Archive for the ‘The Swamp’ Category

Whenever a Democrat spins the Flynn plea bargain story, that Democrat omits an important (some might say essential) sentence. In this article, the Democrat wrote “In 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with making false statements to the FBI regarding his conversations with the Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions, among other things. Flynn promptly entered a guilty plea, and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s team in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

Actually, they’re missing multiple sentences. First, the Democrats omit the part that the DC Field Office wanted to shut down the Flynn investigation because they didn’t find any derogatory information on Gen. Flynn. See Jonathan Turley’s post on the subject. Turley wrote “It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR”, the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.”

This part is important to understanding the Democrats’ Flynn spin campaign:

The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

The Flynn case should’ve been dropped right there. Because of when this happened, that also means that there never should’ve been a special counsel investigation. Mueller’s special counsel investigation happened because a corrupt FBI agent named Peter Strzok intervened. While what he did isn’t illegal, it’s definitely swampy.

The other thing that Democrats omit is the part about how Mueller used that Strzok decision to push Gen. Flynn to the brink of bankruptcy before threatening to prosecute Gen. Flynn’s son and Gen. Flynn. I’d love hearing the ACLU explain how those Gestapo tactics are accepted by the Bill of Rights. I guess they’re accepted under the part that says that the ends justify the means.

Democrats have constantly omitted these details from their story. It’s disgraceful that they aren’t confident enough to win an argument on the merits. If Democrats have that weak of arguments, shouldn’t they find better arguments? That’s what smart people would do.

Last week, Marie Harf, whom I’ve nicknamed ‘Baghdad Barbara’ because she’s as trustworthy as Baghdad Bob, tried peddling some Democrat spin while appearing on Outnumbered. Saying that Lara Logan demolished Harf and the Democrats’ talking points is understatement. Harf didn’t wave her little white flag but that’s mostly because isn’t a person of integrity.

Harf started by saying “Yesterday, Barr basically made a statement that said, ‘You can lie to the FBI, and that’s okay.’ And there is still a ton of evidence that the investigation was absolutely an appropriate one, that Flynn was absolutely someone who should have been investigated, and he comes at the end of the day, chose to lie about his contact with foreign countries. If Bill Barr wants to say that’s not a crime, that is a precedent I’m not sure either party wants to set.”

Actually, the law says that it isn’t automatically a crime to lie to law enforcement. For it to be a crime, the lie has to be material to an investigation that’s properly predicated. Thanks to the transcripts that Ric Grenell forced Adam Schiff to release, we now know that the Flynn investigation wasn’t properly predicated. That means that the investigation was bogus, which meant that Gen. Flynn’s statements weren’t material to a legitimate investigation. Here’s how Logan replied to Ms. Harf:

Oh my God. Wow. I feel like I’m in some kind of fantasy sci-fi alternative reality movie. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not sure there’s a word that came out of your mouth that’s actually true.

Look at the transcripts of the conversations. There’s a big difference between talking to people and colluding. If that’s a standard for collusion, how come you not screaming for accountability for Fusion GPS and the DNC and the Clinton campaign for literally meeting with agents from Vladimir Putin, for taking disinformation and using that against a political rival in the presidential election in this country.

I mean, the message was not — the message was exactly the opposite to millions of people in this country. Now that you can just lie to the FBI and get away with it. The message was that accountability, that so many people in this country have been asking for, for so long, it’s finally actually going to happen.

Bill Barr has never said that his mission is about defending president trump. He said it in the CBS interview and he said it from the beginning, that his duty is to protect the rule of law in this country. To protect the Justice Department and law enforcement. He’s doing that holding them to the standard to which they have sworn to uphold. And holding them to the same standard that every single person in this country would be held to if they were facing similar charges. So, what about lying to Congress? Because all of these people, McCabe and Comey, and all of them, they have all lied and lied and lied. And there is more information to come, hear, that is going to show exactly what really happened with Michael Flynn.

The FBI’s actions in the Flynn interview were reprehensible. According to this tweet, the Flynn investigation was crumbling:


In other words, the people who violated Gen. Flynn’s civil rights (“FBI leadership”) didn’t want to stop harassing Gen. Flynn. To steal a line from Ms. Harf, “I’m not sure” that’s a good look for Democrats to adopt.

