and two, well he's Trump. Remember in 2016 this was the guy who according to most polls was toast and couldn't win, and Hillary couldn't lose. Who is living in the woods now?

Some good, but generally stock analysis and wisdom here. But Trump broke the mold on elections in 2016 and so much stock analysis went into the crapper. Another point, and it's almost never that the party out of power was this far off the mark going into the midterms.

Dershowitz to Mueller: Stop, Just Stop

It's pretty clear by now that the supposed mandate that Robert Muller ran with to investigate whether there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has run it's course has ended. The House Senate Intelligence committee has concluded that while there were some knuckle-headed moves by the Trump campaign there was no collusion, and that ends the investigation and it's time to stop wasting money chasing dreams of such. It's the put up or shut up time for Mueller. Yet he goes on. Noted defense attorney and Democrat Allen Dershowitz wrote in the Hill:

"In this case, the appointment of a special counsel has done more harm than good. It has politicized our justice system beyond repair. The FBI deputy director has been fired for leaking and lying. His testimony appears to be in conflict with that of the former FBI director as to whether the leaks were authorized. Messages by high-ranking FBI agents suggest strong bias against Trump. A tweet by the former CIA director reveals equally strong negative views of the president. Perhaps these revelations prove nothing more than that law enforcement and national security officials are human and hold political views like everyone else.

But these views are not supposed to influence their decisions. In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions. This is not all attributable to the appointment of the special counsel, but the criminalization of political differences on both sides of the aisle has certainly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust in our justice system.

The public has lost faith in the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI. They don’t trust congressional investigative committees. They don’t know whom to believe when they hear conflicting accounts. There are leaks galore followed by denials of leaks. It’s a total mess. And what do we have to show for it? Just a handful of low-level indictments based largely on alleged crimes that are either unrelated or only marginally related to Russia’s attempt to influence our presidential election in 2016."


Mueller appears to be only interested in nailing President Trump to the cross, a sort of vendetta for Trump firing his friend James Comey, even though there is hardly anyone except liberal maniacs who didn't think Comey should be fired. Prior to the election, just about all Democrats called for his head.

But at this point it should be wrapped up, even Vice President Pence called for it to end.

Is the Investigation into Possible Trump Obstruction a Waste of Time?

In all the stories we have heard of Mueller possibly investigating Trump for Obstruction of justice, there is one little tidbit people forget.  According to most legal experts, he can't be charged with a crime while a sitting President.

From all places, The Washington Post, a sitting President cannot be charged while in office, as it was found in 1973 with Nixon, and 2000 with Bill Clinton.

"Because he’s the president of the United States. And it’s not at all clear that you can prosecute the sitting president of the United States. 

Sooner rather than later, this conundrum may land on the desk of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who has been appointed to handle the ongoing investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Comey himself said as much Thursday, that it wasn’t up to him to decide obstruction of justice: “That’s Bob Mueller’s job to sort that out.” 

Of course the legal jury is still out on the subject of Presidental immunity, however, the only known remedy for a Special Counsel finding criminal acts by a President is to submit those findings to Congress, who would decide by a majority if those charges or findings warranted impeachment proceedings.  Until then Mueller's findings won't be known, as they first come back to the Attorney General who makes that decision whether or not Congress can view them.

Congress could subpoena the AG, but that would likely lead to the AG citing executive privilege.   As I said here, I don't feel Mueller wants to travel into this gray area, especially in his possible last high profile case.

Stacking the Deck: Mueller and Investigation Team Donate Primarily to Democrats

And CNN is reporting this, so you know it's bad.

"Washington (CNN)Three members of the legal team known to have been hired so far by special counsel Robert Mueller to handle the Russia investigation have given political donations almost exclusively to Democrats, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission records. 

More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year. 

Over the weekend, news outlets including CNN identified five attorneys that Mueller has already brought on board to help investigate potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. 

The group includes seasoned attorneys who worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud scandal and have represented major American companies in court. While only five attorneys have been publicly identified as working on the Russia probe, there could be more on Mueller's team. 

Three of the five lawyers have donations in FEC records. They gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, totaling more than $53,000 since 1988. More than half of the donations came from just one of the lawyers, James Quarles, whom Mueller brought over from his old firm, WilmerHale. 

Quarles has given nearly $33,000 to political campaigns over the years. He gave money to Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In addition, Quarles gave more than $10,000 to help Democrats get elected to the House and another $10,000 on the Senate side, including money to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. 

But Quarles is also the only lawyer among Mueller's team for which records were available who ever donated to Republicans. He gave $2,500 to Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz in 2015 and gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia in 2005. 

