‘Medicare for all’

Study: ‘Medicare for all’ would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years

By Rick Moran

The Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank out of George Mason University is releasing a study today that will show how much Vermont senator Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for all” idea would cost.

Over ten years: $32.6 trillion.

The Associated Press wants to make sure you read that correctly:

That’s trillion with a “T.”

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found.

Sanders’ plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.

When asked how she would pay for her democratic socialist agenda, which includes the Medicare for all program, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made is sound so easy:

“This is an excellent, excellent question,” she replied. “I sat down with a Nobel Prize economist last week — I can’t believe I can say that, it’s really weird — but one of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair share, if corporations and the ultra wealthy — for example, as Warren Buffett likes to say, if he pays as much as his secretary paid, 15 percent tax rate, if corporations paid — if we reverse the tax bill, raised our corporate tax rate to 28 percent … if we do those two things and also close some of those loopholes, that’s $2 trillion right there.”

That “$2 trillion right there” is over 10 years. In other words, Ocasio-Cortez is only coming up $30 trillion short in funding her fantasy.

No response yet from the democratic socialists but you can imagine them impugning the integrity and motives of the people who conducted the study rather than intelligently debating the issue. That’s because they are economic dunces and don’t have a clue how they are going to pay for free health care, free college, or other freebees they think we all need. All they know is that the coercive, tyrannical power of government to seize and control must be employed in service to their agenda. 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Misreporting the rise in homicides

Misreporting the rise in homicides

By Thomas Lifson

CNN bemoans rising homicide rate but in a classic example of media dishonesty-by-omission / misdirection, leaves the impression that loosened firearms restrictions are behind the trend, and completely omits the most rudimentary analysis that implicates #BlackLivesMatter.  John Hinderaker of Powerline busts them on the dishonesty.

…what is remarkable about CNN’s article is that it completely ignores the elephant in the room. It never tries to explain what caused the rising homicide rate, beginning after 2014, merely quoting another expert to the effect that “What is most volatile over time and space is gun homicides.” Not really: the homicide rate, which mostly means the gun homicide rate, had been


falling steadily since the 1990s, until 2015. While not trying to ascribe a cause, CNN does acknowledge that the uptick beginning in 2015 has been concentrated in a handful of cities. (snip)

The obvious cause for the increase in murders during the last years of the Obama administration was the Black Lives Matter movement, which was enthusiastically endorsed by the White House. It led to numerous unfair attacks on law enforcement, which in turn caused officers to police less aggressively. When police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of career-ending charges of racism, criminals prosper. Baltimore is the most notorious example, but the same phenomenon has happened in other cities where law enforcement has been besieged by the Left.

Obviously, CNN is not going to blame its pet movement and its favorite administration for rising violent crime. But its suggestion that the solution somehow resides in more gun control is pathetic. It quotes a Johns Hopkins professor:

“We now have 12 states for which you can carry a loaded concealed gun with you or in your vehicle with no license or no vetting, no nothing.” He noted that these laws apply only in cases in which the armed person is not a convicted felon and doesn’t fall into other prohibited categories.

Does that have anything to do with the recent spike in homicides? Were carry laws loosened in Chicago, Baltimore, Kansas City or St. Louis prior to the increase? Are the states where murders spiked after 2014 the ones where the law permitted residents to “carry a loaded concealed gun with you…with no license”?

There has been a huge human cost in lives of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and the entire weight of the mainstream media is being deployed to obscure that fact. Given the reality that it is mostly black people who are vicftims of this rise in killing, it is clear that leftist politics are not about helping African-Americans, but rather exploiting them.

Full Story:

Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment


Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment


What do ‘real socialists’ think of democratic socialists?

By Rick Moran

Democratic socialism has been much in the news lately what with the primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Bernie Sanders running around the country preaching that it’s “Time for socialism.”

But what do real socialists think of their ideas? Authors Anthony Davies and James Harrigan point out that Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders don’t have a clue what real socialism is all about.

