Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

How to Tell If a Trump Supporter Is Racist

Every non-liberal leftist—that is, nearly every Democrat running for president, New York Times and Washington Post columnist, CNN and MSNBC host, and your left-wing brother-in-law—labels every Trump supporter and, of course, President Donald Trump, a “racist.”

And they don’t stop there. Leftists don’t only label the half of the country that supports the president “racist,” they label all whites and America itself “racist.” If your son or daughter attends or recently attended an American university, it is close to certain he or she was repeatedly told that America and all whites are racist. According to the Left, whites are divided between those who admit they are racist and those who don’t admit it.

Every conservative and many liberals know this is a big lie. The great question is: Do leftists believe it? It is impossible to know. But this we do know: If you repeat something often enough, and if your Weltanschauung (worldview) and that which gives your life meaning are dependent upon believing something, you will eventually believe it.

So here is a way to show it is a lie.

Ask any white conservative, including one who supports Trump, the following three questions:

1) Do you have more in common with, and are you personally more comfortable in the company of, a white leftist or a black conservative?

2) Would you rather have nine white leftists or nine black conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court?

3) Would you rather your child marry a black Christian conservative or a white non-Christian liberal?

A white racist would prefer the whites in each case.

I have asked these questions of thousands of Trump supporters at lectures and on my radio show. Not once has a white Trump-supporting conservative said he or she would be more comfortable in the presence of a white leftist than a black conservative or would prefer an all-white liberal Supreme Court to an all-black conservative Supreme Court. Not once has a white Christian conservative said he or she would prefer their child marry a white non-Christian liberal to a black Christian conservative.

If you’re an honest leftist, this should present a powerful challenge to your belief that all white conservatives are racist.

But it won’t. Leftists have too much at stake to confront the truth about conservatives. Everything the left has ever believed has depended upon lying about opponents. From the day Stalin labeled Trotsky—who served as the head of the Red Army and who, along with Lenin, founded the Bolshevik Party—a “fascist,” leftists have lied about their opponents.

Some liberals lie and some conservatives lie, but the truth is both a liberal and conservative value. It has never been a left-wing value. Any leftist who would commit himself to the truth would cease being a leftist. He would either become an anti-left liberal or an anti-left conservative.

“America is racist.” “Whites are racist.” “Trump supporters are racist.” These are all big lies.

So, then, given how important it is to leftists to maintain the lie of conservative racism—along with xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and Islamophobia—how would they rebut conservatives’ answers to these questions?

Presumably, they would argue that every conservative who responds to these questions as I described is lying.

But these questions are important—no matter how much leftists ignore or dismiss them—because they perform an important service for conservatives.

I know this from Jewish history. There was so much Jew-hatred in the medieval Christian world that Jews sometimes wondered if there was any truth to the attacks on them. When a whole society denigrates a group, members of the denigrated group start wondering whether any of the attacks on them have any truth. But when the charge of blood libel—that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to bake matzos for Passover—arose, it liberated Jews from taking any of the anti-Semites’ attacks seriously. Every Jew knew the blood libel was a lie—Jews never consumed animal blood, let alone human blood.

Every conservative knows his responses to these three questions are heartfelt and true, so these questions can help conservatives come to see the Left’s charge of conservative racism as medieval Jews came to see the anti-Semites’ blood libel charge: as a lie.


Photo credit: Jay Shaw Baker/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Big Media • Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Welcome to the Democrats’ ‘Truman Show’

Last week’s congressional immigration and border security hearing was a microcosmic embodiment of the “The Truman Show” world of the Democratic Party.

Remember that 1998 film, when Jim Carrey was actually a good actor? When his character, Truman Burbank, discovers that his entire life had been scripted for television from birth, he forgoes his life of comfortable fantasy for the uncomfortable world of freedom; the other side of the door Burbank walks through is frightening, but worth it. 

U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who spoke (well, grandstanded is more like it) at the hearing, are the opposite of the Burbank character at the movie’s conclusion. They have spent the entirety of their brief political careers as Manchurian candidates and Manchurian congresswomen. They haven’t shunned their existences as political actresses who inhabit fantastical worlds of fake tears and faux outrage, which were on full display at the hearing; rather, they have lovingly embraced it. 

Yes, theatrics are inherent in politics; the political thespians, however, have wooed and wowed America’s useful idiots with Streepian smoothness. 

Every nanosecond of Burbank’s life was predetermined by Christof, the creator of “The Truman Show”; the taxpayer-funded activist actresses’ Christofs are the non-profits MoveOn and Justice Democrats, a political action committee formed in 2017 by Breadline Bernie Sanders alums and Cenk Uygur, one of the creators of “The Young Turks,” who was a Republican, before he was an independent, before he was a Democrat. 

Are Capitol Hill Republicans actually aware that Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, and Tlaib are taxpayer-funded activist actresses? If not, why not? If so, why not say so?

All the World’s a Stage
From crying-on-demand, to teeth cleanings, to haircuts, to sniffing hair, to cracking open coldies, to jerk chicken marinade in the kitchen and to men kissing their husbands, Democrats have created for their voters a world where truth and reality are indefinitely suspended, supplanted by fairy tales; this is manifested in their anti-American policy proposals. 

All the world’s a stage, and the men and women mere players; irrespective of influence and propaganda, adults are responsible for their own actions and decisions. But the Democrat delusions of grandeur pervasive throughout the republic—buttressed by lies, conspiracy theories and myths that the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) rarely challenge—are dangerous and deadly. 

Men are women. Hillary Clinton “won” the 2016 presidential election. Inequality is the new equality. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On and on. Democrats live in a politically manufactured world akin to Truman Burbank’s “reality” TV world.

Are Democrats incapable of recognizing truth when they see it? I’ve long said that Democrats don’t actually believe the bull dung they peddle, whether it be “fundamental transformation,” “democratic socialism” or “it takes a village.” What if I’m mistaken, however? The only people who frighten me more than those who spout but don’t believe the crap coming out of their mouths are the ones who do believe it.

Inequality Is the New Equality
When it comes to Democrats, there are myriad “Truman Show” examples to choose from, day in and day out. With all due respect, if any of you reading this can’t name one instantaneously, then you’re not paying attention. The Equality Act, passed two months ago by every Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives and eight Tessio Republicans, is particularly telling. (Inspired by Sal Tessio from “The Godfather,” who intentionally betrays the Corleone family, a Tessio Republican is one who intentionally betrays America First principles of nationalism, constitutional liberties, free markets, and common sense.) 

Democrats pushed the Equality Act through because their world is one where males who decide they’re females should be able to compete in women’s sports. Democrats sell this stranger-than-science-fiction narrative because it’s what they believe their voters want to buy. The bill isn’t going to become law, thank God, because it will fail in the Senate.  

It’s not just that Democrats destroy everything they touch, it’s that their supposed Midas touch never turns anything to gold. Does any Democrat in Congress, or any of their voters, realize that? 

The “party of science” couldn’t be more anti-science. The “party of women” couldn’t be any more misogynistic (and misandrist, for that matter). The “party of the youth” couldn’t be any more anti-child, as evidenced by its fetish for 40-week abortions, as well as their zealous political exploitation-engineering of the youth in our schools, culture, and media. 

Democrats spit in the faces of Naomi Fraley, who inspired the World War II-era poster girl “Rosie the Riveter,” women’s suffrage heroines Ida B. Wells and Susan B. Anthony, and every woman who demanded—and achieved—true equality. Wham bam thank you, ma’am! Or is it “sir”? With Democrats, it can be confusing. 

Democrats have set women’s equality back a century. Are there any prominent Democrats in the country willing to stand up against their party’s apparatus? If you want true diversity and equality, strive for excellence—not pseudo-science. “Transgender” men don’t need red carpets rolled out for them to compete against the weaker biological sex; they need an intervention that prevents them from becoming the next statistic in the rising transgender suicide body count.  

Democrats are actually the exact opposite of what they proclaim to be about; it’s why they constantly employ the first rule of propaganda: to accuse your opposition of that which you yourself are guilty. This illogic is the norm, not the exception, in the “Truman Show” habitat Democrats inhabit. 

Democrats view governing as a vanity project. The AOCs, Omars, and Tlaibs (among many others) are traitorous burdens to our country and serve zero legislative purpose. They seek not to govern, or achieve, or represent—they seek to take our money and take our freedoms, and invoke ideologies shaped and influenced by the worst ideologies in Man’s history. Look how pathetic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) are. Pelosi, 79, can barely get through a press conference. Nadler, 71, fainted a few months ago. I’m not an ageist, and I wish no ill will toward either, but rather than retire and spend time with the grandkids, they will spend their twilight years propagating Russian collusion/obstruction of justice/cover-up/whatever’s next-lies that they know are lies.

To bridge our divide, the Democrats must be conquered; perhaps then, there can be political peace. Truman Burbank overcame the false hope and tyranny of a life of fantasy and make-believe. It needs to end badly at the polls for the Democrats. We on the America First nationalist side seek calm, and to have our rights, our families, and our businesses left alone. Continue challenging us, though, and I promise we will fight back 10 times, 100 times, 1,000 times more fiercely than anything they want to toss at us from fantasyland.  

In the end, Truman defeated the world of la-la land. Conquer, or be conquered. 

Photo credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

2016 Election • Congress • Deep State • Donald Trump • Post • The Resistance (Snicker)

Dems Try to Undo 2016 Election By Probing Trump’s Inaugural

Even nearly three years later, Republicans still savor and chuckle at the video of the woman in a winter coat and glasses, howling a primordial “Nooooo!” into the cold January air as Donald Trump was inaugurated.

For Democrats, though, Inauguration Day 2017 remains a special kind of wound. As has often been said for going on three years, the Democrats have been trying—with all of the deep state and mainstream media power at their disposal—to undo the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

Democrats feel their opponents must be discredited and destroyed, and their preferred method is lawfare and media innuendo. And, as the ceaseless investigations and legal harassment of the last few years have shown, they have had the power of law enforcement and highly partisan elements of the Department of Justice with which they can exact revenge on Donald Trump and his supporters.

For the first time in memory, Democrats in the Senate have been bullying and frantically urging the Justice Department to investigate all aspects of the opposition party’s inauguration, from individuals connected to the inauguration committee to employees of the Trump Organization, high profile donors and fundraisers, and members of the post-campaign transition team. 

For months, federal prosecutors in New York have been on the hunt. Hundreds of news articles breathlessly reporting the inevitable downfall of these officials were created from leaks by deep state operatives in the Justice Department. 

Unsurprisingly, it always amounted to nothing. 

In a late Friday night news dump last week, prosecutors sheepishly admitted there would probably be no charges filed against anyone in the Trump Organization for inauguration-related activity. 

Where do the people who have been targeted by bogus, partisan investigations go to get their reputations back? Who pays their legal fees, and compensates them for months of time, stress, and worry? 

Now, Democrats and these same activist, partisan lawyers are moving on to Republican donors, again hounding them using the legal system. These donors might have more resources with which to fight such harassment, but any wealthy individual runs up against the limitless means with which the United States government can apply pressure.

In April 2018, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn.) authored a letter to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, demanding an investigation into Elliott Broidy, a prominent GOP fundraiser and donor to pro-Israel causes. Of course, the two senators weren’t really writing to Sessions. They were sending a signal to Democratic Party loyalists in the Justice Department—then, as now, crammed full of Obama appointees. 

As Liz Sheld at American Greatness asked, “Is this a fight to end corruption or a fight to use government agencies as weapons against political enemies?”

The attack on people like Broidy is strategic: Democrats wish to frighten potential Republican contributors with the prospect of invasive and costly investigations. If “the process is the punishment,” as they say, it’s better to just stop donating to conservative or Republican causes, keep your head down and allow the Left to prevail over American politics uncontested.

People like former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, who have been the target of this kind of politically motivated prosecution and investigation by the rogue prosecutors, know how daunting it is to face the limitless resources of the U.S. government. If a partisan prosecutor is determined to get you, odds are he will.

The parallels to RussiaGate are alarming, too. That started as a Democrat-funded opposition research project. Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, and the gang at FusionGPS—all former intelligence operators or investigative journalists for hire—concocted a narrative and created official-looking “dossiers” to peddle their fanciful stories to the media. It was dishonest, sure, but it was well within the subterranean workings of a political campaign. 

But what made RussiaGate a scandal—rife with illegality and alarming threats to American liberty—was how a phony “dossier” served as the basis for official investigations by the national security bureaucracy. This anti-American politicization of the legitimate functions of government should alarm us all.

“Regardless of the merits of the case,” wrote Streiff at Red State, “campaigning on using your personal clout to strong-arm the Justice Department into investigating someone who is a political opponent is something that just isn’t done in American politics.” 


Photo credit: Tom Watson/Getty Images

Conservatives • Democrats • First Amendment • Free Speech • Post • Republicans • The Culture • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

A ‘Green Book’ for Conservatives?

Last year, an Oscar-winning movie made known to many of us what the “Green Book” was—a guidebook listing accommodations for the African American traveler during the days of Jim Crow segregation. 

Today, I fear, we may need a “Green Book” for conservatives and Republicans. 

Stephanie Wilkinson, co-owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, who last year had kicked out a White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and family simply for their political affiliation, recently defended and promoted that practice in a Washington Post op-ed. She compared it to Cracker Barrel barring Grayson Fitts, who advocates “the arrest and execution of LGBTQ people.” Citing the cases last year where other prominent Republicans, Kirstjen Nielsen, Stephen Miller, and Mitch McConnell, were mobbed and driven out of restaurants, she wrote, “restaurants are now part of the soundstage for our ongoing national spectacle.” Amazingly, she complained that “the business involved inevitably comes under attack.” Those inclined to “scold owners and managers” and express dismay at the loss of a perceived “politics-free zone” should just get used to it. 

Wilkinson can deny that she approves of the next step—physical assault—by cheering the fact that there has been more support for Cracker Barrel’s actions than for those of the server who spit in the face of Eric Trump recently. Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who criticized Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and her call for mob action—namely, forming “a crowd” and “push[ing] back” on all Trump Administration members at restaurants, gas stations, and department stores—can claim to be above the fray. In truth, however, mild statements of disapproval, are lost in the tsunami of actions against conservatives by businesses ranging from advertisers on the Tucker Carlson show, movie producers in Georgia, and censors on social media.

