Are the People at CNN From Another Planet?

By Robin Siskel

On July 30, 2020, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's Chief Legal Analyst, posted this piece, EXCLUSIVE: Fearing Trump interference, FBI agents hid copies of Russia investigation docs, saying:

In the hours after President Donald Trump suddenly fired FBI Director James Comey, on May 9, 2017, his former subordinates in the J. Edgar Hoover Building wondered if there would be more shoes to drop... Would the President demand that the Bureau cease its investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump's onetime national security adviser? In response to these concerns, the FBI took extraordinary -- and previously undisclosed -- steps to protect its investigations.

From Comey's first meetings with Trump, shortly after he won the presidency, the FBI director developed misgivings about his new boss' behavior -- about Trump's demands for "loyalty," and even more unnerving, his request that the Bureau drop its investigation of Flynn. Comey's conversations with Trump had been so distressing that the director started writing up contemporaneous summaries of their interactions and sharing them with a handful of top officials at the Bureau. Now, suddenly, Comey was out -- and the question arose of what to do with his memos about his conversations with the President.

This is laughable "reporting" - disgusting actually, and downright disingenuous. It's already been clearly shown that the FBI knew beyond a doubt they had zero justification for the investigation as far back at least as early as Feb. 2017 - possibly even Dec 2016 or sooner. - and yet they started the entire Special Counsel investigation while knowing full well there was no "there," there. They knew for a fact they had zero justification to investigate Flynn before they started too - it's gross prosecutorial misconduct to open an investigation without probable cause, and they had none.

Funny how this CNN "report" fails to note those key facts right at the very beginning. Two excellent articles which are well worth reading, and include the timing on these issues, are: Meet the Steele Dossier's 'Primary Subsource": Fabulist Russian From Democrat Think Tank Whose Boozy Past the FBI Ignored, and A Put-Up Job, noting:

Growing evidence that officials involved in the Russia collusion investigation knowingly acted without cause is undermining our governing institutions.

It was also shown quite some time ago that the FBI failed to turn over quite a few exculpatory documents in the Flynn case, even lied to the judge about it and violated court orders. These fact aren't new (although I don't recall offhand exactly which federal players were already implicated prior to this CNN article, only that a number were). Similarly, it was reported long ago that the FBI kept key information about the whole "Russia Collusion" investigation from Trump and his people.

The idea that the FBI would hide investigative documents from a duly elected president is utterly gobsmacking - but, again, not new information. It was reported long ago that key information was withheld during Trump's briefings - for example, the FBI purposefully refused to tell Trump that the Steele dossier was entirely unverified. Of course, the only reason they bothered to brief him on it at all was so that they could leak to the press that the President had been briefed on the Steele Dossier.

They had shopped the dossier to the media countless times before, but the media refused to report on something so obviously absurd which had no corroborating sources or evidence. Once it had been in a presidential brief, however, that simple fact made it news! very devious way for the FBI to scam the president and the entire nation, get the dossier publicized, and thus trigger off the grossly fraudulent travesty of a special prosecutor investigation by Mueller - which allowed the FBI and Mueller to do lots of spying on the President and his staff, hobble his administration and his policies, turn the public against him with the help of a lapdog mainstream media, and so on.

Withholding key information from a duly elected president in a clear attempt to hinder his ability to function and launch an unfounded massive investigation of him and his administration is utterly unconscionable. It's gross insubordination at the very least, if not blatantly illegal - an attempted soft coup. In fact, this entire FUBAR'd fiasco should have every American up in arms, and those involved ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Each person who was directly involved in this skulduggery ought to lose their pensions at the very least. If any are still working for the government, they ought to be fired, ASAP. This makes Watergate look like child's play.

Plenty of other early parts of this absurd CNN article could be easily shredded, but this particularly ridiculous bit caught my eye:

Mueller's team ultimately took possession of Comey's memos, and they proved to be important evidence in the report Mueller filed two years later. As Mueller later learned, and included in his report, Trump seriously contemplated firing the special counsel on several occasions -- so the initial suspicions at the FBI, about the President's real intentions, were well-grounded.