Only about 30% of the donations were for elections in 2016. But Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, who also left WilmerHale to work on the Russia probe, gave the maximum contribution of $2,700 to Clinton's campaign last year."

So how exactly will Mueller and his investigator be impartial when their money goes where their heart is?

Together with Mueller's strong (joined at the hip) bro-mance with James Comey, you might say the fix may be in.

Appointment of a Special Counsel was a mistake in the first place.  A knee-jerk reaction to Republicans bowing to Democrat demands.  Had they waited until after Comey's perjury filled testimony there likely would have been no Special Counsel.

All the more reason for Trump to end it now, there is no good that can come out of this charade, none at all.

James Comey Becoming the Subject of the Investigation he Created

Over the course of Jim Comey's testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it's now more apparent that he lied and fabricated the happenings leading up to his firing.

As I said Comey was fired simply because it was discovered by Trump, through other disgruntled FBI agents and sources that Comey was, in fact, the leaker he had been looking for.  Specifically, with regards to the memo, Comey supposedly created (no one can find it now), where he kept notes of his meetings with Trump.

Comey admitted during the hearing that he himself leaked them the memo, a government document that no longer belonged to him, to a friend who has since gone into hiding, to give to the NY Times.

But there are several other leaks that have appeared since Trump left office that Comey either directly or indirectly leaked info to the media, in an effort to damage Trump.

In an article on The Medium, "Comey Almost Definitely Leaked Twice, and Therefore Lied to Congress"

"MAY 11 — NYT reports that two Comey “associates” leaked information about a one-on-one dinner between Trump and Comey in which Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty. The article makes no mention of a memo, but contains information about the private conversation so detailed that it would be weird if it weren’t derived from a memo written by Comey after the dinner. It makes little sense that “associates” of Comey would remember the verbiage of the conversation with such detail, and then independently leak that verbiage without any direction from Comey himself, particularly when Comey admitted that he was willing to make such leaks only a week later. 

May 12 — Trump tweets that Comey had better hope there weren’t recordings of the dinner that would go against the quotes in the May 11 NYT article. That tweet makes a whole lot more sense now that Comey was leaking. Trump was saying to Comey: “I know you’re the leak, and I might have recordings of our actual conversation that will prove that you’re lying.”

Somewhere in between May 12-May 16 — Comey, according to Comey, wakes up in the middle of the night and feels the sudden need to leak a memo from February to the NYT. 

May 16 — NYT prints another article alleging that Trump asked Comey to leave Flynn alone. The source of this article is specifically listed as a Comey memo recorded by Comey after an Oval Office meeting in February. 

The memo was not given to the NYT, but rather read to the NYT by a Comey “associate”(notice the use of the word “associate” again). We now know that Comey gave the memo to his associate with the specific instructions to leak it to the NYT."

( Ed. Note: I've heard that there are indeed tapes, as Trump has always recorded an important business transaction, and carried that practice into the White House.  In fact, I believe that in this case he did so to Trap and bury Comey.  Trump is a smart man, he protects himself.)

So we can assume that Comey orchestrated at least two leaks to the NY Times, and so orchestrated the current investigation as he admitted during his testimony that was the goal of his second memo.

Of course, that goal of getting a Special Counsel appointed happen to be his friend Robert Mueller, his friend and confidant over the last 16 years.

As a former investigator I would say at this point it's a slam-dunk that Comey has now become a key subject of the investigation, and even more a new investigation to see if he is guilty of orchestrating a coup to overthrow the President.

In any case, calls are now coming in to have Mueller recuse himself from the case due to his relationship with a subject of the investigation.

For Comey his problem that in his zeal to get the President he might have just gotten himself - hung.

Comey's Inconsistent Testimony on the Reason he wrote a Memo: Perjury or Bad Memory

Via Fox News:

"Lawyers for President Trump shot down ex-FBI Director James Comey's claim that a tweet from the commander-in-chief prompted him to leak a memo detailing a private conversation with Trump – and a close examination of a pre-tweet New York Times story may bolster their claim.  

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Comey said he was spurred to orchestrate the release of the detailed memo he wrote about a one-on-one talk with Trump after the president tweeted May 12: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

You can read the rest, but the money shot here:

 “The public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse,” the statement from Kasowitz said.  

Though Comey claimed he didn't orchestrate the leak until May 16, four days after Trump's May 12 tweet, a New York Times article from May 11 appears to track closely with the memo's contents. 