Finally, Bill Barr determined that there wasn’t proper predication for the Flynn investigation. That’s why he later determined dropping the case against Gen. Flynn was the right decision. That’s why Judge Sullivan is trying his best to keep the case alive.

This article is proof that the Agenda Media isn’t interested in digging into stories to figure out what’s actually happening. The article essentially opens both barrels at President Trump without digging into the story it’s purportedly covering. Here’s what I’m talking about:

It turns out President Donald Trump’s status as the most accessible person to ever hold the office is more a curse than a blessing. Day after day, he fills the air with the ack-ack of disinformation and misdirection, needlessly alarming the public and sending reporters on wild goose chases to either confirm or disprove his allegations. On Thursday, in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Trump repeated his newest figment that Joe Biden and Barack Obama are guilty of some unnamed crimes for which they are deserving of “50-year sentences.”

Strong meat! The heinous crimes—to which he has applied the “Obamagate” moniker and calls “the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR”—is a relatively new creation of the Trump Disinformation Laboratory. He only started talking about it on May 10 and has yet to specify exactly what Obamagate is aside from telling reporters in a press conference that it’s “obvious” and that he wants Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to investigate it.

I know Mr. Schaefer isn’t that stupid. At least, I hope he isn’t. Obamagate refers to the fact that President Obama knew about the Obama administration’s FBI and Obama administration’s DOJ entrapped Michael Flynn in an attempt to get him to turn on then President-Elect Trump. What’s with this foolishness then?

Despite a lack of interest from his minions in Congress (Graham has said he has no plans to grill Obama), Trump’s foggy demagoguery has mobilized the entire press corps to determine what the hell Trump is talking about. Explainers from Reuters, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, and elsewhere struggle to decipher Trump’s vague but strident accusations with little success. We can say this much with certainty. It appears linked to the counterintelligence operation against Gen. Michael Flynn in late 2016, and the requests from Obama administration officials that his identity be “unmasked” from intelligence reports so they could understand who, exactly, was talking to the Russian ambassador. Flynn lied to the FBI about speaking to the ambassador about sanctions and later pled guilty to lying to the FBI about those conversations. (Unmasking, by the way, is a routine, not nefarious thing, which the Trump administration has requested thousands of times.) But until Trump uses his words to make his charges about Obama more specific, we can only guess at what the actual crime might be.

First, if Mr. Schaefer was the least bit interested in covering the story, he’d know that everyone from then-VP Biden to then-DNI Clapper to then-UN Ambassador Power to the then-Ambassador to Micronesia requested this unmasking. If Mr. Schaefer was a legitimate journalist, he’d ask why the US ambassador to Micronesia needed to know who was talking to Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Next, unmasking is routine for intelligence analysts. It isn’t routine for ambassadors, whether they’re the ambassador to the UN or to Micronesia.

The crime isn’t the unmasking. The crimes would likely come from illegally applying for FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page or from leaking classified information to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. Though the DOJ hasn’t identified the unmasker that leaked, it’s a safe bet that one of the unmaskers leaked that information to Ignatius. Let’s be clear about this. It isn’t a crime to receive leaked information. It’s a crime to leak classified information. This is a lie:

Now it could be that Obama did commit the biggest political crime in the history of the USA. If there’s a shred of evidence, I want Obama investigated. If the investigation bears fruit, I want him to have a fair trial. If he’s found guilty, I want him punished. But show me that shred of evidence first or I’m going back to bed.

Mr. Schaefer doesn’t want President Obama punished. It’s just that he’s obligated to say that. Further, Schaefer’s complaints about President Trump point to the fact that the MSM hates digging into the Democrats’ misconduct. Tara Reade is just the latest example of the MSM’s disinterest.