There was zero value to those memos. They were a he said/he said" claim that Trump immediately disputed once aware of the contents, written by someone with clearly biased ulterior motives, which ultimately added nothing to the case, and resulted in nothing either as there was no case to be made. As a result, the claim is downright stupid. It gets even more insane after that, going so far as to claim that Trump is somehow supposedly wrong to investigate the investigators, regardless of the fact that they have been shown to be so blatantly corrupt!

When an article has nothing but false claims, presents old information while trying to take credit as if it's new, utterly fails to present key facts early on... well, what's the point - it has no credibility and one has to assume it's just more mainstream media gaslighting. This CNN article seems to be nothing more than blatant lies and massive left wing spin - "orange man bad!" It's a pretty pathetic attempt too, for anyone who's been paying even a shred of attention to what's been going on.

The Media and Another Trump Derangement Syndrome Moment

By Robin Siskel

On June 17, 2019 Neal K. Katyal posted a New York Times article, Trump's Abuse of Executive Privilege Is More Than a Present Danger, claiming President Trump was abusing Executive Privilege. It's another prime example of an article from the mainstream media which is beyond absurd.

There's nothing which even remotely suggests Trump has used executive privilege to cover up any wrong doing.  In fact, with all the prior investigations into the issue, it'd be a miracle if there's anything left to find, period.  Trying to compare this to Nixon or Clinton as the article does is idiotic. There is no valid analogy there - not even remotely.  The circumstances are quite obviously radically different.

Trump has only used executive privilege now twice - the first on an issue which had already been incredibly thoroughly investigated - by not only both the House and Senate, but also FBI, CIA, NSA, and a huge Special Counsel team no less including 19 top lawyers and over 50 FBI agents!!!  All with no wrongdoing found.  The second over an issue where there's no crime involved or being investigated. 

Plus, this article essentially lies to readers with this bit:

"But when the claims appear to hide wrongdoing, they begin to curdle. Instead of safeguarding high-minded principles, the claims look personal, and more like something a king would do. And that is just about what Mr. Trump's latest invocations look like. In the teeth of a redacted report that all but labels Mr. Trump a criminal."

Gee, funny, but in fact the report clearly did NOT label Trump a criminal - in fact it stated explicitly time and again that there was no crime, no collusion, no conspiracy.  This is nothing more than rank partisan anti-Trump Trump Derangement Syndrome opinion - e.g., more wishful fantasizing by the author.  There is no appearance of hiding wrongdoing unless one has decided beforehand, without evidence what-so-ever, that Trump's guilty of something. Even worse, the person making this assumption apparently hasn't even decided what that supposed wrong doing might be! 

The Mueller report was incredibly lightly redacted for that sort of document, and the redactions were done directly in concert with the FBI, only redacting the bare minimum required by law.  If Trump were to publicly release the full report and associated documents demanded by Congress, he would be violating the law for gawd's sake!  What's more, Congress was offered a version of the report that's even less redacted which they could view in a secure location - and not one Democrat has bothered to go see it. 

The final bit in the above excerpt:   "In the teeth of a redacted report that all but labels Mr. Trump a criminal" is downright idiotic - in fact the Mueller report time and again said no crime was committed.  That there was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy or any other crime tying Trump or his staff to Russia election interference. 

Even the political cherry picked hack job on  the possible "obstruction" section of the Mueller report was unable to find evidence of an actual crime, of actual obstruction - which is why there were no charges recommended.  Not to mention that section is nothing but innuendo, gossip, hearsay, and items which are VERY easily explained by perfectly legal actions and motives.  When there is no crime to cover up - as shown in "collusion" section - and plenty of perfectly reasonable and legal explanations for issues, it's virtually impossible to prove any "obstruction of justice" occurred.

What's more, there's reams of evidence that Trump was not in any way trying to obstruct justice. He didn't fire Mueller and the other investigators.  In fact he didn't stop or impede the Special Counsel investigation (SC) in any way.  Even though he clearly had the constitutional authority to do both.  He voluntarily  turned over more than 1.4 million documents. He allowed unprecedented access to his top White House counsel and other top White House lawyers - including allowing over 30 hours of interrogation of the senior White House attorney.  Similarly, he didn't stop any of his staff or anyone in the Executive branch of government from testifying to the SC - again, all of which he could have legally done.  He didn't even exert executive privilege at all, etc., etc., etc. 