I take Stephanie Wilkinson’s exclusion policy personally, though. Lexington is the place of my overnight stays during my frequent drives to Atlanta.

As I decide where to have dinner, I have the uncomfortable thought: that there is a restaurant in Lexington where people with my political views are not welcome. The idea is so foreign to me. I spent several years supporting myself waiting on tables and tending bar in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, it was “no shoes, no shirt, no service,” or no service only for drunkenness, fighting, or nonpayment of a check. 

It is also troubling to me, given that I fled tyranny in the arms of my parents from Communist Yugoslavia. I grew up hearing their stories about political oppression. Imagine what it feels like to see things that resemble those stories in this country.

I have faced discrimination in academia. The “American dream” is to work your way up, right? I was “outed” as a conservative when the topic of my dissertation failed to advance the Marxist gender/race/class line contemporary English departments demand. As an adjunct instructor, I was expected to join in group conversations during the 2004 Democratic presidential primary speculating about who could beat the evil George W. Bush. My silence outed me. After I wrote columns, I was told that suddenly no more classes would be available for me to teach the following semester.

But back in 2004, it would never have occurred to me that such discrimination would occur outside of academia, that I could be legally discriminated against in restaurants.

It gives me little comfort that I am not easily recognizable like Sarah Sanders. Wilkinson has broadcast to the world that my kind are not welcome in her trendy establishment, a place that dare not refuse service to someone because of race. She feels righteous, claiming her actions are as justified as refusing service to someone who openly advocates murder. 

Would I feel comfortable in Wilkinson’s restaurant? What if a server overheard me expressing my political views? If I made a reservation, would staff Google my name? I might not get the boot, but would I have my food spit in, or worse? No doubt, other restaurant owners are taking note, and I wonder: how do other Lexington restaurateurs feel? Do they also not want my business? What about the hotel where I stay?

Where this will end? Will conservatives be excluded next from grocery stores and hotels (as Maxine Waters would have it)? Will we be forced to sleep in our cars when traveling? It is hard to imagine this happening, but we now have those who feel no shame in openly advocating it. The inconceivable has happened in my lifetime—in a “free country.”

The ironic thing is that I support the concept of farm-to-table restaurants. I am a regular customer of the organic farmers who come here on the village square in Clinton, New York. I am against tax-subsidized corporate farming—something started by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. I am opposed to it because it led to the near-starvation of many black farmers and tenant farmers who were excluded from Roosevelt’s New Deal subsidies. Yet, African Americans had to pay the higher taxes and inflated prices for these programs. It also bears repeating that it was a Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, who imposed segregation in the federal workforce. His protégée, Franklin Roosevelt, continued the policies even as he wooed black voters with “relief” payments instead of jobs and denied black children afflicted with polio the opportunity to use his Warm Springs facility while his wife posed with them for campaign photo-ops.

Barack Obama took up FDR’s mantle and was even portrayed in a way that evoked his image on the cover of a prominent magazine. His proposed federal regulation of small farmers who sold at public markets was met with a letter of protest from a farmer who sold organic produce from his five acres at such markets throughout the Atlanta area where I was living. Under President Trump, businesses, including farm-to-table establishments, are thriving.

Breaking bread is a way for people to come together. Having a meal should not be a political act. Yet, liberals and the Democratic National Committee, beginning in 2015, encouraged “conversations” with family members over Thanksgiving dinner to point out how benighted they are to vote Republican. Now it’s OK to kick Republicans out of restaurants and your family gatherings.

Charles Murray, the author of Coming Apart, who is much vilified on our liberal campuses, could write an updated version of his book based on the new levels of exclusion that go beyond zip codes to businesses run by self-righteous, intolerant, well-to-do liberals. If we are “divided” as a nation as many say, it is not because of conservatives or what our president says. It is because of people like Wilkinson.

The Red Hen is off my places to patronize, no doubt to the pleasure of Stephanie Wilkinson. I am one person, without much financial clout.

So were the African Americans riding the buses in Montgomery, Alabama. The time has come for conservatives, and all Americans who value the freedom of association and policies of non-discrimination, to take a page out of the playbook of that boycott and others like it. This isn’t a fight that conservatives started, but it is one we must win. The branding, exclusion, and assaults must stop.

Photo credit: TKTKTKTK

2016 Election • Center for American Greatness • Congress • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Constitution • The Resistance (Snicker)

Democrats Have Always Wanted to Impeach Trump

Let’s imagine for a moment a hypothetical situation in which a president shoots someone on the White House lawn. A two-year, $34 million special counsel investigation ensues. As a result of the investigation, the special counsel finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the president committed murder.

Now does anyone honestly believe the special counsel, in announcing his findings, would refrain from stating a clear conclusion and instead of announcing that simply say, “Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider”? Of course not because that would be ludicrous. If the evidence were there, the special counsel would say he found sufficient evidence to conclude that the president committed murder.

Whether the special counsel could “charge” the president with that crime would be totally irrelevant to the inquiry because charging him is not his role and responsibility. The House would initiate impeachment proceedings, the president would be tried in the Senate, and the president would be removed from office. That’s the way it should and would work.

The hypothetical above shows that the blessed “Saint” Robert Mueller is playing games. On the collusion and conspiracy issue, Mueller stated pretty clearly that “there was insufficient evidence to charge.”

Yet on the obstruction of justice allegation, Mueller would not say his team found obstruction but then offered weasel words to the effect that they didn’t find that the president did not commit a crime, noting that charging him was not an option.

Well, that conveniently leaves it wide open, doesn’t it? Which seems to be exactly as Mueller intended.

Mueller could have said there was insufficient evidence to charge. He also could have said there was sufficient evidence to charge but that he had no authority to charge. Or he could have left out the verb “charge” altogether, since his ability to charge is irrelevant, and simply stated his conclusions. As in the murder hypothetical above, he might have said our investigation has led us to the conclusion that the president obstructed the investigation.

But he didn’t say any of those things. Instead, dropping all pretense about his motivations, the partisan political hack played cute. He winked and nodded to Congress without stating a clear conclusion.

Mueller’s equivocation and inconsistency tell you all you need to know. This was always a political hit job with two alternatively acceptable goals in mind: either they were going to impeach the president or damage and undermine him going into the 2020 elections. To be clear, I don’t think Democrats truly care which one it is so long as Donald Trump does not win reelection next year.

There are several sickening aspects to yesterday. First, as Sean Davis at The Federalist noted, we had Robert Mueller trying to propose a new legal theory that an uncharged person was not innocent. Not only does that flip the presumption of innocence on its head—positing now that someone is guilty until that person can prove himself or herself innocent—it also shows that Mueller intended to muddy the waters and wants to undercut this president.

Mueller’s was not the only major investigation over the past two years. We had one underway with the House Intelligence Committee, another with the Senate Intelligence Committee, and yet another with the Senate Judiciary Committee. In addition to the 500 witnesses Mueller interviewed, there were likely hundreds more with those concurrent investigations. Yet all of those people, under oath, didn’t give even one piece of evidence for “collusion” or criminal conspiracy, nor did they give any definitive proof that there was any obstruction of justice—because there wasn’t any.

Now Mueller and the Left are signaling to the country that a political opponent can help instigate an investigation based on false premises through partisan propaganda or through illegally leaked memos, without proof of any wrongdoing, and that such an attempt by someone to defend oneself against such actions will now be construed as obstruction of justice.

Have we completely lost our minds?

If we accept these innovations suggested by Mueller’s actions, we will now be saying that due process and the presumption of innocence are dead. For what? We would destroy the foundations of our republic for a short term and purely partisan gain, to our eternal shame. If we remove those principles and eviscerate the rule of law, all bets on the longevity of our political society are off.

The fact is, Democrats have always wanted to impeach Donald Trump. From day one, unable to accept the results of the 2016 elections, they have sought to nullify them.

Now, with a strong economic tailwind at his back and a collection of Democratic Lilliputians clamoring to be the nominee against him, all of their election models are showing Trump winning re-election in 2020. Democrats, in defiance of common sense, knowing that a Republican Senate won’t remove him, want to impeach him because they think that might be the only way they can cripple him and keep him for winning again in 2020.

They keep blabbering about principle and a supposed constitutional crisis, to which I say: it’s hardly principle to launch oneself off a political cliff, but by all means, stop talking, find the nerve and do it—and be prepared to accept the political consequences for your actions at the ballot box in 2020.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Media Distorts Trump’s Actions Yet Again

Competing investigations and alternative analyses offer partisans on both sides ample fodder to feed their biases, but a presumption that guilt can be manufactured if it doesn’t exist is the common thread pushing them. Just as the Soviets knew in Stalinist Russia, if you look at anyone long enough, you’re going to find something to use against them.

Instead of dispatching political opponents with bullets to the back of the head, however, we Americans fight with politicized investigations, attorneys, and political grandstanding. And on the side of America’s anti-Trump shadow government, deep state, establishment bureaucracy, the media closes ranks and takes every opportunity to distort the truth in favor of an agenda.

Recent reporting provides yet another example of the establishment media’s Stalinesque anti-Trump bias. President Trump on Wednesday canceled a meeting to discuss infrastructure legislation with House leadership, because immediately prior to the meeting, he was blindsided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) holding a meeting with pro-impeachment lawmakers, where she “emphasized that the White House is engaging in a ‘cover-up’.”

Some news accounts suggest that Trump planned to cancel the meeting and hold a press conference instead, based on the fact that a “no collusion, no obstruction” sign had been hung on the podium for when he spoke. Right. So what? Considering how many thousands of hours the ongoing investigations have consumed of Trump’s staff time, why not make Pelosi and Schumer waste a few hours? But the news accounts are what’s most interesting: Once again, the story is distorted, with help, predictably enough, from Google.

Here are the top three search results from the term, “Trump in Rose Garden May 22 Press Conference.”

First, from the Washington Post, a story headlined “A Trump Twitter-style diatribe,” written by anti-Trump hack Anne Gearan, which features this lead paragraph:

Usually, when President Trump is really steamed, he vents his spleen over a morning of disjointed tweets—a slow-mo meltdown. On Wednesday, it was the live-action movie version—on fast forward. Trump, ever the director and star of his own White House movie, staged his outburst in two acts. Act 1: Blow up a White House meeting with Democratic lawmakers that was over before the first handshake. Bye-bye, Infrastructure Day. Act 2: Stride to a podium at a hastily arranged Rose Garden news conference to say he won’t work with Democrats on infrastructure or anything else while they pursue the “investigation track.” (Emphasis added.) 

This is “news,” coming from a supposed journalist working for one of the biggest newspapers in the world.

The second Google result linked to an article in USA Today.

‘Achomlishments’: Photographer snaps look at Trump’s notes in Rose Garden news conference.” This bit of “news,” written by anti-Trump hack William Cummings, featured a photo that offered a telephoto look at Trump’s handwritten notes, including a misspelling of the word “accomplishments.”

It would be fair to ask Cummings if he has bothered to spell every word right when quickly preparing notes that only he will ever read. Moreover, often it isn’t bad spelling, but other words coming into focus faster than your penmanship can keep up, that causes typos. But that wouldn’t be “news” that’s fit for Cummings to publish.

The rest of Cumming’s article focused on tweets making fun of Trump’s spelling.

This is what passes as “news” in what ought to be a daily national newspaper of record, but instead is just another gossipy corporate left-wing propaganda rag.

Google’s third result is a video-only link from CNBC, with the title (emphasis added) “President Trump delivers surprise press conference as impeachment calls grow.”

According to a May 23 report in the New York Times, there are now 29 “federal, state and congressional investigations relating to Trump’s businesses, inauguration and presidency.”

Imagine if this degree of investigative scrutiny were applied to the Democratic Party or the Clinton organization? How can anyone see this level of harassment and not perceive the double standard; the dangerous institutionalized antipathy towards the Trump presidency?

Let’s be clear: The Democratic Party is controlled by public-employee unions, the plaintiff’s bar, the intersectional Left and the “diversity” industry, Wall Street, the leftist globalist high-tech oligarchy, multinational corporations, and environmentalist extremists including the “climate change” profiteers. These are crooks, thugs, kleptocrats, ambulance-chasers, liars, cheaters, and borderline traitors. They’ve targeted President Trump because people are making trillions of dollars keeping things just the way they are, and Donald Trump is a threat to their pocketbooks.

That’s the reason we’re seeing all these investigations.

Clearly, this characterization of the Democrat party is a biased opinion. But the USA Today’sGearan and the Washington Post’sCummings are invited to ask how their opinions, masquerading as reporting for some of the biggest news organizations on earth, are not equally biased.

And of course, if you watch the entire video of Trump’s news conference on Wednesday, you will not see any evidence of a “diatribe” (Washington Post), a “tantrum” (New York Times), a “tirade” (CNN), or a “stunt” (CBS). You will not perceive Trump to be “transparently mad,” or “lashing out” (CNBC); his behavior will not appear as “bizarre” (Vox); nor did he “spread false claims” as “reported” by CNN’s anti-Trump hack Marshall Cohen in his perversely named “Facts First” column on Thursday.

All of this reporting is completely unbalanced. It is not journalism, much less investigative journalism. It is blatant propaganda. And it typifies what we’ve seen throughout Trump’s candidacy and presidency. It is disgraceful and dangerous.

America’s preeminent news organizations are the gaslighters they claim to decry. They are the demonizers and propagandists they claim they oppose. If they were dropped into Soviet Russia eight decades ago, they would no doubt do their dirty jobs quite well.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Donald Trump • Post • The Resistance (Snicker)

Sociopathic Lies Mark NeverTrumpers’ Descent Into Madness

Gabe Schoenfeld, from whose forehead a cuckoo bird emerges, screeching and flapping, whenever the name of the president of the United States is uttered in any context, has earned a new trophy for the confection of defamatory fiction with his attack on Elliot Kaufman, the Wall Street Journal, and me in the unseaworthy lifeboat of The Bulwark, to which he and others were disembarked after the failure of the Weekly Standard.