In his analysis article for NBC, retired FBI special agent, Frank Figliuzzi wrote “Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the FBI transitioned from an investigative agency adept at investigating what happened after the fact to an intelligence agency capable of forecasting and preventing harm from happening in the future. Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues. And when it comes to assessing the trap Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump appear to be setting for us, the warning signs are plentiful. We don’t need to read tea leaves for this. We only need to review tweets.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi wrote that “Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues.” Later, Figliuzzi wrote “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly. He therefore has a special interest in undermining accusations of Russian meddling, something he has done since entering the Oval Office. What better way to do this than to flip the script? He didn’t have an advantage; in fact, he was the victim.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi is reading tea leaves that don’t exist. What is Figliuzzi basing his opinion on that “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly?” In transcript after transcript released last Thursday, the Obama administration’s best tea leave readers testified under oath that they couldn’t even find a hint of gossip that then-Candidate Trump or anyone associated with his campaign conspired with Russians. While testifying under oath, Jim Clapper said “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Isn’t that interesting? This is more interesting:

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said there was no smoking gun. “To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

Just where are these tea leaves, Mr. Figliuzzi? President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence and National Security Adviser testified under oath that they didn’t see anything that came close to being considered evidence of Russian collusion/conspiracy. We know that they searched hard for that proof. We’ve verified that they really wanted it to be true.

If President Obama’s top clue sniffers couldn’t find those clues, perhaps it’s a good thing that Mr. Figliuzzi retired rather than misread other nonexistent tea leaves. Check out this interview with Brian Williams:

What’s astonishing is that Figliuzzi totally ignored the aforementioned transcripts. The statements speak for themselves, Mr. Figliuzzi. Res ipsa loquitur. Translated, that Latin sentence literally means “the facts speak for themselves.” That likely means that Mr. Figliuzzi either is a disgruntled ex-FBI employee who got passed over for a job or he’s another Deep State agent sent out to mislead the public. The other possibility is that he’s a Deep Stater because he got passed over for a job. This is rich:


President Trump is constantly accused of being a dictator by Democrats. They’ll never learn. In this interview, Pelosi accused President Trump of wasting time, which led to people dying:

Dictators are known for taking their time and letting the chips fall where they may. NOT. Whether it’s Figliuzzi or Pelosi, Democrats can’t quite figure out if he’s a dictator, a traitor or someone who’s just a lot smarter than they are. I’ll go with C.

The keys to this election, at least in terms of themes, will be trust and performance over the past 2 years. That’s the headwind working against the Democrats this year, both here in Minnesota and nationwide. Let’s start with what’s happening in Minnesota.

Gov. Walz has grudgingly started reopening Minnesota’s economy. That’s happening only because of multiple protests and the threat from some business owners who simply started threatening to open with or without Gov. Walz’s permission. Even then, Gov. Walz has been pathetically slow. LFR was told that protecting the most vulnerable in LTC facilities were a high priority for this administration. Despite that prioritization, 81% of Minnesota’s COVID deaths have happened in LTC facilities.

In terms of Minnesota’s economy, it’s in the crapper. Rep. Anne Neu debated House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler on Friday night’s Almanac. It didn’t turn out well for Winkler:

When Cathy Wurzer asked about the possibility of laying off or furloughing state workers, things got interesting fast.

WINKLER: I think that should be one of the last resorts that we should consider. State workers are providing essential services throughout Minnesota, from people who are processing unemployment insurance checks to epidemiologists at the Department of Health to correction officers engaged at the Department of Corrections to making sure that that doesn’t become a hotspot. We have people working to protect the meatpacking industry. We have people working to make sure our state parks are able to operate. … I also think that layoffs or wage cuts doesn’t help the economy, doesn’t help any of us if some people are making less money and so that’s why I hope that’s one of the last things we would look at.
REP. NEU: Well, I certainly think that salary freezes are appropriate. … The reality is that we’re looking at a significant deficit. We’re at $2.4 billion right now. There’s a good chance that will go up by the November forecast. And frankly, we have asked our private sector businesses, our mom and pop shops, are devastated right now and it really is not fair to those businesses to take the hits that they have taken and then to say that, no, as a government, we are going to fund everything at the levels that we always have.

We shouldn’t trust the DFL, aka the party of big government. Walz’s campaign slogan was One Minnesota. The policy that Winkler defended sounded like one of the private sector getting tossed table scraps after the government has feasted and had seconds. That isn’t my definition of One Minnesota.

Nationally, Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer keep tightening the screws on Blue Collar Americans with arbitrary (and unilateral) executive orders. It’s apparent that Democrat governors don’t want to return to sharing power with GOP legislatures. They’d rather act unilaterally rather than work with Republicans.