So, after four massively in-depth investigations all into the same issue coming up entirely clean, exactly what is Trump supposedly trying to "cover up" by  finally saying enough is enough, my people have jobs to do serving the American public, quit wasting their time and massive amounts of taxpayer money with multiple re-investigations of things which have already been investigated to death, time move on? 

Furthermore, how is this supposedly analogous to either the Nixon or Clinton situations, where in both cases there were already known, proven crimes which were committed (the Watergate building break in) or an ongoing lawsuit against the president himself alleging a heinous crime (rape)?  Both of which were in the initial investigation stages. Clearly such an analogy is beyond absurd no matter how much the mainstream media tries to paint it otherwise. 

The only other time Trump has used executive privilege is over the internal deliberations with his top aides (exactly what executive privilege is for!) over the census citizenship question.  A question which was on EVERY census through 1950, and has been on parts of the census process ever since.  A question which the vast majority of American citizens support no less as shown by multiple major polls - we have every right to know how many non-citizens are living in our nation. 

What's more, claims that the question is "racist" or will somehow suppress immigrant responses are essentially specious - this is yet another manufactured crisis by the left.  So here we are again - exactly what "crime" could Trump possibly be covering up in that regard?  What's more, where's the criminal investigation into it? There isn't one.  Where's the probable cause for one?  There isn't any.

This entire New York Times article is in the nature of "when did you stop beating your wife?"  They're begging the question based on their wishful fantasies and base partisan assumptions that everything Trump does must be somehow nefarious.  They've got no actual grounds for the claims they're making.

So this article is yet more absurd leftist spin, and slander/libel - nothing more, nothing less.  It's disgraceful, as is so much of what passes for "news" in the mainstream media these days - a disgrace to actual journalism.  

 

Driving From the Left

By Robin Siskel

You're all familiar with the left's recent push regarding how it's evil and wrong to "appropriate" someone else's culture, right?

Things such as:

• Only Mexicans should be allowed to have Mexican food restaurants and food trucks, because for a Caucasian to do so would be "stealing" the intellectual property/culture of another race/ethnicity.
• It’s wrong for anyone other than blacks to wear dreadlocks (idiotic on the face of it as blacks "culturally appropriated" dreadlocks from other races, they didn't originate with blacks.
• It’s evil for anyone other than Hispanics to wear a sombrero, etc., etc., etc...

But isn't it amazing that using their own "logic" and "reasoning," it must be evil cultural appropriation for anyone to speak ANY language that isn't native to one's own race/ethnicity, right?

• I mean, for someone who's Chinese to speak English –cultural appropriation?
• A Frenchman to speak Japanese? Cultural appropriation!
• A German to speak Swahili (one of the most common languages in Africa)? Cultural appropriation!

Of course, I bet if we brought this to the attention of the very people screaming "cultural appropriation" the loudest, they'd immediately start turning themselves inside out trying to figure out some way to proclaim that while wearing a sombrero is evil cultural appropriation, using the very language that's most basic to some other ethnicity somehow isn't.

After all, when you use their own reasoning, suddenly it's impossible for people to even talk to each other. And you know, never mind that it's also "cultural appropriation" for minorities to use the various now ubiquitous inventions and discoveries made by Caucasians which make all our lives so much longer and more comfortable - you know, things such as refrigeration, air conditioning, electrical power, automobiles, planes, etc., etc., etc.

Heck, for that matter, how do we ever untangle just who, if anyone, is allowed to use things such as writing, the wheel, boats, etc? All things which we don't even know where they were actually first developed, but regardless, the cultures which first did develop them are long, long gone.

But hey, cultural appropriation! Bad! Evil! Must call it out wherever found and eradicate all attempts at any sort of cultural appropriation! (sarcasm)

Far too many Democrats/"liberals"/progressives don't seem to have any problem at all with strongly holding to grossly contradictory claims and double standards. And they've gotten to be, unfortunately, all too expert at slinging hate, driving wedges, and setting groups against each other with their identity politics and victim mentality.

That's all the left does anymore - try to drive people, but only to exactly to where the left wants.