There are in fact striking similarities between that pre-tweet article and Comey's written testimony, suggesting the memo's contents may have been leaked -- by somebody -- before Trump vented on Twitter. 

Kasowitz appeared in his statement to be referencing a May 11 article, “In a Private Dinner, Trump demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.” The language contained in the article – which seemed to spur Trump’s “tapes” tweet – references Comey’s interactions with Trump that are essentially repeated in Comey's submitted testimony."

So basically the dates and reasons don't jive, and as I titled the post, either Comey has committed perjury or his memory failed him.  We're going to find out soon.

Alan Dershowitz: History, precedent and James Comey's opening statement show that Trump did not obstruct justice

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal, but also a legal scholar and what he has to say about the Comey testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee is right on.

"In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself. 

This is what Walsh said: "The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up."

He goes on to relate the truth of the President's power under the Constitution when it comes to investigations by the FBI.  Under the Constitution, the President can simply tell the FBI to stop investigating any case they may be following.

For instance for all the hand wringing about Trump trying to obstruct the Russia investigation by requesting Comey to lay off Flynn and basically let him go, the fact is that Trump could have simply called Comey in, ordered him to stop the investigation, pardoned Flynn and the next day fired Comey for any reason he deemed fit.  He didn't have to give a reason, Comey worked at the pleasure of the President - period.

Therefore Trump's actions were docile compared what he legally could have done, thus not even close to obstruction or any crime. Liberals don't like that, but then they never liked the Constitution as it was written in the first place.  But that's just too tough, it's the law.

Comey Testimony: Self-Serving Comey clears Trumps - Indicts himself

Jim Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday and he basically cleared Trump of any wrong-doing in the Russia Investigation.  Per Trump's attorney.

The largest revelation is that Comey revealed that he did, in fact, tell Trump on 3 occasions that he wasn't the subject of the investigation.

Additionally, as Trump's attorney, Marc Kasowitz outlined:


"[Comey] also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference."

"Comey's testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election."

"The President never, in any form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone."

"The President also never told Mr. Comey, 'I need loyalty, I expect loyalty' in any form or substance."

"Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President."

"We will leave it to the appropriate authorities to determine whether [these] leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated."


The major revelation we learned from Comey is about that memo he wrote after he was fired.  Comey admitted to having that memo, which is a government document, detailing a classified talk he had with Trump wherein Trump reportedly asked him to consider dropping the investigation into former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.  Comey testified that he released the document to a friend, a college professor at Columbia Law school to actually leak the memo to the NY Times.

Two things to consider in this revelation.

1.  Comey was no longer a government employee and thus had no authority to give to or have leaked a document detail a private conversation with the POTUS.

2.  Moreover, Comey not only leaked the document, he actually gave it to a friend who is not known to have such clearances to possess in the first place.  Comey's astonishing admission also begs the question asking what else may he had leaks.

After the statement of Trump's attorney, Mr. Kasowitz asked the Department of Justice and the FBI to look into whether Comey had broken any laws in having the memo leaked.

More on this to come.

Heartbreak: Democrat's Dream of Trump's Obstruction of Russian Investigation Dies

Yesterday testimony by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers both separately said that while they won't comment on the specifics of their conversations with Trump, neither had felt pressure from the administration. "I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way," Coats told members of the Senate intelligence committee when asked about such reports.

Opps. Not what we've been hearing over the last week by anonymous sources to the Washington Post.

This directly contradicts what The Post wrote just last week. Citing those "unnamed sources", that Trump had pushed both of them to look into pushing the investigation to a close.

Both denied it happened.  So what we have since Trump was elected is a coordinated effort by the media to have Tump looked at as an obstructor of justice, a crook, and a remade Nixon.  Of course, it's not working out.

Just after they testified Comey released his written opening statement which also said little more than Trump was reassured by him that he wasn't a subject of the investigation, just as Trump said, and by the way the media denied.

Comey also said that Trump asked for loyalty from him, something that the media is running crazy with now, but nothing unusual.  Past presidents have asked the same from those who work for him.  JFK, LBJ and even Obama asked the same of their people.

So after today, when Comey says basically nothing, the media will still run their disinformation operation.  It will remain to be seen whether or not the American people will buy it.

Washington Post's Fake News about Jared Kushner Busted: Kushner didn't suggest Back Door Channel

Well, once again yet another fake story from the Washington Post is proved wrong. Via Fox News.

A December meeting between Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of the senior advisers in the Trump administration, and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak at Trump Tower focused on Syria, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News Monday. 