Schoenfeld purports to debunk an op-ed piece by Kaufman in the Journal on May 20 agreeing with the president’s recent pardon of me. As a public service, I will, one more time, present the relevant facts about my late persecution, happily and justly ended.

Schoenfeld’s entire piece is a demonstrable sequence of lies, apart from his bilious opinions, which are merely demented and sociopathic. He describes the saga of a non-compete payment in respect of a small newspaper in Mammoth Lake, Washington, and wrings out every excruciating detail of this alleged fraud, except the fact that while my former associate’s retroactive designation of the payment as a non-compete payment was questionable, the money involved had already been approved to be paid to us in a lawful and ordinary related party transaction that was perfectly unexceptionable.

All of the accusatory righteousness foaming from all Schoenfeld’s orifices was misplaced: it was our money. The designation of the money as a non-compete payment by my former partner, a cooperating witness who took full advantage of the immunity from perjury he received for giving false inculpatory evidence, was open to question, but by Canada Revenue as the tax collecting jurisdiction of the recipients. (He was, in fact, accused of perjury at the Circuit Court of Appeals, by the prosecutors, as if anyone other than they had suborned and extorted his perjury.)

The whole farrago of nonsense that attended the Mammoth Lake affair collapsed like a souffle when it emerged that it was merely a questionable redesignation of money that was rightly paid and owed. This oversight by Schoenfeld raises the question of whether he is an imbecile incapable of reading court papers or securing the assistance of someone who can, or is so contorted and robotically governed by malice that he compulsively distorts facts to hurl muck at anyone who does not react like Lot’s disobedient wife to any contact with President Trump.

The one fraud count that was spuriously retrieved by the appeal court when instructed by the unanimous Supreme Court to “assess the gravity of their errors” was a payment of $285,000 to me that arrived in my Toronto office when I was in Britain where I mainly lived, and which had been approved by the independent directors and stated in the company’s public filings, but which the company secretary had forgotten to have signed up as a non-compete agreement. This was rightly considered by the trial judge to be a clerical error on the part of the company secretary but was torqued up to a crime to ensnare me and two of my co-defendants.

Schoenfeld also makes the further tactical error of purporting to comment on the obstruction count, which one of my counsels, Andrew Frey, former deputy solicitor general of the United States, described as “in 45 years of practice the feeblest charge of obstruction of justice I have seen.” I was not trying to evade security cameras (that I had had installed) as Schoenfeld wrote. I pointed to them to ensure that there could be no question of attempting anything surreptitious. The removal of these boxes, five days before I had been ordered to leave my office of 27 years in a building I owned, was approved by the acting president of the company and the senior court-appointed inspector (whose firm was paid $25 million to find not one misspent cent).

The prosecutors in the home jurisdiction found no grounds for prosecution and the judge seized of these matters, who was generally hostile and incompetent, found no grounds for a contempt charge and no violation of document retention orders that were in place. This only became an alleged crime when the Chicago prosecutors confected the idea that I had snuck out vital papers under cover of darkness (three o’clock on a late spring sunny afternoon), without telling anyone. Only the most un-Solomonic denizens of unemployed Chicago on the jury and gullible useless idiots like Schoenfeld could attach a scintilla of credence to such a fatuous charge. These two absurd counts were all that was left of the 17 counts the prosecutors initially charged.

In sum, Schoenfeld’s sanctimonious little excrescence is a lie, every word and every letter of every word, including “the” and “a”, as (I believe) Mary McCarthy once wrote. And I had the pleasure of collecting from my original accusers the largest libel settlement ($5 million) in the history of Canada, where the tort of civil defamation is alive and well.

Schoenfeld can slake his parched mind with the knowledge that if any of the malignant piffle he wrote about me for the Bulwark (against what I don’t like to imagine), I would not have won that, or any, settlement. There is not and never has been one word of truth in the charges against me, and that was the conclusion of the White House counsel and his legal staff, on analyzing the material of the case and the arguments of Alan Dershowitz and other distinguished lawyers acting for me. Were it otherwise, I have no reason to believe the president would have granted a pardon, and if I were not demonstrably innocent, none would have been requested.

But I never claimed I was victimized because I was a conservative, and the president who appoints a judge does not assure the judge’s future decisions, as even Schoenfeld must have learned from watching Justice White (appointed by John F. Kennedy), Justice Blackmun (appointed by Nixon), Justice Stevens (appointed by Ford), and many others.

What I have said is that the plea bargain system has been corrupted into a shakedown operation to extort false inculpatory evidence, and that the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment guarantees of the grand jury (as assurance against capricious prosecution), due process, no seizure of property without just compensation, prompt justice, an impartial jury, access to counsel (of choice), and reasonable bail, have been put to the shredder.

Perhaps Schoenfeld would like to explain why more than 95 percent of prosecutions are successful in the United States (as in North Korea), and 95 percent of those without a trial, and why the United States has six to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as other prospering and sophisticated democracies: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the U.K.

In the interest of full disclosure, my relations with Schoenfeld began (and ended) a little over two years ago, when he deferentially canvassed my wife and me as automatic and even flattering recruitment to the ranks of those accusing the new president of every conceivable shortcoming, misdeed, and soul-destroying wickedness. We politely declined, and a somewhat cordial cyber-debate ensued between him and me, though he became a bit snappish and it lapsed.

That was where our inchoate relations stood until the eruption of May 21 and his assertion of the Damascene revelation that I am “an avaricious oligarch who got caught with (my) hands in the cookie jar.” I have enjoyed some of Schoenfeld’s pieces in Commentary and elsewhere, and liked some of his chess commentaries. But he has clearly snapped and should be conducted to a bath chair in a quiet place and given gentle sedatives until his mental equilibrium is resuscitated. I am satisfied that he is not an evil man, merely a sick one.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Administrative State • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Law and Order • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Constitution • The Resistance (Snicker)

The Sinking of Mueller’s Prosecutorial Pequod

In the long and fascinating history of American political pamphleteering, the Mueller report will be regarded for years to come as a unique and in many ways impressive literary achievement.

But as a legal work, and more importantly, as a precedent for future special counsel investigations, it cannot be regretted more deeply, or forgotten soon enough.

Part Robert Ludlum, part Herman Melville—blending John Le Carré’s themes of Cold War disloyalty with hints of Joseph Conrad’s brooding and distinctly Russophobic pessimism—the report paints spectacular allegations of espionage, treason, and theoretical obstruction of justice against Donald J. Trump on the grandest possible canvas.

As if through a glass, darkly, it glosses over how the intelligence community framed (quite literally, it turns out) certain select encounters of peripheral Trump staffers with assumed-to-be Russian assets around the globe in 2016, such that, taken together and connected by a dossier whose political origin was never spelled out forthrightly, they purported to reveal to a FISA court a subversive foreign conspiracy to undermine American democracy.

This “dossier” containing unverifiable evidence of shady provenance (to put it nicely), attested to under oath by many upper-echelon leaders of the Obama Justice Department and FBI, was inexplicably deemed sufficient to obtain several surveillance warrants on two peripheral Trump campaign hangers-on.

Both of these individuals—Carter Page and George Papadopoulos—are today still free men, cleared completely of the original conspiracy suspicions that laughably spooked the FISC multiple times. (Papadopoulos spent a grand total of two weeks in federal prison for lying to federal agents.) Let that sink in.

Needless to say, then, Mueller’s report avoids any nettlesome inquiry into whether said pre-FISC framing was actually warranted, since the framing—indeed the very fact of such spying—and not its demonstrably false justification, is the only rooted leg upon which the whole sprawling spectacle of the investigation itself now stands, casting its long shadow over our whole electoral system.

As is evident by now, though, particularly after the timed leak of the Special Counsel’s letter of displeasure with Attorney General Bill Barr’s no-nonsense approach the release of its final report, the Mueller investigation was only ever a political hit-job. Thus its “report” could never amount to anything more than that.

Fruit of the poison tree, indeed.

The Literary Character of the Report

“Call me Schiffmael.”
Omitted opening line of a draft of the raw unredacted Mueller report, as collected from 1,000 blood-stained paper shavings dropped on the floor by a sub-par-paralegal

Weighing in at a hefty 448 pages, the much-anticipated Mueller report was an instant classic, already the Moby Dick of American political muckraking, and now available in several incarnations and formats on

Far from a merely factual summary composed exclusively for the attorney general of investigative conclusions about whether to prosecute or not, the report provides a complex, multilayered, issues-conflating narrative, crafted more like the great American novel than a perfunctory legal brief, and clearly intended for more than Barr’s bespectacled eyes only.

It is a long and winding (not to mention windy) tale, with many angst-filled animadversions and desultory digressions about its grand antagonist, the Great Orange Whale—President Donald J. Trump.

It is also, at a more meta level, the tale of an aggrieved political establishment’s dramatic (if self-destructive) quest to hunt down and kill that Great Orange Whale, for the unforgivable offense of defeating them in an election. After all, his victory only could have been possible with supernatural, or at least foreign-conspired, malevolence. And this report aims to prove it, even if the assembled facts don’t support further indictments on mere criminal grounds.

The report’s voluminous, painstaking, and often Pynchonesque passages on the president’s erratic and supposedly reprehensible behavior in response to the media’s completely scandalous coverage of the scandalously leaky special counsel investigation constitute a veritable Gravity’s Rainbow of sometimes-revolting, but always enthralling encyclopedic detail.

Through it all, the “totally reliable and trustworthy narrator” provides needed guiding light for his “model reader” (presumably, newly empowered House Democrats itching for one or more impeachment pretexts) to navigate the bizarre and mythical shadow-world of Trumplandia. It highlights the silhouette of this seedy and darkly imagined underworld in search of a stubbornly non-existent Team Trump nexus between—and any connection whatsoever to—foreign powers and their alleged nefarious plots to subvert the otherwise preordained outcome of the 2016 election.

More 2020 dossier than 2016 investigative review, the vast majority of the Mueller report, however, is nothing more than a legal manifesto and extended meditation, not on “collusion” (because it could prove none), but rather on the apparently more urgent subject of obstruction of justice. Can a sitting president, merely by executing his executive powers under the Constitution, also be obstructing justice, even when there is no underlying crime found to have been committed? This absurd question is given serious consideration, for some reason. Hundreds of pages of it.

It vividly depicts the public indignations, select Twitter indiscretions, and the freely waived but otherwise privileged legal consultations of the wily and unpredictable target of its fearsome, high-strung legal harpoons—the president of the United States himself—whose campaign and family the report nevertheless formally clears of any “collusion” or conspiracy charges, despite its best efforts to connect dots where only holes in the original conspiracy theory ever existed.

The Death of a Narrative
And so for lack of any actual evidence of conspiracy in the millions of documents, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of witness testimonies, and (we are slowly learning) an elaborate counterintelligence campaign secretly launched against him by our own government much earlier than previously thought, the “Trump-Russia possible collusion” narrative is dead.

In other words, for all the loud proclamations of pending “bombshells” and all the fury engulfing the entire D.C. punditocracy and fomenting their rage nightly on cable news for the last two years, there was in the end no “there, there”—as one of the “totally reliable and trustworthy narrator’s” original contributing voices once frankly, in another context, fretted.

But then, rather than admit the obvious conclusion that you can’t obstruct justice if no crime has been committed and a complete inversion of the innocent-till-proven-guilty standard of traditional American justice, Team Mueller curiously refrains from “exonerating” Trump et al. of possible lawbreaking.

By punting the decision to prosecute for obstruction of justice on the merits to the attorney general, along with some curious theories about why he might (should?) indict the president on these charges,it leaves a door open to Congressional (read: political) intervention that, like Pandora’s box, never should have been opened in the first place on so weak a pretext.

But this was its whole purpose.

And Finally, We Come to the Political Objective
They knew before finishing the report that the attorney general planned, at his sole discretion and in the interest of transparency, to release quickly as much of the full report as possible to the public, and yet (we now know) they deliberately ignored his early request to assist in this effort by refusing to indicate in the report places where any grand jury testimony and other things, which by law must be redacted, should be redacted. They did this in order to create the media appearance that the AG himself was slow-walking its release.

Fortunately, Attorney General Barr would have none of this Swamp-savvy nonsense, and over their “snitty” objections he provided a simple “bottom line” summary of conclusions within days of the initial release of the report, letting the whole report stand (or fall) on its own merits with its full release a couple of weeks later, after the appropriate minimal redactions were finally made. Mueller’s team had hoped their stirring opening narrative would shape initial public reaction to the report, thus belying their political intent in the writing of it in the first place.

In the near term, as the Swamp’s mercurial denizens wrangle over Mueller’s dump of lightly redacted rumor, politically charged innuendo, and the prejudicially selected facts common to the one-sided grand jury process, members of the establishment political class are proposing quite creative pro-impeachment interpretations of the “raw evidence” it supposedly provides. This, despite the inexorable “bottom line” conclusions of “no collusion” and “no obstruction” that the applicable criminal legal standards demand.

The public rollout of a statutorily required report that was by that same legal framework only ever supposed to be confidential to the attorney general has unleashed a distinctly beltway political clown show for the American electorate in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

The shocking intensity of that clown show, however, merits deeper reflection on what, exactly, the Mueller report has actually achieved, versus what it was supposed to achieve—not to mention the good it could have achieved, had it been undertaken in good faith.

Mueller: Tragedy or Farce?
Had Mueller not merely regurgitated the DNC’s paid-for and questionable CrowdStrike assertions about Russian “hacking“ of their servers; had he shown actual wisdom in building a truly non-partisan legal team; had he reined in his more aggressive deputies in their excessive public humiliation of peripheral characters in barely-related, selectively-chosen prosecutions; had he informed the public sooner of his no-collusion conclusion when he determined it, certainly long before the 2018 election handed victory to its target’s unhinged political enemies—largely in anticipation of collusion-related indictments that never came; had he given equal consideration to “collusion” between Democrats and the Ukraine, or other bad actors besides the Russians, as his open-ended (and arguably legally inadequate) remit surely allowed; had he explored clear evidence of Fusion GPS involvement in the infamous Trump Tower meeting, which now appears clearly to have been a deliberate setup; had he, in short, behaved like the man of impeccable integrity that his admirers still, without evidence, insist he is—instead of the absurd, Ahab-like, self-styled Javert caricature that he appears, looking in hindsight at his entire career, to be—what a different, less fearful, more “normal” political landscape we would be beholding today!