Leftist Values on Parade

By Robin Siskel

A recent article by Victor Davis Hanson, The Descent into Progressive Madness, echoed a number of thoughts I've had over the last few years myself - concerns about the direction our nation is heading which are becoming more and more disconcerting. The all too widespread shift among the left-wing in America towards what not long ago would have been considered radical nihilistic statism, intolerance, and a disconnection from factual reality bodes extremely ill for our nation's future, including for those on the left themselves.

I don't even remotely understand today's modern left-wing, although I desperately wish I did. Because if we can't understand each other, how can we manage to actually work together for the benefit of the nation and all of our citizens? It's incomprehensible to me how the left can participate in, support, and fail to condemn so many different extreme positions - how they justify this sort of insanity to themselves - other than perhaps rather than consider consequences, the ideas seem emotionally satisfying to them initially. That, or they believe such positions will help 'em win somehow politically, allow them to gain power and control. It's utterly gobsmacking how totally divorced from reality they've become - and yet they are apparently proud of it!! All the more mind boggling to me considering the gross double standards on display.

Just a few examples of the sorts of issues that are so very problematic:

1. They strongly support Congressman and DNC Chairman Keith Ellison who has apparently credible claims of fairly recent sexual assault and abuse against him. While at the same time they are trying to torpedo Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination over an allegation that's not even remotely credible from over 35 years ago (same with Roy Moore). Ellison is a blatant anti-Semite, yet they support him along with other Democrats who have made seriously racist statements - but vilify Trump as somehow racist, simply because he stands against ALL illegal immigration regardless of where the illegals originate or the color of their skin. Never mind that Trump won the Ellis Island award for his excellent work helping minorities, accepting it on stage with Rosa Parks and Mohammad Ali. Never mind that Trump was the first major country club owner to open up to blacks, or that his policies have resulted in the historically record low unemployment for minorities, while Obama's resulted in record high levels of unemployment for all, especially minorities. Yet, Trump's a racist, and Ellison is great!

2. They love Democrat Corey Booker, who wrote and published an article claiming he groped a girl against her will. Yet he was elected Senator several years ago, and now is talking about a 2020 run for president! Will the left justify this by claiming it's somehow magically ok, since he fessed up and said it's bothered him ever since, as they have with others in the past? An absurd position of course - he still did it - or at least CLAIMS he did, but perhaps he's just virtue signaling to the left. Meanwhile we all know full well that if Kavanaugh had said "gee, I did grope Ford in High School, but thought it was all a game in fun and it's haunted me ever since" (as Corey Booker did about a college encounter), the Democrats would have gone after him all the harder and said that was PROOF he's grossly unsuited and can't be seated on the Supreme Court. But Corey "I groped her" Booker as Senator and possibly president of America is a great idea.

3. They supported Bill Clinton and reamed all who dared suggest that many of the claims of his sexual assaults, rapes, and womanizing were true... Had NO problems running Hillary for president regardless of the thousands of slam dunk felonies - for mishandling national security documents no less - AND with her history of personally destroying any woman who accused her husband of sexual improprieties. Yet now they say Kavanaugh cannot be on the Supreme Court because of a non-credible accusation about something which supposedly happened over 35 years ago as a kid and which even if true wasn't nearly to the level of Clinton's actions or Hillary's. Or Ellison's for that matter.

4. They support Senator Bernie Sanders, who loved the Soviet Union which slaughtered literally millions of their own people, but think Trump is a fascist autocrat destroying our democracy. Never mind that Trump is actually returning us to the normal rule of law in our nation, reversing Obama's unconstitutional actions, and significantly reducing regulations. What authoritarian fascist reduces regulations?? I think the answer to that is crystal clear.  

5. Then there's Biden's penchant for groping women. None-the-less, the left loves him right now and thinks it would be great he ran for president and might. There are all sorts of photos and videos of him improperly groping and kissing women and little girls, but he'd be great for president! Yet Kavanaugh, who's got no evidence against him and a sterling record, can't be on the Supreme Court. Trump's a fascist in the vein of the world's worst dictators, and Biden is a man of the people. (Editor's Note:  There was an correction in referring to Bernie as a groper when it was Biden.) 