During the meeting the Russians broached the idea of using a secure line between the Trump administration and Russia, not Kushner, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News. That follows a recent report from The Washington Post alleging that Kushner wanted to develop a secure, private line with Russia. 

The idea of a permanent back channel was never discussed, according to the source. Instead, only a one-off for a call about Syria was raised in the conversation.
In addition, the source told Fox News the December meeting focused on Russia's contention that the Obama administration's policy on Syria was deeply flawed.

In the Washington Post's rush to smear Trump yet again their fake new was again found to be, fake.   Thus the Washington Post is gaining a reputation similar to that of the National Enquire.

In real journalism sourcing is important, but it's also important to use sources who were actually there, not someone who wasn't, and perhaps has no idea of what was said.

In muckraking, you go after someone with baseless smears in order to inflict damage.  That term, by the way, was invented the progressive approach to smearing an opponent in politics.

US Launches Missiles on Syrian Airfields

About time!

"The United States launched nearly five dozen cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield early Friday in response to a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians, the first direct assault on the Damascus government since the beginning of that country's bloody civil war in 2011. 

"It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," President Donald Trump said in a statement. "Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types."
Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles targeted an airbase at Shayrat, located outside Homs. The missiles targeted the base's airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas, officials said. 

Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said initial indications were that the strike had "severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment ... reducing the Syrian Government's ability to deliver chemical weapons." There was no immediate word about any casualties. 

Trump said the base was used as the staging point for Tuesday's chemical weapons attack on rebel-held territory, which killed as many as 72 civilians, including women and children. 

"Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children," Trump said from Mar-a-Lago, Fla. "Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the strike should cause a "big shift in Assad's calculus."

Why about time?  First, since the WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria in 2002, there has been a wonder what Syria did with them since Iraq's fall.  That question has been answered over and over again by Assad.  The attack targeted the airfield that reportedly were used to launch the aircraft.

According to Fox News, Trump didn't call Putin to announce this move, (so much for the Trump/Putin bro-mance the media's been slobbering about), so it will be interesting to see what Putin's response will be, more important Assad's.  Does he throw up a "screw you" followup attack, or lay low.

Will this bolster anti Assad forces?  We'll have to see, but remember how Reagan did precisely the same thing with Libya in the 80s, continued bombing forced Qaddafi to conform, at least for a while.

By the way, what to make of Hillary Clinton's response to the gas attacks today prior to the missile launch.

“I really believe that we should’ve and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.” - Hillary Clinton
 

Oprah for President? She believes she can, but she's missing the Point

Oprah for president? I guess, but I doubt she actually could win. Her reason is Trump did it, so...

However the problem is that she thinks Trump won based on celebrity, but that's not the case..He won on message, which resonated with voters. Issues that Americans found important which they have been against for some time now.

The voters who voted for Trump did so because they're tired of the way the country was heading after four years of a far left wing President, who at the the time of his departure had a 29% disapproval rating on most polls when it came to "direction of country". No matter what Obama's popularity was, it was based more on celebrity than anything else (and some polling juice), and when Trump came along he pushed back at Obama's agenda, thus Trump won the election. Oprah's agenda would nothing more than a flashback to those unpopular left wing agendas that Obama shoved down the throats of American and would likely be rejected outright.

Right now the Democratic Party is in a shambles. After the election they added to that destruction by descending into chaos, and children's games which have only infuriated most Americans, instead of just moving on with the loss. Polls have shown that Americans have grown weary from the "lost the game so I'm taking the ball and going home" approach they've had to the election and a recent poll showed they just want them to stop it and begin cooperating Republicans to get things done. They won't, this is guaranteed by their leadership constantly playing games and acting foolish, and the Democrat Party will continue to head down the crapper.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4269856/Oprah-says-age-Trump-run-president.html

CNN Poll on Trump's Speech, 70% approval

Note: I know, but suspiciously enough the nets aren't doing many online polls, which makes me think - and know - he hit it out of the park. God, they wouldn't want that to show on a poll?

Wait, CNN? ...Well, Still some twisting (direction of country was high before before the speech (higher than Obama's 26% at end of office), nevertheless...High marks, 70% approval of speech.

Obama likely shrieking at his 90" Flat-screen at his mansion in Hawaii, in his best Cpt. Kirk impression, "KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!" "Michele, saddle up my jet!!".

Still, pre-speech, Trump promises kept so far 8-1, this is the President America has been waiting for. Hell, new tie and all!

News Flash: Comparisons of Trump, Bush, Reagan and Nixon to Hitler are Historically Incorrect

For years the tiring line of the left when it comes to leaders from the right is to compare them to Hitler, whether it's Nixon, Reagan,Bush,and now Trump, the historically incorrect comparison is laughable.