“In Denmark,” he said, “there is a very different understanding of what ‘freedom’ means.” Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen disagreed, pointing out in a speech delivered at Harvard that Sanders missed some important details in his attempt to make America Danish. “I would like to make one thing clear,” Rasmussen said. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Sanders has a solid track record for ignoring evidence, and Ocasio-Cortez is following in his footsteps. She recently declared herself “not the expert on geopolitics” — while appearing on national television to discuss geopolitics. And despite studying economics, she remains confused as to how something as simple as unemployment is measured. What neither seems to realize is that they inadvertently make the case not for socialism, but for economic freedom.

Economic freedom, the ability to engage in transactions free from government interference while simultaneously being protected from fraud, theft, breach of contract and other malfeasance, is at once a measure of limited and of effective government. While there is no perfect way to measure economic freedom, competing methods yield consistently similar results. The most recent of these, the Heritage Foundation’s 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, lists the United States as the 18th (out of 180) most economically free country in the world.

This is far short of the No. 4 ranking the United States held in 2007, the decline from which coincided with a dramatic increase in the scope of the federal government’s power and spending following the housing crash.

The US has no “Five year plan.” There is no total government control of labor and capital as there is in real socialists countries like North Korea or Cuba. There is, indeed, interference in markets by government in the US. But “interference” is not “control” and for either the left or the right to refer to what is being espoused by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez as “socialism” is just plain wrong.

The so-called Scandanavian Model isn’t socialism either:

 Democratic socialists in the United States call for us to be more like Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Yet two of those countries, Denmark and Sweden, are more economically free than the United States, sitting at 12th and 15th in the Heritage rankings. Though at the bottom of the list for freedom from taxes (180th and 179th), Denmark and Sweden score much higher than the United States for freedom from government spending (13th and 3rd), effectiveness of their judiciary (9th and 5th), and business freedom (3rd and 11th).

Socialism has a consistent track record for any who care to take a sober look. The Soviet Union and Venezuela tried it and disintegrated. China and North Korea tried it and suffered mass starvation. Every country that has ever tried socialism has either retreated toward economic freedom, or has employed mass violence to force its people to remain socialist.

All of this should be perfectly obvious to American socialists, but they are as resistant to history as they are to economics. Consequently, they learn from neither.

Words matter. Definitions matter. Using the term “socialist” as a political attack on Democrats might be convenient shorthand but it’s as irrelevant as when the left calls those on the right “fascists” or “Nazis.” Without a general agreement on what these terms mean, there can be no intelligent conversation or debate about the direction the US should take.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Ninth Circuit panel

Ninth Circuit panel unanimously backs lawsuit against San Jose police who stood by and watched attacks on Trump supporters

By Thomas Lifson

Normally, suing police for failing to prevent crime is not allowed by courts.  But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just allowed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose and its police department to proceed, despite this general presumption (called “qualified immunity”) that police cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent crime.

News media, both local and national, watched and recorded as San Jose police stood aside as people leaving a Trump rally in San Jose were heinously assaulted by anti-Trump thugs.  The Washington Post at the time (June 2016) reported:

Protests outside a Donald Trump rally in downtown San Jose spun out of control Thursday night when some demonstrators attacked the candidate’s supporters.

Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning the hats and snapping selfies with the charred remains.

Several people were caught on camera punching Trump supporters.  At least one attacker was arrested, according to CNN, although police did not release much information.

Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle explains the Ninth Circuit’s logic in allowing the lawsuit to proceed:

If the allegations are true, “the officers acted with deliberate indifference to a known and obvious danger” and violated the Trump supporters’ constitutional rights,” said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

After the rally at the McEnery Convention Center, police directed those in attendance to leave from a single exit.  There, according to the lawsuit, they were ordered to head out onto a street where hundreds of anti-Trump protesters were waiting, even though a safer route and other exits were available.

They funneled the Trump-supporters into a space dominated by hostile demonstrators who already had been violent.  In my opinion, this constitutes collaboration in the violence.

The court decision wrote:

[T]he attendees alleged sufficiently that the officers increased the danger to them by shepherding them into a crowd of violent protesters and that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to that danger.  The district court therefore correctly denied the officers qualified immunity.