Why trust Democrats who want to act unilaterally and without the consent of the governed? This isn’t a third-world dictatorship. This is the nation whose Declaration of Independence emphatically states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Democrats have dragged their feet in terms of reopening the economy and restoring our God-given rights. Democrats have jailed patriots like Shelley Luther:

Democrats even tried jailing a 3-star general because Donald Trump had the audacity to win the 2016 presidential election. Listen to the condescension of this pundit:

He’s perplexed after reading the deposition transcripts? When Jim Clapper said that he hadn’t seen “any direct empirical evidence” of conspiracy between Russia and Trump or anyone in Trump’s campaign, does this idiot still think that there was justification for prosecuting Gen. Flynn? If he thinks that, the next question is why he’s that stupid.

None of this engenders trust for Democrats. Finally, if Biden is elected, why think that he wouldn’t return Clapper, Comey, Mueller, et al, to his national security team? Why trust any of these people in positions of power after what they’ve done?

John Solomon has worked overtime and then some to rip Adam Schiff’s mask off. So have Catherine Herridge, Sara Carter, Lee Smith, Gregg Jarrett, Kim Strassel, Mollie Hemmingway and Byron York. Solomon’s article highlights how utterly dishonest Adam Schiff is. Ditto with the upper echelon of the FBI. Strap yourself in. This isn’t a short ride.

The pursuit of the truth ended Thursday when the Justice Department formally asked a court to vacate Flynn’s conviction and end the criminal case, acknowledging the former general had indeed been cleared by FBI agents and that the bureau did not have a lawful purpose when it interviewed him in January 2017.

Attorney General William Barr put it more bluntly in an interview Thursday: “They kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, to lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.”

According to Solomon’s reporting, the FBI didn’t have a reason to investigate Gen. Flynn:

3. Case closed memo. FBI agents wrote a memo to close the investigation of Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, writing they found “no derogatory” evidence that Flynn committed a crime or posed a national security threat. FBI management then ordered the closure to be rescinded and pivoted toward trying lure Flynn into an interview. https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fbi-found-no-derogatory-russia-evidence-flynn-planned

Corrupt FBI agent Peter Strzok allegedly ordered Crossfire Razor, the codename for the Flynn investigation, to stay open. Later, in a text to his lover, said this:

“Our utter incompetence actually helps us.”

It’s fair to ask how this relate to Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff knew that the FBI line office wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor. Most importantly, he knew that the officers had found “no derogatory” evidence against Flynn. They found that out before President Trump’s inauguration. That meant that there wasn’t a legitimate predicate for the Flynn investigation. Solomon laid out his case in this interview:

Schiff is a sociopath. Solomon cites 10 different statements Schiff made in public that were contradicted by what was known by the intelligence community. This is disgusting:

Unequal treatment. James Comey bragged in a videotaped interview that he authorized the FBI to try to conduct a Flynn interview without the proper notifications and protocol, hoping to catch Flynn and the new Trump White House off guard. In other words, they didn’t follow procedure or treat Flynn like others when it came to due process. Comey said the tactic was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-admits-decision-to-send-fbi-agents-to-interview-mike-flynn-was-not-standard

Comey and Schiff are the most reprehensible figures in this disgusting episode. They’re both narcissists and sociopaths.

Most people outside the DC Beltway know who Brandon Van Grack is. Before this morning, I didn’t know who he was. That’s certainly changing rapidly. After reading this article, I suspect that’s going to change.

First, Van Grack was part of Robert Mueller’s team of partisan attorneys. Next, it’s important to know that since “February 2018, Van Grack has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession ‘that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.'”

Third and most importantly, Van Grack might have some explaining to do:

In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.”

That might be difficult to prove in light of this information:

What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about, and didn’t provide to Flynn, was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.”

It’s difficult to picture anything more exculpatory than an FBI document that says an “exhaustive search” through the FBI’s databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” Nothing says ‘he isn’t guilty’ than a document that says there’s no predication for “further investigative efforts.” That’s like a bright flashing neon light saying ‘He isn’t guilty. Stop wasting our time.”

Remember that Operation Crossfire Razor, the surveillance operation into Gen. Flynn, remained open only because Peter Strzok overruled field officers who wanted to shut down Operation Razor. Then there’s this:

He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.”