But instead, Mueller’s prosecutorial Pequod, the once-invincible, media-beloved, whale-killing man-of-war, carrying the impeachment hopes and removal from office dreams of many a Great Orange Whale-hunter in their bloodlust for political vengeance, was sunk by an actual agent of cosmic justice, and is condemned now to spin anticlimactically in a whirlpool of its own media-fueled, leak-frenzied narrative-blubber.

Yet the totally reliable and trustworthy narrator still lives—barely!—clinging with desperation to the “coffin life-buoy” of his now-lifeless “collusion” companion, floating aimlessly at sea on the jetsam and flotsam of theoretical obstruction to an ambiguous, entirely regrettable—and ultimately forgettable—end.

Photo credit: Warner Brothers/Getty Images

Administrative State • America • California • Center for American Greatness • Cities • Democrats • Donald Trump • Greatness Agenda • Immigration • Post • The Resistance (Snicker)

Democrats’ Sanctuary Hypocrisy Shines Through

In just a couple of weeks, Democrat hypocrisy on immigration has gone from a steady flow to an overwhelming torrent. Their complete disregard even for their own policies when it comes to applying them to illegal immigration is remarkable. For no reason other than that it would require them to stop demagoguing Trump and instead start working with him, Democrats once again show that power trumps principle with a few recent examples.

Consider the response to the humanitarian crisis at the border—one that continues to grow apace, directly propelled by our weak asylum laws and lax border enforcement. Democrats scoff at claims by the Trump Administration and Customs and Border Enforcement about the activities of cartels and human smugglers at the border, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

A new report from the nonpartisan RAND Corporation found that smugglers and cartels earned as much as $2.3 billion from Central American migrants in 2017. Failure to address the crisis at the border is directly lining the pockets of, as the report dubs them, “transnational criminal enterprises” (TCOs).

As the report explains:

Drug-trafficking TCOs . . . control primary smuggling corridors into the United States and charge migrants a “tax” known as a piso, to pass through their territories. In addition, drug-trafficking TCOs may also coordinate some unlawful migrants’ border crossings to divert attention from other illicit activities, and recruit or coerce some to carry drugs.

That last finding is key. As Border Patrol resources continue to be diverted away from actually policing the border toward dealing with the massive influx of families and unaccompanied minors, cartels and smugglers are able to engage in cross-border mischief with almost no interference. Members of Congress who take the time to go to the border have seen it first-hand.

The human smuggling industry is also growing like gangbusters. The RAND report puts the take for all kinds of smuggling from $200 million to $2.3 billion in 2017. And the stories of sexual abuse—particularly of migrant women and girls—are well documented by leading left-wing outlets: the New York Times, Huffington Post, even Doctors Without Borders.

Yet not a peep is heard from the Left, the party that tells us they believe all women, and who supports a #MeToo movement that, by its own words, was founded to “help survivors of sexual violence, particularly Black women and girls, and other young women of color from low wealth communities.”

In other words, human smuggling, criminal violence, and sex trafficking matter—but only with regard to select victim groups. Because acknowledging that criminal activity is running rampant at the border means Democrats would have to stop protesting Trump and work with him to acknowledge and address the role our lax enforcement and weak asylum laws play in encouraging the victimization of these groups.

But this should not be a surprise, given that lip service is a Democratic specialty. Look no further than their response to a suggestion by the Trump administration to release detained immigrants into “sanctuary cities”—cities who intentionally disregard federal immigration enforcement law.

The Left howled at Trump’s suggestion, calling it “manufactured chaos” and as well as cynical and cruel. But, why? The president’s suggestion (which the White House has now disregarded as a policy option) is simply a logical extension of what Democrats have said for years that they want.

Over the last two years, the party has sought to limit the detention resources available to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and some have gone so far as to say the entire agency should be dismantled. Democrats are largely fine with a large number of illegal immigrants simply being able to live freely in the United States, without consequence.

In 2013, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) flatly stated Democrats’ “view of the law is that . . . if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not a reason for deportation.” Former San Antonio mayor and presidential candidate Julián Castro has suggested that illegal border crossings be decriminalized entirely: “The truth is, immigrants seeking refuge in our country . . . shouldn’t be a criminal justice issue.” His fellow presidential contender, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) has openly advocated tearing down existing border barriers.

That’s why liberal cities have fashioned themselves as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, after all. They see nothing wrong with the act of crossing the border illegally. In fact, illegal immigrants who live in College Park, Maryland, and San Francisco, can now vote in municipal and school board elections. California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom, used his inaugural address in January to propose strengthening the state’s sanctuary law by making illegal immigrants eligible for the state’s version of Medicaid care until age 26.

So, why, then, were so many Democrats up in arms over Trump’s proposal to simply give them what they say they want? They’ve intentionally made their cities magnets for illegal immigrants, why shouldn’t they want the responsibility of supporting them?

Ironically, in “resisting” Trump, the singer Cher stumbled onto the point (and, also managed to highlight the hypocritical irony of the entire situation). “I understand helping struggling immigrants,” she tweeted, “but my city (Los Angeles) isn’t taking care of its own. What about the 50,000+ citizens who live on the streets. People who live below poverty line, and hungry? If my state can’t take care of its own (many are vets) how can it take care of more?”

Yes, Cher. Exactly. The country cannot encourage and then support the creation of a permanent underclass of illegal immigrants when our resources are already strained to the breaking point. It cannot be a shining example of justice while willfully ignoring the black market for human beings created in response to our border policies.

If the Left is consistent is anything, it is in their loudly telling the rest of us how to live while refusing to acknowledge the consequences of what they espouse or live up to their own principles.  

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

2016 Election • Democrats • Donald Trump • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Political Parties • Post • Republicans • The Left • The Resistance (Snicker)

After Mueller, Nobody Has Changed Their Views on Trump

Nothing has changed.

Just about no one has moved away from where they stood on November 9, 2016, when they woke up trying to comprehend that Donald J. Trump had overcome the odds, the press, and his own shortcomings to win that presidential election.

If you voted for him, you are still thrilled and optimistic about the future. I outlined in the book I co-authored with Brad Todd, The Great Revolt, that the election was never quite about Trump. Many of his voters saw his flaws with eyes wide open and voted heavily out of concern for their community, not necessary for themselves.

Many who did not vote for Trump loathe him with the intensity of a white-hot poker prodding at their soul. Their hair is still on fire, and nothing in the world can extinguish it until he is out of the White House, preferably in handcuffs.

If you are a reporter who lives and works within the counties that surround Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, it’s been a tough go. You don’t work with anyone in your newsroom who would have voted for Trump. You don’t socialize with anyone who voted for Trump. And you likely don’t know anyone at your children’s school who voted for Trump.

Many reporters, though not all, often view these voters monolithically rather than as the complex coalition they have formed, painting them with a broad brush. They see the Trump voters as foolish or fooled at best, and as bigoted, unintelligent and backward at worst.

Reporters marvel at these voters’ unwillingness to give up on a struggling town and move to a larger city or region, never understanding that they often happily trade a higher salary or a career with bonuses in another city for staying in a community where they have deep roots.

Since the day after Trump won, reports on his win focused heavily on his loss of the popular vote. Then there were the overhyped stories about a Wisconsin recount. Then the story developed that he only won because of Russia and that he probably helped Russia “hack the election.”

This simply reinforced Trump backers’ support for the man. Haters will hate.

Which brings us back to this: Nothing has changed since Election Day 2016, because everything had changed for the C-suite influencers who control our culture, politics, entertainment, big tech, and news consumption. They chose to ignore the signs—or, in their arrogance, they just missed what had been in plain sight for decades.

The fusion of conservatives and populists who make up the Trump coalition that placed Trump in the White House will continue long after whatever date the president leaves office. And despite the efforts of the press, and despite Trump’s own actions, those in the Trump coalition are unlikely to change their mind, because the only alternative is an elite who paints them as a villainous segment of our society.


Photo credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

American Conservatism • Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Deep State • Featured Article • Intelligence Community • Middle East • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • The Resistance (Snicker)

Same People Behind Iraq War Lies Pushed Russian Collusion


For more than two years they misled us.

Exploiting fear and confusion after a shocking event, they warned that our country was in imminent danger at the hands of a mad man. They insisted that legitimate intelligence, including a CIA report issued a month before a national election and a dossier produced by reliable sources in the United Kingdom, proved the threat was real. The subject monopolized discussions on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in the press.

They argued that the situation was so dire that it was straining our relationship with strategic allies. Any evidence to the contrary was readily dismissed. And anyone who questioned their agenda was ridiculed as a coward, a dupe, or a conspiracy theorist. The news media dedicated endless air time and column inches to anyone who wanted to repeat the falsehood.

But an investigative report released two years after the propaganda campaign began found no evidence to support their central claim. The CIA report was highly flawed. The official dossier, some concluded, was deceptive and “sexed-up.”

No, I’m not referring here to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, although the similarities are nearly identical. I’m talking about the period between 2002 and 2004 when many of the very same people who recently peddled collusion fiction also insisted that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction—including material to produce nuclear bombs. On the heels of the horrors of 9/11, the United States and our allies waged war against Iraq in 2003 based primarily on that assurance.

But in 2004, a special advisor to the CIA concluded Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There were no stockpiles of biological or chemical agents; no plans to develop a nuclear bomb. The main argument for the war had been wholly discredited. But it was too late: The conflict officially raged on for another seven years, including a “surge” of 20,000 more U.S. troops in 2007 at the behest of the late Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). We still have a troop presence in Iraq to this day.

In between the two scandals was more than a decade of recriminations against once-trusted experts on the Right who led our nation into battle. The Iraq war cost the lives of more than 4,400 U.S. troops, maimed tens of thousands more and resulted in an unquantifiable amount of emotional, mental, and physical pain for untold numbers of American military families. Suicide rates for servicemen and veterans have exploded leaving thousands more dead and their families devastated. And it has cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and counting.

So, these discredited outcasts thought they found in the Trump-Russia collusion farce a way to redeem themselves in the news media and recover their lost prestige, power, and paychecks. After all, it cannot be a mere coincidence that a group of influencers on the Right who convinced Americans 16 years ago that we must invade Iraq based on false pretenses are nearly the identical group of people who tried to convince Americans that Donald Trump conspired with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, an allegation also based on hearsay and specious evidence.

It cannot be an innocent mistake. It cannot be explained away as an example of ignorance in the defense of national security or democracy or human decency. It cannot be justified as a mere miscalculation based on the “best available information at the time” nor should we buy any of the numerous excuses that they offered up to rationalize the war.

In fact, one can draw a straight line between the approach of neoconservative propagandists from the Iraq War travesty and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. The certainty with which they pronounced their dubious claims, their hyperbolic warnings about pending doom—all eerily similar:

Bill Kristol in 2003: “We look forward to the liberation of our own country and others from the threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and to the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal and sadistic tyrant.”

Bill Kristol in 2018: “It seems to me likely Mueller will find there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives; that Trump knew about it; and that Trump sought to cover it up and obstruct its investigation. What then? Good question.”

John McCain in 2003: “I believe that, obviously, we will remove a threat to America’s national security because we will find there are still massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

John McCain in 2017: “There’s a lot of aspects with this whole relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin that requires further scrutiny. In fact, I think there’s a lot of shoes to drop from this centipede. This whole issue of the relationship with the Russians and who communicated with them and under what circumstances clearly cries out for an investigation.”

David Frum in 2002 (writing for President George W. Bush): “States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.“

David Frum in 2016: “I never envisioned an Axis of Evil of which one of the members was the US National Security Adviser.”

Max Boot in 2003: “I hate to disappoint all the conspiracy-mongers out there, but I think we are going into Iraq for precisely the reasons stated by President Bush: to destroy weapons of mass destruction, to bring down an evil dictator with links to terrorism, and to enforce international law.”

Max Boot in 2019: “If this is what it appears to be, it is the biggest scandal in American history—an assault on the very foundations of our democracy in which the president’s own campaign is deeply complicit. There is no longer any question whether collusion occurred. The only questions that remain are: What did the president know? And when did he know it?”

Those are just a handful of examples from a deep trove of comparisons. Other accomplices on the Right involved in both scandals include former NSA Director Michael Hayden; former Weekly Standard editor Stephen Hayes; MSNBC host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough; neoconservative think tankers Robert Kagan and Eliot Cohen; and former Bush aides Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner.

Even George W. Bush questioned aloud last year whether alleged Russian meddling “affected the outcome of the election.”

And let’s not forget who was in charge of the FBI before, during, and after the Iraq War: Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel hired in May 2017 to find evidence of Russian collusion. In his February 2003 Senate testimony, Mueller confirmed reports that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and expressed concern that Hussein “may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material.” James Comey, Mueller’s close friend and successor at the FBI, served as George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general from 2003 to 2005. Comey, of course, is the man who opened an investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016 and signed the FISA application in October 2016 to spy on Trump campaign aide, Carter Page. Both, we’ve been assured repeatedly, were Republicans.

A Deficit of Humility and Introspection
So why did they do it? Why did Kristol, McCain, Frum, Boot, et. al., dive headlong and without shame into a domestic political war with just as much thoughtless braggadocio as they brought to the disastrous Iraq war? Clearly, this war did not have the same deadly results as the war in Iraq but, nonetheless, it fueled an unprecedented degree of anger and division among our countrymen and toward our new president. It ensnared innocent people who suffered real-life consequences, their fate grotesquely cheered by these mendacious fraudsters.


If you had the blood of so many young Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqis on your hands because you peddled a lie, wouldn’t you be a tad more cautious before repeating that kind of mistake? If you assured Americans that the Iraq war would last just a few months, as Bill Kristol said in 2002, but instead it ended up lasting eight years, wouldn’t you be chastened about making more predictions? If your actions led directly to the election of a Democratic president who launched his winning campaign based on your egregious failures, wouldn’t you hesitate before inserting yourself in another scandal that gave fodder to your political opponents at your expense?

The answer, apparently, is “no.”