While San Jose may appeal to the Supreme Court, delaying the lawsuit from proceeding, once court proceedings begin, the extensive documentation of the violence with police watching will be powerful and persuasive evidence.  Here is a screen grab illustrating that point from a YouTube video (hat tip: Breitbart):

The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Harmeet Dhillon, a hero of mine.  In addition to being the Republican national committeeman from California, she represents James Damore in his lawsuit against Google for firing him over critical views expressed about diversity.  She richly deserves a large contingency fee if these lawsuits succeed and result in substantial judgments against wealthy defendants who discriminate on the basis of political preferences.

I have to wonder: given two sensible decisions of late (this is the other one, affirming a Second Amendment right to open carry), has the Ninth Circuit been affected by the need to wade through poop and dirty drug needles getting to its courthouse in San Francisco and decided that leftist madness has gone too far?

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

POTUS on the economy

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment

Taylor Swift Donates Concert Tickets

Taylor Swift Donates Concert Tickets to Mourning Massachusetts Police Department

LAS VEGAS, NV - SEPTEMBER 19: Recording artist Taylor Swift attends the 2014 iHeartRadio Music Festival at the MGM Grand Garden on September 19, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Isaac Brekken/Getty Images for iHeartMedia)
Isaac Brekken/Getty Images for iHeartMedia

WEYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — Taylor Swift is helping ease the pain of a Massachusetts city mourning the recent loss of a police officer.

Weymouth Mayor Robert Hedlund tells The Patriot Ledger that Swift donated “a significant number of tickets” to the town for her shows this weekend in Foxborough, which were distributed among city police officers.

Weymouth Sgt. Michael Chesna was shot and killed while investigating a car crash July 15. The same person is also suspected of killing bystander Vera Adams.

Hedlund says there were enough to send “every police officer, firefighter and extended family to the concert, and then some.” The extras were passed on to other nearby police departments.

Hedlund thanked Swift for the gesture on behalf of the town.

Full Story:

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged | Leave a comment

Black Crime

Black Crime Gets Crazier

By Colin Flaherty

Whatever you thought crazy was, put it aside.  Because no matter what you think is the craziest story of black violence – and the denial, deceit, and delusion surrounding it – this recent story out of Oakland is way past that.

It began simply and sadly enough on a BART system in the Oakland area.  Two younger black people killed two older white guys.  The reaction from BART was as predictable as it was lame: BART is safe; murder and violence are isolated; and no, you cannot see the videos from any of the hundreds of cameras in the stations.

Then, over the weekend, John Lee Cowell, a white guy, met two black women, Nia Wilson and her sister, on BART.  He cut their throats, killing Nia.

Soon the streets of Oakland were full of black protesters, wondering why white people are able to get away with so much murder against black people.  Many took to Twitter as well.  “White supremacy slashes throats, it stabs, it lynches, and continues to kill our people in horrific ways,” said one Twitter poster.  It is evil.  “Don’t tell us to play patty-cake with it.”  And on and on this went by the thousands: black people bitterly complaining about white-on-black crime and how cops in places like Oakland never do anything about it.

The only other explanation is one that just happened to be true: crime in Oakland, one of America’s most dangerous cities, is a black thing, wildly out of proportion.  Anyone who cannot see that is in full denial, deceit, and delusion.

BART commuters are often its keenest witnesses.

In 2015, the crime on BART trains was so bad that BART created an app where riders could document any chaos or violence or lawlessness, then automatically send it to BART.

After a year, the geniuses at the East Bay Express ascertained that black ridership on BART was about 11 percent, but complaints against black people made up about 70 percent of the info from the app.  It did not take long to figure out that the app was racist, and it was soon never heard from again.

Flash forward to less than a year ago: 50-70 black people rampaged through a BART station, beating and robbing a few white passengers – just the latest in a series of black mob violence at BART trains and stations.  Some fatal.  Most ignored.  All treated as a symptom of white racism.

All with videotape that BART executives refused to share for the craziest of reasons: BART executives said doing so would be “embarrassing to minorities.”  And no, I do not expect you to believe that unless you see it for yourself.  So here’s an excerpt from a recent video I did.  Just click here: BART refuses to release videos.