But the facts of History don't hold that up. Actually Hitler was a socialist, and by his own definition. Modern day liberals, or more accurately "progressives" are simply hybrids of Hitler's platform, especially hate for the Jews, socialization of society, calling capitalism the "enemy", are in direct "lock step" with Hitler's dream.

In fact it's one of the progressive wing's platform in 1963, to cloak their agenda in order to pull it off. Much of what you see in America now, is simply because of how far they've gotten in their agenda over the last 40 years. So the next time you hear some liberal call you a Hitler, tell them to go read some actual history, and look in the mirror.

More of the myth busting here.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/

Election 2016 - After the First Debate - An Analysis - Advantage Trump

It's interesting and telling that no major network, published an online poll because they were either overwhelmingly Trump, or they thought they would be. Right now most of the major online polls are a win for Trump. True they are not "scientific", but they were limited respondents to only one vote, and as far as polls go you only the answer people give you at the time they are called, polled, so, about the same. So far much of the professional polling has the race as a dead heat.

Focus groups were more pronounced, as every-time Hillary went on about her accomplishments, they went down. I don't know if it's a memory lapse or something else, but the fact is she has no measurable accomplishments in Government, as First Lady, Senator (NY) and then as Secretary of State, as proven by track records well established by now. Unless you consider the debacle in Syria as a "success".
Trump's lack of government experience argument went out the window when Barack Obama was elected, who also had the same limitations of experience (community service notwithstanding).

Showing that the experience quotient matters but not as much to voters as someone who promises change in the status quo. People are sick of same old same politics which goes no where yet creates worse chaos in it's wake.
The secret of Trump's popularity, is a measure of America's fatigue toward the political elite and their constant scandals, misfires in foreign policy and other issues. To hear Clinton talk about her policy successes is like me describing the way I scramble an omelet. To me it looks good, but what I mess I make, and worse, I hope someone else cleans it up.

Reported Clinton camp pressure on NBC's producer to go after Trump as Holt's performance turned out to be accurate and again, it turns out NBC just can't get a moderator who can just moderate. They're job isn't to fact check, or become the 3rd debater for either candidate, thus Holt's performance is being criticized by even the most moderate of political observers.

The "Crowley Effect" needs to be addressed by the debate commission. Between the two candidates speaking to their perspective choirs they lost nobody, but IND and UND but a 4% switch from UND to "Likely Trump". Fact is that Clinton represents the establishment which most voters have had enough of and anyone who is anti-establishment is likely have a better chance this year than in previous years.

As far as October Surprises, Trump has weathered most controversy and grown, while Clinton has lost in some cases a 8 point advantage after the convention. However, unlike Trump she can ill afford more bad news and leaker, Julian Assange promises there is much more being held back that hasn't been released yet. If it shows anything of value, or adds to mounting evidence to the email scandal, or perhaps more foundation issues, she's done.
There could be a surprise for Trump, but unless it's naked pictures (sorry) of him with a cat or worse, I don't think much else sticks. Sorry, but "He's a dirty business man" doesn't surprise most people, except to the fringe left wings who hate any kind of business or evidently sucess for that matter. So right now I don't see much that would make a dent.

Additionally like him or hate him, Donald Trump is a product of America's Reality TV loving, Idol worshiping love of the bombastic person, in your face, the kind of person that makes you say yeah!
Hillary on the other hand appears mad, agitated, frustrated, and for most she brings up memories of the 90s, but not in a good way, visa Whitewater, Paula Jones, "Bimbo Eruptions",Impeachment, all the way to her losing her cool during the Benghazi hearings, "What difference does it make?" Well it seems a lot, especially to the parents of those who were killed in what pretty much was left off the resume of foreign policy achievement.

Another issue is that of Bernie supporters, some of which just to "pay back"for what they perceive as the criminal way in which she stole the nomination away from their standard bearer, and perhaps just stay home and not vote, the results would be catastrophic as the Clinton camp includes them in their internal polling calculations. Trump has no significant 3rd party opposition, and it's likely more than half of Johnson's supports will throw the switch for Trump than just throw their vote away, rather than stay home.

Either way after the first debate there is likely going to be a further momentum for Trump, as Hillary did not sell herself well to IND and UND, and again, against all odds, screw ups and other negatives about Trump, he came into the to the debate with a 54.5% chance of winning the election. Pretty amazing.

I don't think last night really changed it, and if it did it's likely a bump for Trump.