But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties or coordination with Russia. Shedding light on internal FBI deliberations, notes from the then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, written before the Flynn interview and after discussions with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told, show discussions of whether their “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

Devin Nunes has taken hit after hit from partisan hacks like Adam Schiff for years. Schiff even published a memo that said virtually everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. The Horowitz utterly discredited Schiff’s memo.

Now the question is whether the Senate will interrogate Brandon Van Grack. If they believe in justice and equal justice under the law. Unfortunately, that’s still debatable at this point.

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times. Yeah, that politician is crooked but they’re all crooks. That’s disheartening. What’s worst is that it’s a defeatist attitude. I’m planting a stake in the ground and saying ‘No more!’ If our president is willing to fight against the Swamp, and he’s definitely willing, then it’s time for people of integrity from all political persuasions to join him in saying No More!

There’s nothing more Swamp-like than the upper echelon (singular, not plural) of the FBI. Republicans Jim Jordan and Michael Johnson have put FBI Director Christopher Wray on notice that they intend to interview “a mysterious FBI agent, Joe Pientka” in connection with the perjury trap crafted against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Expect Democrats to attack Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson for impugning the reputation of the FBI. Spare me the dramatics.

Democrats, starting with Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), have launched one defense of the FBI after another. The infamous Schiff Memo was demolished by the Horowitz Report. The Schiff Memo said that “FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.”

The Horowitz Report determined the exact opposite. In fact, the Horowitz Report went further than that:

The Justice Department inspector general’s report contradicted Schiff’s defense. It listed 17 significant omissions and errors that the FBI made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants, including derogatory information about Steele and at least one of his sources.

Then there’s this:

The key claim in the Nunes memo, that the Steele dossier “formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application”, is backed up by the inspector general’s report. The inspector general also faulted the FBI for failing to tell the surveillance court that Steele told a Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, that he was “desperate” in September 2016 to see Donald Trump lose the election.

Don’t expect Mssrs. Jordan and Johnson to relent. Here’s why:

Pientka was conspicuously removed from the FBI’s website after Fox News contacted the FBI about his extensive role in Crossfire Hurricane Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) matters, a change first noticed by Twitter user Techno Fog, but sources say Pientka remains in a senior role at the agency’s San Francisco field office.

This is what the Democrats’ pushback will look like:

The Horowitz Report utterly demolished the Schiff Memo. I’ve listed some of the specifics. The fact is that Pientka, Wray, Comey, McCabe and Strzok all need to testify. Further, it’s worth noting that field agents wanted to close Crossfire Razor, the name for the operation against Gen. Flynn. Strzok ordered it to stay open.

Here’s a question that hasn’t been posed to Strzok, Comey or Wray: why would field officers who interviewed Gen. Flynn want to shut the operation down but a suit from the 7th Floor overrule the field officers? The Swamp must be drained. The Swamp’s defenders must be defeated ASAP. Keeping gavels in Pelosi’s and Schiff’s hands is protecting the Comey/Strzok/Wray of the FBI Building. That isn’t acceptable.

While some corrupt Democrats insist that the released Flynn documents aren’t a smoking gun, fair-minded Democrats say the opposite. Norman Eisen, the apologist for corrupt Democrats, wrote that “A review of these internal FBI communications, however, shows none of the wrongdoing that Mr. Trump would like to see. But no matter: The mischaracterization of these documents as evidence of FBI misconduct, and by extension, absolution of Mr. Flynn, signals that the president will escalate his abuses of power in the run-up to the 2020 election.” That’s quite a trick. A hand-written note from Bill Priestap asked “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The FBI should be in the business of investigating crimes, not manufacturing crimes that they hope to use to impeach and remove a president they don’t like.

Mr. Eisen, it’s sad that you don’t recognize corruption when you see it. Eisen wrote “The Michael Flynn scandal was one of the first to reveal the pattern of lawlessness that has characterized the Trump administration. In December 2016, Mr. Flynn, in a phone call, successfully implored Russia to moderate retaliation against the United States for sanctions imposed because of the attack on U.S. elections. The conduct raised serious questions under the Logan Act, which prohibits private parties from conducting U.S. foreign policy.”