If that is not enough, try this on for size: an article I wrote about it at the time for American Thinker with lots of links.  Just click here.

Just a few weeks ago, BART was back in the news when it was revealed that 66% of the people banned from BART for criminal behavior are black.  More racism, of course, said the people who were loath to consider, even for a second, that black people on BART create holy Hell six times more than their ridership should.

It is not just Oakland.  Even as black people in Oakland were revving up their protests to remember Nia Wilson and protest this tsunami of fictitious white-on-black crime, black-on-white murder proceeded apace around the rest of the country the same way it always does: wildly out of proportion.

In Atlanta, a middle-aged white restaurant manager, Christian Broder, was visiting his home town for a wedding when a black person recently out of jail killed him.  The killer was supposed to be staying in a “diversion program” instead of finishing a sentence for violent crime.  But even after he was caught brandishing guns and drugs on social media with some of his bros before the murder, he was soon free again.  Free to kill Christian.

In Natchitoches, Louisiana, Felicia Marie-Nicole Smith, a black woman, is under arrest for kidnapping, murdering, then burning a six-month-old white child, Levi Cole Ellerbe.

So far, no protests.  Not even an angry Twitter stream.

This is a long list from just recently.  In North Portland, Oregon, a black man killed a white woman and burned her.  I guess that’s a black thing, too.

In Bradenton, Massachusetts, a black person is wanted for killing a couple of white kids.

From Baltimore to Oakland, a common reaction to black-on-white crime is that only white privilege gives white people living near black people an expectation of safety.  Besides, everyone knows there is no difference between black crime rates and white crime rates.

White people do it, too.

Just because something is easily shown to be the greatest lie of our generation, that does not mean that lots and lots and lots of people refuse to say it over and over and over again.

Full Story:

Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment

San Francisco

Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment

Free stuff

It’s not socialism. It’s free stuff

By Earick Ward

I, for one, am thankful for the elevation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Socialist, to the National stage. Progressivism has always been premised on deceit. Progressive Democrats for a century have operated in the shadows, increasingly expanding state services in exchange for votes.  We now have a clear delineation between our respective ideologies — constitutional republicanism, premised on free market capitalism, versus democratic socialism.

Of course, democratic socialism is socialism (or, more particularly Marxism), but for the sake of clarity it is important that we understand the distinction and its appeal, in order to defend against its rise.

Who doesn’t want free stuff?

Free healthcare? Sure, why not.

Free tuition? Where do I sign up?

Free/Subsidized housing? Yeah!

Universal basic wage? $1000 per month of free money. Who do I need to vote for to get this?

We, informed, reasoned people know where this ends — destruction (as it always has), but to the vast collective of ill-informed, predominantly millennials, the draw to free stuff is strong. Again, who doesn’t want free stuff?

We speak of socialism having never worked, but we need to define what success means. Socialism has worked swimmingly in helping collectivist politicians secure authoritarian power (see: Cuba and Venezuala). Socialism worked great for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. For the people of Cuba and Venezuela, not so much.

We can’t compete with free stuff on an emotional level. Trying to reason with the ill-informed against the current of lying media and our manipulative social media platforms will be a heavy lift, but it is a fight that we must be fully prepared to engage, for our future (as a Republic) depends on our success.

With Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez coming out of the shadows and being described as the future of the Democrat Party, the fight-card has been set; socialism versus free-market capitalism. Socialism versus constitutional republicanism. Socialism (authoritarianism) versus Self-rule. In short, bondage versus freedom.

We should be thankful that the DNC has embraced their true intentions, as we have, for too long, been punching shadows.

How, though, do we fight against free stuff?  It is important that we expose the ill-informed to the end of the road, not the utopian beginning.

Do you want free health care? Are you prepared to contribute 10-15% of your future earnings to grant the government permission to manage your health-care choices?

Free tuition? Are prepared to contribute 5-10% of your future earnings for the right to go to college for free?