6. And, of course, they supported Obama's unconstitutional actions, while claiming Trump overturning them is somehow a Constitutional crisis and constitutes major acts that are destroying our democracy!! Just ignore Obama's multiple racist statements and his history which also suggests some major bigotry (e.g., "typical white woman" - who raised him! - 'bitter bigoted bible and gun clingers,' etc.), all of his racially divisive actions and statements as president, going out of his way to hang out only with minorities and radicals according to his book "Dreams from My Father," choosing his Chicago church VERY carefully to ensure that it was a very large influential BLACK church, etc., etc. Ok, maybe his calculated choice of church wasn't actually racism, but was just blatant cold calculating political opportunism to gain political power - but what does that say about his views of blacks? And whites for that matter. All sorts of examples this way, but to the left, Obama is the messiah while Trump's the racist.

These are just brief examples. The list is nearly endless, unfortunately.

So... What alternate universe are they living in??? How do they justify such double standards to themselves? I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I held such contradictory and self serving views. I honestly don't get it.

I never thought I'd see a day where such a large segment of the nation seems totally unhinged and openly flaunts double standards in such a blatant manner, all while vilifying and demonizing anyone who isn't in 100% lock step with them.

How can we possibly come together as one in this nation and work for the benefit of all when the left sees no problems in standing for such massively contradictory positions, supporting the very thing they call evil, if the individual involved happens to be "on their side", while condemning any who they don't happen to like "in the moment" or who's on the other side of the political fence, regardless of merit?

How is it possible to maintain a civil society under such conditions?

Immigration: There's Always More to The Story

By Robin Siskel August 9, 2018

The article, Homeland Security: More than 600,000 foreigners overstayed U.S. visas in 2017, contains some interesting and useful facts regarding illegal immigration.  Unfortunately, it also makes a ludicrous claim that the data supposedly shows that Trump's focus on the border wall is misplaced.  This couldn't be further from the truth. 

Visa overstays are a serious issue, unquestionably - but so is establishing far better border control. The article notes that some 600,000 people overstayed visas last year alone - then goes on to say that "only" 300,000 were apprehended at the southern border. Unfortunately, the author fails to include some very key facts.  For example, visa overstays only account for roughly 40% of the illegal aliens in this nation. 

They also fail to note that the most generous estimates are that less than 50% entering the country illegally by crossing the borders are ever caught, and some reputable estimates are far lower.  Add to this the fact that last year - the sole year they provide as an example - illegal border crossing arrests hit a 46-year low, and were down fully 25% from the prior year also. Not to mention those crossing the border illegally have a far easier time smuggling in drugs, weapons, and other illegal items. 

Finally, while strategically placed sections of wall and enhanced technological surveillance methods of border control can easily result in very large reductions in illegal border crossings, it's far more difficult to have a significant impact on the total number of visa overstays - unless we're willing to radically reduce the number of visas issued of course, but no one wants that.

At what point does cherry picking in articles like this become severe enough, misleading enough, to be called lying (or just make it a waste of time or worse to bother reading the article)? 

 

I'd say unfortunately we're long past that point with much of the mainstream media "news" and certainly with much of the editorial/opinion articles, especially in the "prestigious" outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. and even in the broadcast news of ABC, NBC, CBS, and so on. This is why claims of "fake news" resonates so very well with so many in the general public.  We're all sick to death of being misled and lied to by the ostensible purveyors of "factual news." 

This is why so many in the general public cheer when Trump proclaims "fake news" and "the press is the enemy of the people."  We desperately need mainstream media "news outlets" to return to far more reporting of actual pertinent and key facts, and far less political bias, agenda pushing, sensationalism, appeals to emotion, and telling the public what we're supposed to think. 

There has always been bias in the media, it's impossible to avoid some, as we are all human after all... but in recent years what used to be well known and taught as journalistic ethics - reporting 'who, what, where, when, why,' attempting to be as unbiased and fair as possible to all sides, and so on - has been totally thrown out the window. 

 

This is doing tremendous damage to our democracy as most people don't have the time or inclination to go digging through article after article trying to determine what is fact and what is bogus and what the real picture is on any given issue. As a result, a huge percentage of the population winds up being badly misinformed about all sorts of highly relevant issues, which of course affects how they vote and so on.