Flynn wasn’t a private citizen at that point. He had already been named President-Elect Trump’s National Security Adviser. Calling foreign ambassadors is what NSAs do as part of their job. Mark Penn has a different opinion of what Priestap’s hand-written note represents:

The new documents are in effect the “smoking gun” proving that a cabal at the FBI acted above the law and with extreme political bias, targeting people for prosecution rather than investigating crimes.

Then Penn wrote this:

The principal evidence that prompted the FBI to open the overall investigation into Trump has been definitively determined to be the Steele dossier. We now know, based on recently disclosed footnotes in the Horowitz report, that the dossier was discredited by its own sources and may even have been deliberate Russian disinformation. After receiving this information, the FBI’s top brass, even after learning that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, opened a broad investigation into Trump and his campaign.

What was this “broad investigation” predicated on? The fact that the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation? Was the FBI attracted to it because its authors discredited the report? Former federal prosecutor Trey Gowdy was visibly upset when what the Priestap note represented:

I’ll take the thoughts of a former federal prosecutor over the words of a Democrat political operative anytime. Eisen is a Democrat political hack. Trey Gowdy is a former federal prosecutor who never lost a case in his career.

Nancy Pelosi thinks that sidelining the World Health Organization isn’t wise. In fact, she thinks that it’s dangerous:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is criticizing President Trump’s effort to withhold funding from the World Health Organization and other steps his administration is reportedly taking to sideline the global health agency. “It’s stupid — it’s more than stupid; it’s dangerous,” Pelosi told NPR.

What’s stupid is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to a Chinese puppet. Then again, that’s normal for Democrats. Then Pelosi went off the deep end:

“Worse than [the funding], if you can believe it, worse than that is that he and the secretary of state have been deleting any reference to the World Health Organization in any of our strategies on how we can deal with the pandemic. That may be more harmful than just the money,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi apparently thinks that we should get pushed around by corrupt international actors acting on behalf of evil nations intent on replacing the United States as the world’s superpower. That’s who the W.H. O. is. Tom Cotton has been right about China since January, when Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler were trying to impeach President Trump. Here’s what Sen. Cotton told Maria Bartiromo:

As early as the second week of December, it was clear that this virus was spreading from person to person. By late December, it was spreading to doctors in Wuhan hospitals. Some doctors were trying to blow the whistle on these facts, and the secret police arrived at their doorsteps in the middle of the night. So only after China fessed up to the WHO on December 31 did the world know what was happening. Yet, still they continued to deny that it was spreading from person to person into mid-January. That allowed millions of people to leave Wuhan.

And then, finally, China continued to pressure the WHO and other countries not to stop international travel from China. That meant that hundreds of thousands of persons left China after this virus was spread far outside of Wuhan, which allowed the virus to escape China’s borders and get to the United States and get to Europe and get to essentially every country in the world.

Why hasn’t Pelosi instructed the Oversight Committee to investigate W.H.O.? Is it that Democrats know how corrupt WHO is? Is it because Democrats are comfortable with the plethora of corrupt international organizations that they fund?

Democrats have spent millions of dollars investigating President Trump but they won’t lift a finger to investigate what the linkage is between the W.H.O. and China? Democrats will investigate a US president that they disagree with but they won’t investigate a nation that wants to run the US into the dirt? That’s the definition of evil. That’s the definition of anti-patriotism.

Jake Tapper got under Pelosi’s skin in this interview:

Pelosi isn’t this great negotiator with nerves of steel. She’s aging and, based on this video, she isn’t aging that gracefully. The day that she signed the impeachment papers is the day that things started going downhill. Then there was this trip to Chinatown on February 24 where ‘Dr. Pelosi’, the world-famous epidemiologist, told everyone that travel is safe:

Let’s be clear about something. If President Trump cured cancer, Pelosi would criticize him for putting oncologists out of business. If President Trump fixed the unions’ pension funds and started running surpluses for the next decade, Pelosi would criticize President Trump for not doing it fast enough.

The truth is that she’s just a high profile political hack. Finally, she’s as tone-deaf as Hillary.

President Trump should fix the WHO, if that’s possible. If it isn’t possible, then we should just undermine what’s left of its credibility.