It’s unlikely any of these collusion propagandists on the Right truly believed the contents of the Steele dossier. One reason they played along was to exact revenge against the man who won the White House over their objections and called their bluff on the Iraq War: Donald Trump.

When Trump stood on a debate stage in February 2016 and said the Iraq war was a “big, fat mistake,” he didn’t just say it to a random Republican opponent. He said it directly to Jeb Bush, the brother of the president who launched the war. “George Bush made a mistake, we should never have been in Iraq,” Trump seethed. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none.”

The crowd mostly booed. But Trump didn’t back down. In a post-debate interview on Fox News, Trump reiterated his criticism. “The Iraq war was a disaster. We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. What do we have?” he asked Tucker Carlson. “We have nothing, absolutely nothing.” Nothing except a massive bill in blood and treasure borne mostly by the middle and working class.

At the time, Trump’s view was well outside the mainstream of conservative orthodoxy. Republicans were not inclined to admit failure on the battlefield, let alone to doubt the motives of intelligence, military, and political leadership we had trusted and were taught not to question. “Challenging the assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction would draw scorn and mockery,” Adam Mill reminded us in an excellent piece for American Greatness. Further, with near-unanimous consent, House and Senate Republicans voted in 2002 to authorize military force against Iraq.

But Trump laid bare the culpability of the failed war’s Republican architects. He exposed the lingering guilt many rank-and-file Republicans felt about their unflinching support for a war that ultimately was based on a docket of falsehoods and empty promises. A war its promoters were eager to get into but had no plan to win.

Crossing a Red Line
Further, Trump intended to halt the Republican Party’s fealty to the Bush Doctrine. The post-9/11 foreign policy of the neoconservatives running the Bush Administration
centered around preemptive war, regime change, and the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

But 15 years later, Trump called out the doctrine’s failures and faulted those who authored it: “That’s why I have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war,” Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April 2016. “We have to look to new people because many of the old people frankly don’t know what they’re doing.”

At a campaign rally in May 2016, Trump specifically mocked Kristol. “All the guy [Kristol] wants to do is kill people even though he knows it’s not working although he doesn’t know because he’s not smart enough.”

A red line, so to speak, had been crossed. The candidate likely to win the Republican presidential nomination was taking direct aim at the elite Republican establishment so they responded in kind. Dozens of Republican national security and intelligence experts denounced Trump in an August 2016 public letter, insisting he would be a “dangerous president and put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.” Kristol enlisted an independent candidate to run against Trump.

At the very same time, the Obama White House and top Democratic officials in his administration were circulating the Steele dossier and investigating the Trump campaign for possible collusion with the Russians. (After the election, McCain and one of his advisors distributed the phony Steele dossier to the FBI, lawmakers, and reporters.)

The symmetry is impossible to ignore or dismiss as coincidence. The Trump-Russia collusion hoax was a chance for these jilted influencers to get revenge against a president and a party that no longer had any use for them. Trump threatened their long-held grasp of centralized power, so they did everything they could to hold on to it, including siding with the Left to sabotage him. It was a craven act of self-restoration. Excommunicated by the Right, they sought to redeem themselves by sucking up to the Left, which not so long ago accused Iraq war promoters of being criminals.

Utterly Shameless and Undeterred
The question now is, will the Left shun these useful idiots once and for all? Now that their role in pushing the collusion narrative from the anti-Trump Right is over, will they stop booking Kristol on CNN? Will the 
Washington Post stop publishing Boot and Wehner and Hayden? Will Jake Tapper ask them any hard question, such as, “how can you be so wrong twice in 15 years?” Will the anti-war Left remember the human destruction for which they are responsible?

Further, they viewed Robert Mueller as the man who could destroy Trump. Much like their objective in the aftermath of the Iraq war, their end goal was to be proven right that Donald Trump was unfit to lead, not actually to do what was right for the country. It was pure ego.

Unfortunately, that probably isn’t where the similarities between Russian collusion and the Iraq War will end. The collusion propagandists on the Right will never apologize for supporting the hoax—just like most have not yet apologized for leading the country into a deadly, destructive, and arguably unnecessary war. Even now, after both the Mueller investigation and the House Intelligence committee have found no evidence of collusion, they won’t let up. Kristol is still tweeting Trump-Russian conspiracy theories and both Kristol and Frum are creating new conspiracies about the Mueller report. They know no shame.

In another ironic twist, authors David Corn and Michael Isikoff wrote a book, Hubris, that lamented the lack of accountability for the neoconservative pushers of the Iraq war. “If you look at the media cheerleaders from that time . . . David Brooks, Bill Kristol . . . did they lose one speaking engagement? Did they lose the fee for one column?” Corn asked during a 2013 MSNBC interview. “There was no price to be paid.”

Corn and Isikoff were the two reporters who published Steele dossier-sourced articles prior to the 2016 presidential election. Isikoff’s article was cited extensively in the October 2016 FISA application on Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Of course, they won’t pay a price, either.

So, there may not be a short-term price for the Iraq War/Trump-Russia propagandists on the Right to pay. The only consolation, if there is one, is that these con men are unlikely to ever to have a home again in the Republican Party. They will not have any influence; they’ll be political poison for any candidate dumb enough to seek their endorsement.

They can never again initiate a foreign war that costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Yes, they’ll be played for fools at CNN, MSNBC and in the Washington Post—trotted out as “conservatives” to condemn Republicans who are actually advancing policies that help the country. But they will never be taken seriously by anyone on the Right; to the contrary, they’ll be a collective cautionary tale for future generations of Republican leaders and influencers.

While they are not directly responsible for enormous bloodshed in this instance, like they are for the Iraq War, their deception about Trump-Russia collusion did result in actual harm to hundreds of people victimized by the farce. Every Trump family member and associate has been under a shadow of manufactured suspicion since the election; ditto for every White House aide, cabinet member, and former campaign worker. The amount of money and time wasted on this travesty will never fully be known.

Carter Page, a former U.S. Navy officer, was stalked relentlessly by the media and congressional investigators—and was a recipient of numerous death threats—not to mention spied on by his own government for a year in a fruitless attempt to find collusion between the campaign and the Kremlin. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, still not sentenced more than 18 months after his plea deal for one count of lying to federal officials, is bankrupt. The home of Roger Stone was raided by the FBI at dawn; he, too, is going bankrupt. The civil libertarians and so-called freedom-loving conservatives all have been silent on these political persecutions.

Will the Fraudsters Get Away With It Again?
The country has been divided by hate and rage and unjustified distrust. Legitimate problems—such as illegal immigration, sustained job growth for the middle class, faulty trade agreements, the opioid crisis—have been completely ignored by our ruling class with the exception of President Trump. Calls to retaliate against Russia have been far and wide, while real international threats, such as China, North Korea, and ISIS have been overlooked by the collusion propagandists. This has been their intention all along; with no solutions to offer for any of these issues, the vanquished neoconservatives cling to relevance by spinning fabulist tales all in service of destroying a Republican president.

The goal of the intersectional Iraq War and Trump-Russia collusion fraudsters was clear: Regime change. The playbook is nearly identical—produce flawed intelligence, rally support from the media, portray any opponent as a bad actor, keep creating new crimes. However this time, instead of seeking to depose an Iraqi tyrant, the collusion propagandists within the conservative establishment sought to remove a duly elected U.S. president.

This is unconscionable and likely illegal. It’s the reason why Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) this week is expected to make at least eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to the real scandal: The weaponization of the world’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence apparatus to sabotage a rival presidential campaign and derail an incoming administration.

That’s a necessary start. But those who did not engage in specifically illegal activity but nonetheless bolstered those venal efforts also must be held responsible. They escaped justice and accountability once—they can’t get away with it again. They must be shamed into political oblivion.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Donald Trump • Hillary Clinton • Law and Order • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Dear Citizen Collusion Truther—You Own This, Too


Hey, what’s up . . . wait, where are you going?

Why the dark glasses? Did you dye your hair? What’s with all the deleted tweets and Facebook posts lately?

Oh, I get it. Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn’t find any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Ruskies to throw the 2016 election, you want to move on. Act like it never happened. Or at least pretend that you weren’t part of the whole damn hoax from the start.

But . . . not so fast.

It wasn’t just the entire American media infrastructure—every broadcast network, cable news outlet, opinion page, political website, blue-checked social media account, washed-up D.C. pundit, unhinged MSNBC host, irrelevant Bush hanger-on, complicit Obama lackey, and Clinton bitter clinger who fell for the Trump-Russia collusion fairy tale. It wasn’t just every Democratic lawmaker and candidate—and a good chunk of the establishment Republican elite—who peddled a bogus story for two years. It wasn’t just every Hollywood actress, producer, legend, fluffer, has-been and late night host who caterwauled for months about Trump’s treachery.

You did it, too, my fellow citizen.

For two years, you helped do the dirty work of the vanquished Hillary Clinton campaign and the sore-loser Democratic Party. You reposted memes on your Facebook and Instagram pages that depicted Donald Trump as a Putin puppet, even suggesting tongue-in-cheek (in a way that you’d call homophobic if the other side did it) that Trump was Putin’s gay lover. You warned your neighbors that Trump’s son was a traitor. You insisted to your co-workers that, yes, Trump’s campaign team was populated by Russian agents and that the president’s attorney general, his secretary of state, his education secretary, his national security advisor, his son-in-law—among others—were Kremlin plants in the new administration.

You actually believed that Carter Page was a spy. You actually believed that the FBI opened up an investigation into the Trump campaign because a drunken George Papadopoulos said he had Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. You actually believed that Trump urinated on a Russian prostitute at a Moscow hotel. You actually believed that a teeny tiny batch of Facebook memes and Twitter posts allegedly controlled by Moscow masterminds somehow convinced voters in Michigan and Wisconsin to vote for Donald Trump.

You believed that Michael Cohen went to Prague. You believed that Russia hacked the DNC email system and fed those emails to Wikileaks. You believed that Roger Stone orchestrated the release of those emails. You believed that Sam Nunberg and Jerome Corsi and Konstantin Kilimnik had the goods on Trump.

You tuned into Joe Scarborough each morning and Rachel Maddow each night, desperate to gratify your collusion urges with their passionate rants about Trump and Putin. Ditto for Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper and Chris Cuomo. The pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post read like collusion porn every morning, teasing you and titillating you with erotic tales about secret phone calls and mysterious interpreters and raven-haired Russian lawyers.

You swooned over Adam Schiff. You suddenly believed every word of faux conservatives such as Bill Kristol and David Frum and Max Boot; people you had held in contempt prior to the 2016 election. You retweeted every post by the Krassenstein brothers, Kathy Griffin, and Alyssa Milano.

You bought prayer candles with Robert Mueller’s face etched across the glass and instead of sending Christmas cards last year, you sent everyone a weird video of washed-up celebrities singing “We Wish You a Mueller Christmas.” You signed every petition to “Protect Robert Mueller!” and reposted every commercial that warned Congress to “Save the Special Counsel!” You worried that Russian bot accounts were trying to mess with Mueller.

You bought James Comey’s book. You bought Andrew McCabe’s book. You donated to Peter Strzok’s GoFundMe page. You urged Sally Yates to run for office. You believed that Christopher Steele was just a former British spy whose dossier was totally legit. You were bummed Rod Rosenstein didn’t wear a wire while talking to the sitting president of the United States. You were equally bummed that Paul Manafort isn’t going to die in prison.

You were the baritone in the Trump-Russia collusion quartet, harmonizing along with the news media, the Democrats and the NeverTrump Republicans: “The walls are closing in!” “Trump’s days are numbered!” “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when!” “His cabinet is turning on him, ready to invoke the 25th Amendment!” “He’s brooding and angry and lashing out at staff as Mueller gets closer to finding out the truth!” “Trump won’t survive the week/month/year/term!”

Details and evidence were of no concern to you. You believed all of the following things for no reason other than that you wanted to. Trump told the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails before the election. (He didn’t.) Donald Trump Jr. colluded with Russia when he met in June 2016 for 20 minutes with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower. (The meeting was a setup between Russian lobbyists working with Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS which produced the dossier, and Trump’s campaign team. No “dirt” on Hillary Clinton was passed along.)

Mike Flynn promised the Russian ambassador that Trump would drop sanctions against Russia. (No such promise was made.) President Trump told James Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. (The only evidence that Trump suggested such a thing is Comey’s own memo; Trump was unaware of the investigation into his campaign at the time.)

And so on.

But the most compelling evidence that you refused to accept was right before your very eyes the entire time. In nearly two years, Mueller did not charge one person with so-called “collusion.” Not one associate tied to the Trump campaign was indicted or convicted of any crime related to the election.

I know you still have hope that the full Mueller report will contain some far-fetched nugget of collusion evidence to vindicate your gullibility/ignorance/foolishness. You’ve already moved the goalposts to an imaginary crime of obstruction of justice even though there was no underlying crime to obstruct.

History will not be kind to the Trump-Russia collusion truthers in Congress, the expert class, Hollywood, and the media. But history also shouldn’t forget the role that you, Citizen Collusion Truther, played in this. No matter how many tweets and Facebook posts you delete, it cannot erase your complicit stupidity in this scandal.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: drbimages/Getty Images

2016 Election • Administrative State • Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Hillary Clinton • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • Russia • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

No Recriminations for the Real Collusion

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

The total exoneration of President Trump and his campaign has given his voters a few days of smiles and happy headlines, but not deep satisfaction. The claim that Donald Trump, his family, and his staff were traitors and Russian agents remains a sickening reminder of the corruption of our FBI, Department of Justice, and Barack Obama’s administration. The debasement of our once free press into a state propaganda ministry is an ongoing assault on our country. None of these problems are resolved with the end of Robert Mueller’s witch hunt.

The Russia collusion hoax has left the credibility of our justice system in tatters. We did, in fact, have Russian collusion to affect the outcome of 2016 the electionand it was entirely the handiwork of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Justice requires not only that the innocent are exonerated, but that the guilty are punished. It isn’t going to happen. Justice takes a second seat to politics.

How It Came to Be
It was obvious from the first that Hillary Clinton, via Fusion GPS, was the creative force behind the Russian collusion hoax. The euphemism “dossier” could not disguise what was soon revealed to be a concoction of opposition research lies. Worse, Clinton’s accusations were produced in collusion with Russian agents—“dossier” author and former British spy Christopher Steele relied on old contacts in Moscow to relay unverifiable gossip—in order to discredit the outcome of a presidential election.

As for holding President Obama and his administration responsible for their many criminal actions? I don’t know why journalists write columns raising this possibility when they know it will never happen.

It doesn’t matter who is attorney general when the Justice Department remains packed with Obama loyalists. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s slow-walking of Trump appointments for two years has kept the deep state in power. Justice from that quarter seems unlikely. But those aren’t the most important barriers to justice. There will be no special investigator into the Russia hoax.

Talking about uncovering the miscreants behind the hoax is good for clicks and polling. Doing something? Years of further investigations likely would alienate milquetoast suburban moms and the vast majority of blacks. It is not smart politics. Trump needs to peel off some of those voters, and going after Clinton and Obama would be counterproductive to his reelection hopes.

A few high-profile, lower level agents may feel some heat, but not the top dogs. I doubt if the investigation would rise to the level of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. All three would get us close to President Obama. No one is going after Obama, ever.

Over and over, Trump’s voters have been told the next investigator would be an honest cop, like Gary Cooper in “High Noon.” This time, Clinton and Obama’s criminal shenanigans would be called to account. Don’t make me laugh.

Does anyone remember how often we were told that former FBI Director James Comey was a bipartisan straight shooter? That Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was loyal and courageous and hated false accusations? We were assured that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz was the upright man who would expose the fake Clinton investigation and clean house at the FBI. That never happened.

Unjust Double Standards
Each time we’ve had to relearn the bitter lesson that America has a two-tiered justice system: one for politically well-connected Democrats and one for the rest of us.

It just happened again, with a Chicago prosecutor letting “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett walk free, ignoring the grand jury findings of probable cause that he faked a hate crime to smear Trump supporters. There was a call to the Cook County attorney from Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, a $10,000 “contribution” (in the form of a surrendered bail bond) and a clean slate with no trial. The true hate crime is ignored: the lie that Trump supporters are racist, homophobic thugs. That hate gets a free pass, although more than once it has led to violence, including attempted murder. The country is once again damaged by liberal race-baiting, and Democrats are happy.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham’s scathing denunciation of Democrats during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings rings truer than ever. “Boy, y’all want power. I hope you never get it,” Graham said. “I hope the American people can see through this sham. God, I hate to say it, because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you’re looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.”

Those are the political reasons nothing will be done about the Russia hoax.

Media Complicity and Cooperation
The second reason is equally ominous for our country
how the Democrats get away with it. We can’t have political accountability without an honest media. Fox News is mostly honest, but it does not reach low-information voters and Democrats.  We’ve always had a partisan mainstream media, pretending to be objective. Now they have become outright liars. That is why justice will never be done.

The Clinton-Obama team, including key players in Obama’s inner circle such as Susan Rice and John Brennan, and also the crooked agents and lawyers in the FBI and Justice Department, could not have carried off the Russian collusion hoax to subvert our presidential election without the wholehearted collusion of the American press.

The Russian collusion hoax has been debunked, but the underlying problems remain. Throughout the Obama years, the press willingly transformed itself into a propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee. They had to hide damning facts about Obama’s career as an American-hating Alinskyite or he would never have been nominated, much less elected.

The press suppressed the video of Obama with anti-Israeli radical Rashid Khalidi. They suppressed the photo of Obama with his arm around Farrakhan. They hid that Obama’s church for 20 years was not only anti-white and anti-Jewish, but also socialistcongregants took a “black value system” pledge against “the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”  The press hid candidate Obama cheating in the primary against Hillary Clinton. The media repeated the lie that the Illinois senator was not close to the “radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” convicted terrorist Bill Ayers. Facts on record showed that Ayers hired Obama for the biggest job of his life, distributing $100 million meant to help Chicago’s schoolchildren, which they siphoned off for radical causes instead.

Protecting Obama’s presidency from scrutiny required ongoing corruption from the press corps. The sins of omission got bigger and more consequential as the Obama presidency wore on. Somewhere along the way, they turned to sins of commission, with the media pushing lies to help Obama get re-elected and free from damaging scandals.

They had to hide the fact that Obama siphoned off $640 million from bank fines and directed the funds to radical groups. They made light of his administration weaponizing the IRS against political opposition. They happily fed into the echo chamber the administration’s lies about the Iran nuclear weapons deal. And, of course, they recycled the administration’s phony talking points about the Benghazi disaster.

Most of all, the press had to push the lie that Obama was a “moderate” and a “racial healer,” despite his cynical incitement of racial division over the corpse of Trayvon Martin and his role in advancing the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie in Ferguson, Missouri.  The press supported the lies and set back race relations in this country by many decades.

After nine years of covering up for Obama, it was second nature for the press to push the Obama-Clinton frame-up of Trump as a Russian stooge.  

The danger and destruction this propaganda press is visiting upon America cannot be overstated.

Without the checks of a professional press, Democrats will never be held to account, not in the courts and not in the court of public opinion.

Progressive America is free to run amok. They have not been chastised and they will not stop.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Administrative State • Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Law and Order • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Constitution • The Resistance (Snicker)

Still Dreaming of Watergate II

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

From left, Carl Bernstein, William Cohen, Bob Woodward, and John Dean talk at the Watergate complex on the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in.

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Of all the asinine and, at times, almost psychotic misstatements about the bone-crushing victory the president has won, the prize goes, with admirable historical symmetry, to John Dean.

It was Dean who led the destruction of lawyer-client privilege in the Watergate debacle, and with it, of much of America’s claim to be a society of laws. Having been the corrupt source of many of the most fatuous illegalities in the amateur obstruction put forward by members of President Richard Nixon’s entourage, John Dean was the first rat down the hawser, denouncing his client, employer, and benefactor with contemptuous disregard for the truth and in the supreme demonstration of the evil of the American plea bargain system.

This perversion of the justice system, more than anything else, has ensured that prosecutors in the United States, win a percentage of their cases about equal to those of North Korea and Cuba. They extort inculpatory evidence against the main target by threatening witnesses and give the denunciators immunity from perjury and a sweetheart sentence.

Dean’s performance exceeds in venality even the antics of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, American history’s most successful fiction-writers. (At least Gore Vidal acknowledged he was writing historical novels.) Odious though Woodward and Bernstein are, irritatingly imperishable though they are, as far as I know they didn’t break any laws and didn’t dishonor a learned profession. (Having employed thousands of journalists for decades, I can attest that they aren’t part of a profession and few of them are learned.)

With that preamble to remind us of what we are dealing with in John Dean, I cite his tweet on Friday night at 11:55, after news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had given Attorney General William Barr his report and that he would recommend no more indictments: “Trump and his minions think they dodged a bullet. I have a notion—that Mueller delivered a bomb to AG Barr, who is now trying to figure out how to tell Trump in a way that doesn’t cause him to start World War III. Barr knows he works for a psycho.”

Thus are we reminded of the prescience and integrity of one of the sleaziest characters in American political history, the Michael Avenatti of his times, though thanks to the president he betrayed and traduced, he achieved an ostensibly serious position.

Democrats Vying to Embarrass Themselves
Others who inflict upon themselves more often than I do the cruel punishment of looking at the more egregiously bigoted news outlets are already presenting delicious examples of malicious and dishonest idiocy among the apostles of the Russian collusion fraud.

I cannot resist offering, however,  the two stupidest comments I heard from the bloated dunciad of Democratic presidential candidates. Naturally, the grand prize goes to the vapidest person ever touted as a presidential candidate in my 63 years as an observer of American politics, Beto O’Rourke. Just before the revelation that there would be no further indictments, Beto asserted his knowledge “beyond the slightest doubt” that the president was guilty, in effect, of high treason—that he would only escape the death penalty because the United States and Russia were not at war. (But neither were they when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953.) And the day Trump was completely cleared of the collusion suspicion, O’Rourke declared that the investigation of Trump must continue.

Close at Beto’s heels is the almost equally simple-minded and even more pretentious straw-haired airhead, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). Standing in front of the Trump Hotel in Washington on Sunday, she called the president “a coward” and then Gillibrand (“I chose to be brave”) said he was still a prime suspect of collusion with Russia, 90 minutes before the release of the attorney general’s letter to the leaders of the Senate and House judiciary committees. I stop here, but not for any lack of other worthy contestants to win the sweepstakes for malice and foolishness.

In the convulsive aftermath of the sudden death of the whole impeachment fraud, the grievously outnumbered elements of the media who had kept their heads through the whole saga were severely overworked calling the witless majority of media assassins to account. The most durable and contemptible of all American media mythmakers, Carl Bernstein, claimed the role of the anti-Trump media was heroic and entirely admirable. He did so on CNN, and so was not asked by his co-defamer Brian Stelter, who although he is only 33, manages to look like he lost his hair fighting alongside Senator Da Nang Dick Blumenthal in Vietnam. Of course, Bernstein was not probingly questioned. He never has been. This mad and pandemical egotism of the Washington media is precisely the reason why this time, the almost suicidal failure of the media must be run to ground.

No Forgiveness Without Conversion
I am venerable enough to have been a publisher of small daily newspapers at the time of Watergate, and I was one of the very few who warned where the criminalization of policy differences would lead. Eventually, Richard Nixon will be seen as the troubled but courageous, talented, and irrepressible American hero and very successful president that he was, (and was always perceived to be by his scores of millions of followers). He has been short-changed in recognition of his greatness and over-penalized for his faults, but history will sort it out, as he knew. (I had the privilege of knowing him in his last five years.)

The same ghastly group-narcissism that showered media awards among the Watergate jackals flared up again, like Camus’ description of the Plague, with Pulitzers to the New York Times and Washington Post for their obscene campaigns of lies about Trump-Russian collusion. The president spoke nothing but the truth when he said on Monday: “It was an illegal take-down that failed.”

It need hardly be emphasized that the right to freedom of expression is sacrosanct, and any attempt to muzzle or intimidate the media would be anathema. Even so, as the almost certain crimes of Hillary Clinton and some of her inner circle and allies—former intelligence chiefs John Brennan (now desperately backpedaling), and James Clapper, the FBI’s own James Comey and Andrew McCabe, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her deputy Sally Yates, Yates’ successor Rod Rosenstein, and many lesser figures—are resurrected and charged, untainted elements of the media must conduct a process of chastisement and reinduction of their wayward colleagues. The mercy of forgiveness must await those visited by the grace of conversion, in this case to honest reporting and the separation of reporting of facts from tendentious personal opinion. (Both must be expressed, but not commingled.)

Having been the victim of the evils of the American criminal justice system, I would not have it inflicted on others. In any case, I do not believe in the incarceration of nonviolent, first-time offenders. I wouldn’t ask more than some community service for those who seriously broke the law in the 2016 election and its aftermath.

But it was an attempted coup that would never have come to light if Hillary Clinton had won. The perpetrators must be given the opportunity to atone for their crimes and expiate them, and American posterity must understand the sanctity of the constitutional process. Those who deliver great nations from terrible fates are not always people who seem to have been selected by casting studios. This president’s imperfections are not indiscernible, but he has shown himself to be a courageous and indomitable leader in excruciatingly difficult circumstances. And he is the president; those who want him out can vote against him at the next election.

Having expressed my wish for gentle sentencing, I proclaim what must now be the wish of the majority toward those who so gravely threatened the democratic republican system of American government. I am not a pious man, but so important is the proper outcome of this prolonged crisis, I am moved to cite Judeo-Christian Scripture: “God of Vengeance, God to whom vengeance belongs; show Thyself.” Then it will be time for mercy, even unto the most unworthy, who shall be nameless, such as John Dean and Carl Bernstein.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post

Administrative State • Congress • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • Law and Order • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Constitution • The Resistance (Snicker)

A Lawless Probe Comes to an End

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Attorney General Bill Barr on Sunday sent Congress a letter devastating to NeverTrumpers and Democrats alike: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

Since the probe began in May 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office issued 5.8 subpoenas per business day. Per business day, Mueller’s team dragged in a hapless American for an interrogation. At least two witnesses complained that the Mueller team pressured them to lie about the president. Mueller obtained his conviction against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn by bankrupting him and reportedly threatening to prosecute the man’s son.

Mueller conducted a SWAT-team raid on an unarmed man’s house for the crime of allegedly lying to Congress. Mueller snatched tens of thousands of Trump emails without a warrant or prior notice to the president’s transition team. Mueller held Paul Manafort, a 69-year-old man, in prolonged solitary confinement to pressure him to “flip” on Trump—a treatment some condemned as torture in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Mueller obtained 500 search warrants. That’s 500 Americans who had their Constitutional rights to privacy set aside for this investigation. Mueller obtained 2,800 subpoenas. Have you ever had to respond to a subpoena from a criminal prosecutor? It’s like a colonoscopy minus the tenderness and romance. Mueller put 2,800 Americans through that.

Mueller’s team conducted 500 interviews. Have you ever been interrogated by a federal agent? Many of these interviews went on for hours, even days. Can you imagine the pressure and intimidation that ordinary Americans must have felt in those long hours under interrogation?

As 40 agents combed through the tax records and loan applications of the many witnesses, they uncovered skeletons and pressure points to apply towards the ever closing concentric circles of Trump’s contacts. Over and over, we heard the media gleefully announce the walls were closing in on Donald Trump. Millions of dollars in private funding worked the public relations effort to sway public opinion against the president and promote his ouster. Mainstream media coordinated with the Mueller probe to leak and undermine their target.

Somehow, justice prevailed. Mueller admitted he could not show (or coerce people to say) Donald Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. The lawless nightmare initiated by Hillary Clinton and her allies in the government appears now to be drawing to a close.

They are defeated in purpose but not in capacity. Within the government, clear rogues such as senior Justice Department attorney Bruce Ohr continue to have access to awesome power as his wife, Nellie, remains open to accepting a commission to use her husband’s influence to launch the next FBI investigation. Consultants for Democrats have perfected the art of simulating Russian interference to frame the next candidate as directed by the highest bidder.

The Department of Justice owes America an apology. Aside from undermining the outcome of a presidential election, we now find ourselves under a two-tier system of justice. Elites like Hillary Clinton appear untouchable. Under our politicized federal justice system, only crimes alleged to have been committed by Trump’s allies are vigorously prosecuted. It will take years before all Americans feel like they can trust the Justice Department again.

When an FBI agent requests an interview of an administration official, he may now refuse and the sympathy of all who remember the Flynn affair is likely to be with him. When a future president actually commits criminal misconduct, it will now more difficult to get people to take seriously the prospect of investigating or prosecuting him.  

The reckoning is upon us. It is time to declassify the documents held to protect the deep state agents from the embarrassment of their lawlessness. It is time to fire the Bruce Ohrs and countless other bureaucrats who abused their positions to frustrate an election. It is time to criminally prosecute the lawless Obama-era intelligence officials who abused our surveillance tools to invade the privacy of American citizens for petty politics. It is time to root out those who undermined the duly elected president by leaking confidential discussions with foreign leaders. And, at long last, it is time to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the architect of all of this.

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Administrative State • America • Congress • Deep State • Donald Trump • Law and Order • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Constitution • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Mueller Had No Power to Exonerate, Only to Accuse

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Mitt Romney, the former candidate for president who struggled to get out from under the shadow of his pick for vice president, Paul Ryan, posted this to his social media accounts:

The Mueller investigation, led by a person of such honor and integrity, has faithfully applied the rule of law despite accusations and fears to the contrary. It is good news that the Special Counsel has concluded that neither the President nor his campaign colluded with the Russian government. And now it is time for the country to move forward.

Move forward indeed.

It’s fair to ask, what evidence is there that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is a person of honor and integrity? Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had proposed his friend Mueller as the head of the FBI, and when Trump rejected this permanent fixture of the administrative state to succeed James Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Not usual at all. An appearance of impropriety surrounds Mueller’s appointment. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Mueller’s team of 19 prosecutors and 40 FBI agents served 2,800 subpoenas to produce nothing material to the immediate scope of his investigation, only process crimes that were never tried but pleaded to in order for those accused to avoid financial ruin, the indictment of foreigners who will never be tried, and convictions on unrelated matters designed—as the judiciary noted—to coerce testimony. None of this says integrity.

In his submission to the attorney general, Mueller had the temerity to pen these words: “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime; it also does not exonerate him.” If Mueller were a first-year law student in criminal procedure he would receive a “D.” Prosecutors accuse. Only a trial by a jury of one’s peers “concludes” someone has committed a crime. Nor do prosecutors have the power to exonerate. Everyone in America, including a sitting president, is presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law.

That Mueller stumbled in his report and revealed that he has in his mind arrogated to himself the power of guilt and exoneration is a prima facie showing of a lack of integrity. These are the paces of papal inquisitors, not the actions of honest American prosecutors. Mueller’s contorted comprehension of the ground rules of our Anglo-Saxon system of justice, which rules are designed to jealously protect the liberties of the accused and any bystanders, is frightening.

Mueller’s weak comprehension of American justice is of the same species as the assault on citizenship that animates so much of the identity politics driving the administrative state. The political friendship of equal citizens requires that we hold one another innocent unless convicted through the process of law. The reciprocal affection needed to deliberate about the common good together, as friends in pursuit of a common object, cannot exist without it. This is not a ball that a prosecutor of integrity can fumble.

Given the lives ruined, should not Mueller’s office be investigated to discover his intention in trampling on these principles? If Mueller’s investigation lacked integrity, should not he and his prosecutors be disciplined? The integrity of our system of justice requires a close look at these questions, not only for the sake of future presidents but for the sake of anyone who might be subject to prosecutorial abuse.

Mueller’s comment on exoneration has another disturbing aspect. It is a message. The words “it also does not exonerate him” is a message to #TheResistance and NeverTrump to carry on frustrating this president.

David Frum tweeted: “No exoneration. The president remains a security risk.” Sadly we observe, the psychological condition of #TheResistance and NeverTrump is one of the people under the delusion that had they been alive in 1933 they would have stopped Hitler. This delusion is reinforced by their erratic actions opposing Trump. The more they oppose Trump, the more events convince them of their sanity. The more marginalized they become, the more confident they grow in their righteousness. They remind one of a schizophrenic who believes the television is speaking directly to him on behalf of a secret entity, except that Mueller is speaking directly to them, in French no less.


Photo credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

2016 Election • American Conservatism • Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Deep State • Donald Trump • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Left • The Resistance (Snicker)

NeverTrump’s Complicity in Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

As the history of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax is being written, one group deserves a vaunted perch atop the proverbial Hall of Shame: NeverTrump “conservatives.”

For nearly three years, these Trump-hating propagandists on the Right have aided the most mendacious forces on the Left in a grievous attempt to take down the Republican president of the United States. While they preened, prattled, and proselytized about how much better they are than deplorable Trumpists, NeverTrumpers en masse abandoned their so-called traditional conservative principles in order to aid a Hillary Clinton-DNC-Obama Administration scheme to destroy the political pariah who won the presidency over their collective objection.

In the process, they tried to rewrite the fundamental tenets of American conservatism.  Behavior that once would’ve sparked outrage in conservative quarters has been normalized, even justified, by self-proclaimed conservatives.

Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to present fictional opposition research as legitimate evidence to the most powerful law enforcement officials in the world. Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to violate the privacy rights of a U.S. citizen who made the mistake of volunteering for the wrong campaign. Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to frame a three-star general and cheer as he loses his reputation and his life savings over a manufactured process crime.

Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to defend the weaponization of our most trusted institutions—from the FBI to a secret court created to protect the country from foreign criminals—and disguise those actions as “the right thing to do.” Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to promote an untethered investigation run by revenge-seeking partisans and justify their manipulation of every lever of federal authority.

Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to appear on left-leaning cable news shows and editorial pages to suggest the president—without evidence—is a Russian shill, agent, stooge, and worse, a traitor, whose days are numbered. Because Trump is president, now it is “conservative” to attack Republican lawmakers attempting to expose how unelected bureaucrats abused their power to target innocent Americans.

Functionally Left-Wing
The emotional restraint and intellectual mooring that once distinguished Beltway conservatives from their counterparts on the Left is gone. Instead, the NeverTrump Russia conspiracy theorists have been as unhinged, gullible, and dishonest as the most craven commentator on MSNBC or in the Washington Post.

This rogue’s gallery includes people who at one time were some of the most trusted influencers in the Republican Party. Bill Kristol, the founder of the now-defunct Weekly Standard, accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from a left-wing tech billionaire and Trump foe to “defend” the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He was in on the Russian collusion story from the beginning, clearly parroting Fusion GPS talking points in a July 2016 article, “Putin’s Party.”

Kristol, now the editor-at-large of what appears to be a satirical “conservative” blog called The Bulwark, has an obsession with Russian collusion that borders on insanity; in November, he tweeted a remake of a “Fiddler on the Roof” tune to include the word “collusion” several times. Just last month, he posted an article about Paul Manafort’s 2016 meeting with an alleged Russian political operative at a D.C. cigar with a one-word title: “Collusion,” he tweeted. (He has dozens of tweets with the word “collusion.”)

When Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in August 2018, Kristol once again predicted doom for the president. “How do we know it is not Russia?” Kristol warned on MSNBC. “Michael Cohen may well know about the Trump Tower meeting . . . and Cohen was in touch with Trump throughout 2015 and 2016. I don’t really buy the argument that this isn’t important for the Russia side.”

Kristol’s Trump-Russia collusion fixation has been shared by his pals Jonah Goldberg and David French at National Review. Although Goldberg has publicly insisted he is a “collusion skeptic,” he has promoted several collusion plotlines, including the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Russian lobbyists and Trump’s campaign team, including the president’s oldest son.

“I think it is collusion,” Goldberg said in August 2018 during a Fox News radio interview, even as the interviewer explained how the meeting was clearly set-up by Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson. “I do think Donald Trump Jr. is in trouble . . . if he was led to believe that he was gonna get stuff that was illegally stolen from Hillary Clinton’s server or from the DNC server and that he was looking forward to getting it.” (There is no mention of emails or any server in the exchanges between Don Jr. and the intermediary.)

Goldberg then weirdly claimed, “I understand that [Don Jr.] said some things under oath to Congress about what his state of mind was going into all this.” How did he “understand” this? Was Adam Schiff was leaking private testimony to Goldberg?

Goldberg also mocked the idea that the Obama Justice Department enlisted spies to infiltrate the campaign, and claimed that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos had “expressed an eagerness to work with a foreign power, Russia.” He repeatedly suggested that Trump and his associates were behaving like men with “something to hide” about Russian collusion.

Then this in May 2018: “Meanwhile, the argument that President Trump secretly colluded with the Russians to beat Clinton has more plausibility than those shouting ‘conspiracy theory!’ and ‘witch hunt!’ are willing to entertain,” Goldberg wrote, while dismissing the real evidence about the origins of the Russiagate scandal. “In the New York Times’ telling of the story, the investigations into the Trump campaign were a necessary and good-faith effort to discern whether a foreign power had infiltrated the Trump campaign. For those who subscribe to a Hannitized version of reality, this was a lawless extension of the Deep State’s plot to thwart Trump and protect Clinton.”

Goldberg, for his part, now denies his role in spreading conspiracy theories and redirecting his aim at critics of Mueller. “I watched people on both sides of this beclown themselves with hysteria. I’ve got nothing to apologize for,” he tweeted on Saturday.

An Unforgettable—and Unforgivable—Scandal

David French also has been a Russian collusion propagandist, hysterically insisting that the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was “evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign tried unsuccessfully to facilitate Russian government efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton.” Commenting on Mueller’s list of questions for the president, French claimed that the line of inquiry “stopped me in my tracks and made me wonder if there were material facts we don’t know.” Without irony, French chided the notion that no collusion existed because “it’s totally fine to get oppo research from a hostile foreign power.”

Perhaps most embarrassing for French was his breathless attempt to legitimize a bogus BuzzFeed report in January 2019 that Donald Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. Based on innuendo in Cohen’s sentencing memo, French compared the false testimony allegation to those that led to impeachment charges against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. “It also strongly hints at potential presidential jeopardy for misconduct that has clear echoes in recent presidential scandals,” French wrote. A month later, Cohen denied that Trump told him to lie to Congress.

There are other lesser-known NeverTrumpers who have peddled the collusion hoax over the past two years: Tom Nichols, Jennifer Rubin, Evan McMullin, and Rick Wilson to name a few. None of them appears to be backing down or owning up to their own participation in this seditious plot.

“The president of the United States was helped into his job by clandestine Russian attacks on the American political process,” former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote in The Atlantic over the weekend. “That core truth is surrounded by other disturbing probabilities, such as the likelihood that Putin even now is exerting leverage over Trump in some way.”

What the Trump-Russia collusion hoax has laid bare is that so many of the people who Republicans trusted and respected for two decades were undeserving. They are as fundamentally dishonest and intentionally ignorant as the those on the Left. Their animus for the president and his supporters exceeds that of the most faithful Democratic partisan. Their eager participation in the greatest political scandal in American history—intended to overthrow a Republican president—should never be forgotten. Or forgiven.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Post • The Left • The Resistance (Snicker)

The Cryptoleftists of Conservatism, Inc.

Actions speak louder than words. Ye shall know them by their fruits. There are a lot of ways to put it, but suffice to say: “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

Last weekend, thousands of young conservative activists gathered at the National Harbor for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to listen to conservative leaders talk. The usual verbal tics of Conservatism, Inc. (liberty, capitalism, and foreign interventionism) echoed through the ballrooms of the Gaylord throughout the weekend. Aside from Michelle Malkin’s tour de force speech on America’s immigration situation, the rotting corpse of rote and unreflective Reaganism was front and center. It could have been called, “Weekend at Ronnie’s” or “Eighties Throwback Retreat.” That’s not to deride Ronald Reagan or his policies—for the most part, he and they were what America needed in the 1980s. But we aren’t living in the 1980s, and conservative thought leaders trapped in a Cold War mindset continue to mouth the same dead pieties. Reagan paid attention to the times and adapted. Why don’t they?

Still, even among those working to understand our current political moment, there is an aspect of their performance at this old dog-and-pony show that merits our derision. The harnessing of populist energy to deliver neoconservative talking points is one abuse of conservative trust in which even our president indulged. Fear mongering to young conservatives about the dangers of Stalin-era communism—a tiresome strawman thought to answer supposed millennial socialism—is another. Moreover, despite all the allusions to freedom of speech, several right-leaning contrarians were barred from entry into the conference. Laura Loomer had her press credentials revoked by CPAC because she “aggressively” questioned a CNN reporter. Simultaneously, left-wing operatives received press credentials.

Obviously, there is plenty of fodder for criticism at these types of events, and the corporate media usually all too happily obliges and pounces on them to poke fun at the conservative movement. Fine. At this point, that kind of response is predictable. What took many by surprise this time around was that some of the meanest, most gratuitous insults came from The Bulwark, that holier-than-thou reincarnation of the The Weekly Standard whose ostensible purpose is to “conserve conservatism.”

The Bulwark’s leadership sent Molly Jong-Fast to cover CPAC. Jong-Fast’s grandfather is the noted novelist, screenwriter, and communist Howard Fast. Her parents are New York City champagne socialists Jonathan Fast and Erica Jong. In addition to being the new “token lib” at The Bulwark, Jong-Fast writes gossip columns disguised as political commentary about Ivanka Trump for The Forward. She also chairs the “Arena Summit,” an organization dedicated to “convening, training, and supporting the next generation” of “progressive foot-soldiers.”

Jong-Fast delivered a predictable barrage of skin-deep incisions that attempted to make all Trump supporters look stupid. Orange Man Bad, didn’t you know?

Again, there were elements of CPAC that were objectively silly and easy to criticize. But Jong-Fast did not limit her ridicule to the ridiculous. Jong-Fast’s mindless mockery of Sara Carter and her excellent work on the opioid crisis stands out as particularly contemptuous: “Okay guys [sic], I left to go get more coffee and now there’s an insane women on stage talking about skittles parties.” The pro-life, anti-infanticide contingent caught a similar kind of fatuous derision from Jong-Fast. Drink every time someone says “post-birth abortion,” she told her followers. As if the Northam tapes revealed nothing. One wonders if this spawn of red diaper NPCs has ever had a serious independent thought, or even a thoughtful conversation with another American not groomed as she was for life as a professional leftist.

Following the money, we discover connections between The Bulwark and Ebay creator and well-heeled patron of left-wing causes, Pierre Omidyar. Julie Kelly wrote on him earlier this week:

Omidyar’s most dependable stooge on that score has been Bill Kristol, the founder of the now-defunct Weekly Standard. Last year, one of Omidyar’s funds gave $600,000 to an outlet Kristol created to pimp for the Mueller probe. That group, Defending Democracy Together, aired several television ads to tout Mueller’s alleged sterling reputation and to urge lawmakers to protect the special counsel from Trump. (The Bulwark, Kristol’s latest media venture, is a project of Defending Democracy Together’s nonprofit. Charles Sykes, The Bulwark’s editor, sits on the advisory committee for Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.)

By deploying Jong-Fast, Kristol clearly was responding to his shareholders and, no doubt, thumbing his nose at old friends he now considers beneath his contempt.

This whole thing says more about Bill Kristol, Charlie Sykes, and that other guy at The Bulwark than they could ever say for themselves. Molly Jong-Fast is an extremely run-of-the-mill, bourgeois agitator who, for all her clever snark, seems incapable of critical thinking. She cannot contain her ignorant resentment for patriots who love life, nor can she reel in her jealousy of more attractive women. Who better to represent The Bulwark than someone so remarkably bitter and shallow? Unfortunately, given Conservatism Inc.’s track record of throwing good people (their supporters!) under the bus to score cool kid points with the Left, this development from the conservers of “conservatism” comes as no surprise.

The most amazing thing about the Trump presidency is the way that cryptoleftists like Bill Kristol have been teased out of their hiding places in Conservatism, Inc., their true intentions revealed. Jong-Fast’s dispatch on Kristol’s behalf is not an example of Trumpism making strange bedfellows. Jong-Fast and Kristol are and probably were political bedfellows even without Trump; they both desire an America in which they, the urban elite, make the rules, and those idiotic middle Americans sit down and shut up forever.

There are two types of showrunners in Conservatism, Inc.: those who fear the Left and those who are the Left. The Bulwark’s founders are a good example of the latter. They do not want to “conserve conservatism” in any way that is meaningful to the word’s traditional defenders. Their primary function is to destabilize conservatism by demoralizing true conservative people and convincing conservative thought leaders (those who fear the Left) that the reductionist, materialist, neoliberal view of existence is the only acceptable political framework. The Bulwark did not include Molly Jong-Fast for the sake of free speech or humor, so we can disregard their pathetic after-the-fact justification that came only as a result of showing too much leg. If your “principles” require you to give your ostensible enemy a voice on your platform, rethink them. If your sense of humor leads you to employ a vaguely Communist, very feminist hack of a journo, you’re not very funny. But let’s not assume these people are acting in good faith. They included her because of her subversive function. This was not a misstep.

Jong-Fast’s commentary on CPAC was neither newsworthy nor interesting. A leftist attempting humor by mocking conservatives is a predictable and tired schtick we’ve seen passed off as commentary and “comedy” for decades. The only thing noteworthy about this episode is how it underscores the subversive lie underpinning the pathetic institution that is The Bulwark.

Conservatism, Inc.’s true cause is to conserve itself, which requires at times that it works in tandem with the Left, containing American patriots in a box canyon of political correctness while their enemies make plans to charge down the mountain and trammel over them. Cunning deceivers rely on the manipulation of language to trick good people into believing lies. We would all be wise instead to judge people and groups on what they do rather than what they say they do. Let the behavior of Conservatism, Inc. speak for itself.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: David Handschuh/News

America • Center for American Greatness • Congress • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • Post • The Left • The Leviathian State • The Media • the Presidency • The Resistance (Snicker) • Trump White House

Jumping the Shark with Michael Cohen

Michael Cohen testified in Congress Wednesday. And boy was it rough.

Cohen prostrated himself in front of the House Oversight Committee and begged for forgiveness from the Democrats and the media. He even put on that special look—the look that a teenage boy puts on when he gets caught doing something wrong—to go along with the “I-know-better-now-and-I-will-never-do-it-again” line. It was pathetic.

But Cohen was smart enough to know that his doleful tone, “sincerely-repenting” expression, and crestfallen demeanor did not, by themselves, carry the water. So, he brought along some meager evidentiary “gifts” in the form of salacious anecdotes and some “irrefutable” documents.

His “gifts” included three years of Trump’s financial statements and two media hit pieces suggesting Trump exaggerates his net worth, a magazine clipping about a Trump portrait being sold at an auction, a bunch of checks to Cohen and a bank statement, and a letter he wrote to various educational institutions to threaten legal action if they released Trump’s grades or test scores.

Democrats and the media surely will continue pushing the narrative that Cohen’s scant documents somehow prove something. They don’t.

He produced two $35,000 checks that he claims were reimbursements for the Stormy Daniels’ payment. He produced no evidence that these checks were in fact for that payment.

He produced a bank statement showing an advance from a home equity line of credit for $131,000 that he claims offers proof that Trump indicated that he would reimburse him. He produced no evidence that Trump actually gave any such indication.

He produced three financial statements from three separate years with differing estimates of Trump’s net worth that he claims show that Trump manipulated his financial statements. He produced no evidence that these statements were in fact doctored.

He produced a letter, which he wrote to Fordham University, advising the university that it was illegal to release a third party’s educational records without the third party’s consent, that he claims shows that…shows that…Trump is a hypocrite? Well…if hypocrisy were a crime, Congress would have far more troubles than the president.

And he produced several news articles and tweets that he claimed…well, it’s not entire clear what he was claiming those particular submissions were supposed to prove.

In other words, he produced no positive proof that Trump is a conman, a cheat, or that he knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails.

At best, he provided some evidence that Trump has, at least once, been hypocritical. But even that would be a stretch.

Though Cohen’s “evidence” may be made to fit his narrative, it does not corroborate his narrative, and it certainly doesn’t add any compelling new information. The only thing that adds anything new is his testimony, in the form of his opening statement and answers to questions. And when we’re dealing with a witness who is about to go to prison, in part for lying to Congress, there are many reasons to take everything he says with a grain of salt.

But this hearing was never intended to change anyone’s mind anyway.

Few Trump supporters care about the Stormy Daniels payoff, Trump’s hardball business practices, or his supposed interactions with WikiLeaks. They will view this hearing as yet another show trial in the ongoing witch hunt, meant to distract from Trump’s continued economic successes and promising diplomatic work. And they will view Michael Cohen as a disloyal opportunist whose prior independent crimes made him a perfect target for Mueller to squeeze.

And most Trump opponents already believed Trump was a racist conman, long before Michael Cohen ever testified. They view each additional piece of evidence, no matter how weak, as yet another nail in the coffin of inevitable impeachment. They will view this hearing as yet another demonstration of the treachery of Trump and the disingenuousness of those who support him. And they will view Michael Cohen as a flawed man but one who finally took responsibility and did the right thing.

It’s dizzying to consider the widening gap between what the average Democrat and Republican believes today. It’s a gap so wide that it is nearly impossible to bridge it with any type of reasonable, objective conversation. And though Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member Jordan were able to keep a thin veneer of civility covering the proceedings, the obvious animosity and complete lack of understanding between the two sides was palpable.

Much like the Kavanaugh-Ford hearings, the focus and thrust of the questioning from each side was completely different.

Democrats went to great lengths to try to drag further salacious stories out of Cohen, at one point asking him if he knew of any occasion in which Trump paid for a medical procedure for a woman outside of his family (Cohen’s answer was no). Their entire goal was to continue to cast aspersions on Trump, his family, his companies, his campaign, and ultimately his presidency.

Republicans—confined to the minority and opposed to having the hearing in the first place—systematically made the case that Cohen was not a credible witness, had every incentive to paint Trump in a negative light, and was certainly not the bumbling but useful idiot he painted himself out to be. They kept painting Cohen into a smaller and smaller corner.

Don’t be surprised if we find real smoking gun evidence that Cohen perjured himself in response to a Republican’s question.

But did anyone expect anything different? Did anyone really expect that Michael Cohen would testify before Congress and suddenly the scales would be lifted from everyone’s eyes and they’d see Trump as an evil, dangerous, megalomaniac? Finally the “bombshell” hit its target?

Democrats, if nothing else, are unwavering optimists. They have had so many misfiring silver bullets, they could get an endorsement from the National Werewolf League.

Think of every time that the Democrats and the mainstream media have told us, “this is it, this is the beginning of the end of the Trump Presidency. As soon as [fill in the name] testifies/is indicted/releases a book/is interviewed, it will be over for Trump.”

Well, if they really believed that Michael Cohen was going to be the beginning of the end of the Trump Presidency, then it’s probably the beginning of the end of the beginning of the end. They’ve put up a valiant, if slimy, fight. But when you’re taking moral advice and testimony at face value from Michael Cohen, you know you’ve jumped the shark.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

America • American Conservatism • Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Donald Trump • feminists • Government Reform • Greatness Agenda • Identity Politics • Post • Pro-Life • The Left • The Resistance (Snicker)

The Art of the SOTU

Do you remember Hillary Clinton?

I know, I know.

Now, do you remember her campaign slogan? It was “I’m with her!”

Incredibly, I still see the peculiar blue-on-white bumper sticker with an “H” on the odd Prius or Volvo in Washington, D.C. It always reminds me of the international symbol for “Hospital.” Appropriate, no?

Now, let me ask you a harder question.

Do you remember what candidate Trump did to that slogan? How he took it, twisted it, and deployed it as a truly deadly rhetorical H-bomb against Hillary?

It was June 22, 2016, and the future president was speaking in New York City, where he said: “She thinks it’s all about her. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you, the American people!”

For those who study strategic communications, those 30 little words were a political “kill-shot.” In just four sentences, Donald Trump had perfectly encapsulated everything that was so wrong about Hillary Clinton: her arrogance, her sense of entitlement, her disregard for any other human being, and her naked and destructive ambition.

At the same time, he was able to tell Americans with utmost succinctness why they should vote for him: he had it all and didn’t need the job; he was there to fix a broken system; to serve Americans, not himself. And it was that message that took him to the White House.

Having worked for Donald Trump before January 20, 2017, and for President Trump as his White House strategist after the inauguration, I never thought I would see him out-do that ultimate exemplar of political communication. I always enjoyed seeing him leave the White House and hit the road to give stump speeches as opposed to formal, teleprompter-driven addresses, where the instinctual, non-politician I knew could be unleashed, but I never thought he could do better than that day in New York. I was wrong. And I am very happy to admit it.

Tuesday night’s State of the Union was the best speech Donald J. Trump has ever given, before or after becoming our 45th commander-in-chief. This is for two reasons. First, in terms of substance. Pick any issue that elevated Donald Trump into the White House—or any issue that has since then become centrally important, such as the abortion-to-infanticide horror—and he didn’t back down on any of them. Not the wall, not ObamaCare. Not deregulation, not infrastructure. Not lowering the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, not withdrawing from Obama’s disastrous Iran deal. None of it. There was no watering-down. No dilution to please the Republican RINO Coward Caucus, or the intransigent and increasingly radical Democratic Party. He held the line.

But more than that, President Trump took Tuesday’s speech to America and the World to send as clear a message as possible on other issues that were not part of his original MAGA agenda. He picked up the gauntlet again and again. There was no backing down, no attempt to just move past issues or to ignore issues that have taken center stage since he was elected.

Nor was anything so powerful as his statement that, as president, he is proposing the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” given the shocking moves by Democrats in New York State and Virginia to legalize not only third-trimester abortion but also post-birth murder. Not only did the president not avoid the issue, he charged at it head-on, as his choice of words for the bill’s title signals, he is calling out all the Democrats who subscribe to Margaret Sanger’s culture of death. The title doesn’t skirt what we are talking about. It doesn’t talk about “embryos,” it calls the most vulnerable life in the womb what it is: a child. Bravo, Mr. President.

But it is outside the issue of direct content of the State of the Union that the president truly outdid himself. In New York, with those 30 words, he revealed the ugly truth of one greedy, dangerous and un-American woman. Last night, he did the same to the whole Democratic Party.

Donald Trump managed to trigger the whole room into singing “Happy Birthday” to one of the Jewish survivors of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, Holocaust survivor Judah Samet, and he playfully conducted them through their celebration. Then in an incredibly moving double tribute to the victims of the Shoah and our military veterans he recognized Sergeant Herman Zeitchik who had liberated the Dachau death camp and one of its prisoners, Joshua Kaufman, the man sitting next to him in the chamber. That was a direct broadside over the hull of the DNC, which, with the evaluation of representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, has embraced institutionalized Anti-Semitism within in its ranks.

But most skillful of all, was how President Trump managed to get the Democrats—especially the “Mean Girl Caucus” dressed in white—to reveal themselves for who they truly are.

The party that has built its image as the party for the oppressed, for minorities, for the working class, sat scowling as the president regaled everyone else with the news of how his policies have brought employment, security, and prosperity to our nation, the likes of which the world has never seen, and especially to exactly those groups. Freshman diva Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) couldn’t even bring herself to applaud the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent President Trump recognized for rescuing more than 300 girls and women from human-traffickers. Ah, yes, the “party of women.”

But the masterstroke was the president’s decision to celebrate women—even those scowling women.  He celebrated especially the historic number of women gainfully employed, including within the halls of Congress. Suddenly at that mention, the self-declared suffragettes looked at each other, decided to stand up, high-five the air and cheer. For themselves. And they had no idea what he had just done.

This was rhetorical jujitsu the likes of which I thought I would never see again since Trump’s “I’m with you!” moment in New York. In one deft joyous flourish of heartfelt celebration for the fairer sex, Donald Trump the master orator showed the “New Wave” Democrats for who they truly are: a selfish, mean-spirited, parochial, clique that only care for themselves and not for real Americans. No number of policy papers or campaign ads could do that. Pure genius.

Oh, and just remember, Hillary could have been giving Tuesday’s State of the Union.

God is good.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call