Free housing? Are you prepared to contribute 10-15% of your future earnings in order for the government to provide you a place to live (of their choosing)?

Universal basic wage? How much of that “free money” will you have left after you’ve paid for said free stuff above?

Lastly, and most importantly, are you prepared to give up your freedom, your liberty, your free market choices, in order to empower gubment bureaucrats to make those choices on your behalf?  The end of the (Socialist) road, is well, the end of the road. Are you woke now?

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Collusion Hoax is Finally Exposed

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | 1 Comment

Andrew McCarthy Talks Carter Page FISA Warrant Documents

Posted in Politics | Tagged | 1 Comment

Dems meet to save party

Moderate Dems meet to save party from the socialists

By Rick Moran

Red-state Democrats, many of them representing districts won by Donald Trump in 2016, met in Columbus, Ohio to come up with a strategy to counter what they see as the socialist takeover of their party.

They describe themselves as “moderate” – a relative term for both sides in this day and age.  At the very least, they are far less strident and not quite as hysterically anti-Trump as the rest of their party.

But whether they can counter the growing influence of Bernie Sanders and the new Democratic Party star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, remains to be seen.


Pragmatism may be a tougher sell in the Donald Trump era, but with the 2020 presidential race just around the corner, moderate Democrats know they are running out of time to reassert themselves.

The gathering here was just that – an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race.  Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.

The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-cohosted [sic] the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the “millionaires and billionaires” found in Sanders’ stump speech.

“You’re not going to make me hate somebody just because they’re rich.  I want to be rich!” Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.

With radicals preparing drum head trials for Trump, his supporters, the rich, and just about anyone who disagrees with them, Rep. Ryan might want to rethink his desire to be “rich.”

These moderates appear to be the only Democrats who realize the danger the party is in:

But some elected officials in relatively conservative areas say progressives are clueless about what their agenda would mean for Democrats outside major cities and the coasts.

“We will be a permanent minority party in this country,” said Iowa state Sen. Jeff Danielson, a firefighter who represents an area that saw one of the biggest swings from Barack Obama to Trump during the 2016 election.

Single-payer, government-run health care may be a popular party plank in New York City, where Ocascio-Cortez [sic], a Democratic Socialist, recently won a high-profile primary, Danielson said, but added, “it does not work in the rest of America … and I’m tired of losing.”

Moderates said they feel they’re being drowned out by louder voices on the left.

Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership who represents a district Trump won, invoked Richard Nixon’s “silent majority.”

“If you look throughout the heartland, there’s a silent majority who just wants normalcy.  Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done,” she told reporters.

That’s an extraordinary admission from Rep. Bustos.  The radicals oppose “normalcy,” which isn’t a surprise to most of us, but is unusual coming from a Democratic member of Congress.

Realistically, the Democratic moderates have no better chance of impacting the direction of their party than GOP moderates have in influencing Republicans.  This situation predates Donald Trump’s presidency, although the polarization has gotten worse in the last two years.

Former FBI director James Comey warns the Democrats not to “lose your minds” and embrace socialism.  It is probably too late for that.  The question now becomes, will socialism sell in the heartland?

At least some Democrats are convinced it won’t.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

2016 Spy Scandal

Brennan and the 2016 Spy Scandal

Kimberley A. Strassel July 19, 2018

Former CIA Director John Brennan listens during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, May 23, 2017.

The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as “horrible” and “disgusting.” This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.

But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan. He’s accused President Trump of “venality, moral turpitude and political corruption,” and berated GOP investigations of the FBI. This week he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s press conference in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.” This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.

That’s what Mr. Brennan is—a partisan—and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his position—as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world—to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information, he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Voilà. Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.

In their recent book “Russian Roulette,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing, and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging information.)

Clinton supporters have a plausible case that Mr. Comey’s late-October announcement that the FBI had reopened its investigation into the candidate affected the election. But Trump supporters have a claim that the public outing of the collusion narrative and FBI investigation took a toll on their candidate. Politics was at the center of that outing, and Mr. Brennan was a ringmaster. Remember that when reading his next “treason” tweet.

Full Story:


Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment

The truth hurts

Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment