Seymour Hersh: The US attacked Syria knowing sarin wasn’t used in “gas attack”

In an earlier post, I documented my disgust with President Trump when he launched Tomahawk missiles against Syrian targets, in apparent retaliation of Syria’s use of sarin gas in an attack.

However, Seymour Hersh reports that while the American intelligence community knew that the Syrian did not use chemical weapons in general, and sarin particular, in the attack in question, Trump ordered the bombing anyways.

On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.

Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Hersh’s article is lengthy, and is worth reading in its entirety. However, the jist of the article is clear and, frankly, shocking.


Trump tweets on Obama turn tables on Democrats

For months, Democrats have tried to come up with some sort of evidence, any sort of evidence, demonstrating that Trump was somehow colluding with the Russians to win the 2016 election. Since November, all of the heat was generated by the left, and directed towards Trump.

However, earlier today, Trump launched four tweets that not only can the Democrats not ignore, but will more likely send them into an uncontrollable tizzy.

Frankly, what Trump did was ingenious. He took what the Democrats have been arguing all along, and reframed the discussion that puts the spotlight squarely on them.

When Democrats whine about how Trump’s tweets are not presidential, it has nothing to do with maintaining the dignity of the office. However, it has everything to do with trying everything they can to control what he says.

The Democrats simply can’t handle Trump. Their policies don’t work, and they can’t intimidate him into backing down.

The fact that they have no idea what Trump will post next makes them extremely uncomfortable.



Trump fires Comey. Chaos ensues.

Given the hullabaloo over President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, perhaps it’s best to start this post with a silly joke.

I’ll let Scott Adams of Dilbert fame provide it. After all, he’s a professional:

What do Bernie Sanders’ hair and CNN have in common today? They are both saying, “Comey” every time you look at them.

I feel better already!

Both Republicans and Democrats hated Comey, albeit for different reasons. Republicans were appalled when Comey publicly cleared Hillary Clinton, on dubious legal grounds and inconsistently with DoJ/FBI procedures, of charges that she obstructed justice when the FBI investigated her using a personal server for her State Department email. Democrats called for Comey’s head after he re-opened that investigation weeks before the general election, only to close it days for before it.

In fact, Lifezette reports that a reporter reminded Senator Chuck Schumer of his earlier call for Comey to be fired at a press conference yesterday:

“Sen. Schumer, you told me last year before the election that you lost confidence in Jim Comey because of how he handled the email scandal,” one reporter said. “Do you think that the president’s explanation … has credibility?”

“I never called on the president to fire Director Comey,” said Schumer.

Schumer then said Trump should have fired Comey earlier in his young presidency if he had some of the same concerns as Democrats.

It was a clever ploy. But it cannot hide the fact that Democrats have hated Comey for months. Many blame Comey for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s losing the election. Comey famously released a letter to Congress just before the Nov. 8 election indicating that he was reopening an investigation into how Clinton handled classified emails.

Comey, being Comey, closed the new investigation in record time, ending the investigation two days before Election Day and enraging Republicans by publicly declaring he still would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Schumer indicated Comey’s handling of the matter was a deal-breaker.

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” Schumer said of Comey on Nov. 2.

However, because the wrong president fired Comey, we are now in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Or something like that.

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum reports:

“We are in a full-fledged constitutional crisis,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) declared on Twitter last night after hearing that Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey. New York Times columnist David Leonhardt agreed. So did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), although Blumenthal described the crisis as “looming” rather than “full-fledged.”

Yet Sullum points out the obvious; the president has clear authority to fire the FBI Director for whatever reason:

“Under the Constitution,” notes South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman, “the president has the absolute power to fire principal officers, such as Director Comey, at will. In that sense, Trump’s actions were entirely constitutional.”

(By the way, I love it that Democrats were silent when Obama attacked Libya without congressional authorization, thus creating the current refugee crisis in Europe, or don’t see an issue with the TSA routinely violating American’s fourth amendment rights who happen to fly, but become butthurt when a non-Democratic president fires someone.)

Meanwhile, Stephen Colbert found it necessary last night to reeducate the sheep known as the Democratic electorate on how to react to the firing:

Tuesday during the taping of CBS’s “The Late Show,” host Stephen Colbert announced the news that FBI Director James Comey had been fired by President Donald Trump.

Colbert’s left-leaning audience cheered.

Colbert reacted by saying, “Huge, huge Donald Trump fans here tonight.”

However, we now come to the core question, why did Trump fire Comey?

While Scott Adams argues that this was a strong move on Trump’s part that exhibits “some ballsy Presidenting”, such a move only works when we know what Trump is trying to achieve. And if there’s anything that Trump has demonstrated since becoming president (**cough** Syria **cough**), he can change his mind in an instant in terms of what he wants to do.

Sure, folks like Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, and even Hillary Clinton should be feeling more nervous today than they did yesterday. But is Trump really focusing on sending them to jail? Who the hell knows? Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, thinks that Trump most likely fired Comey because he neither liked nor trusted him. Given what we know, that’s as good as an explanation as any other.

While the political world explodes in morally indignant outrage, I’m going to wait to see what Trump actually does before reacting.

In the meantime, I’m going to find some more silly jokes.

UPDATE: Roger Stone gives Alex Jones his take on Trump firing Comey.


MSM is fake news, no matter what Trump says

Now that the half-life of any positive media Trump may have received from his actions relating to Syria, MOAB, and North Korea has passed, he has gone back to slamming the media as “fake news”.

While this blog has ditifully chronicled how the media has been unfair to Trump, now would be a good opportunity to provide more current examples of fake news.

Unfortunately for the Orange Outrage Machine, otherwise known as the President, those examples relate to his recent foreign policy tantrums.

Justin Raimondo explains it much better than I can:

[H]ere is a group of people – journalists, politicians, and other Very Serious Persons – who have hated our new President from the get-go. He’s Hitler, he’s Mussolini, he’s Pepe the frog! He’s this, he’s that, he’s Our National Nightmare! And yet the minute he starts bombing foreigners he’s suddenly not so bad after all. Over at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, the CIA’s journalistic front man, says he’s “becoming a credible foreign policy leader.” Ruth Marcus opines that we’re witnessing “the normalization of Donald Trump.” Finally, she enthuses, “rationality is dawning” on the forty-fifth President! Among the liberal elite, the hosannas were well nigh universal. As Ann Coulter noted:

“Cable news hosts gushed, ‘Trump became president of the United States tonight!’ On MSNBC, Brian Williams called the bombing ‘beautiful’ three times in less than a minute. Sen. Lindsey Graham (one of the ‘women of the Senate,’ according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) compared Trump to Reagan. The New York Times headlined an article, ‘On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.’”

Fareed Zakaria’s joy over the bombing seemed to indicate that, for him, it was practically an erotic experience. And this weird bloodlust wasn’t limited to the liberal precincts of the commentariat – far from it. When we dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan, Kimberly Guilfoyle  practically had an orgasm over at Fox News. Sitting there in her low cut red dress, her breasts heaving with passion, her lips parted, and an ecstatic smile plastered on her heavily made-up face, she hailed the bombing as if it were the climax – so to speak – of a pornographic movie: “America is back!” Oh, yeeeesssss!!!!

In short, if Trump doesn’t toe the liberal/neocon line to the T, the media portrays him as wanting to put liberals, feminists, and gays in concentration camps. But when he drops bombs in hell-holes on the other side of the planet, the media is aroused into sexual ecstasy.

This isn’t news reporting. This is a cry for help.

Meanwhile, after the foreign policy chaos he has unleashed over the past two weeks, Trump’s cries of fake news are nothing more than crocodile tears. Granted, the MSM are still lying sacks of incapable of reporting without a liberal slant while pretending to be “objective”. However, if Trump can’t remember what he told voters while campaigning, he’s just another politician.

And therefore part of the problem.



Demonizing opponents isn’t for Democrats anymore

Now that any sense of narrative about Trump making America GREAT AGAIN has fallen apart with each new explosion in the greater Middle East, Trump supporters are trying to do something, anything to support the twilight of his administration first 100 days.

To wit, Trump Cheerleader Captain Bill Mitchell is simultaneously exploding with delight over Trump’s MOAB attack

while attempting to demonize the part of Trump’s base that won’t mindlessly believe his every word, especially with regard to Syria.

What has been absolutely beautiful about Trump’s base is that, while it has its share of syncophants like Mitchell, it includes many people who think for themselves.

Of course, I couldn’t help but comment.

I really need to find a new hobby.


BREAKING: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

According to The Independent:

The US has dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in the country’s arsenal on an area of eastern Afghanistan known to be populated by Islamic State militants.

The Pentagon said the strike was the first time the 21,000lb weapon had been used in combat operations.

A spokesperson for the US Department of Defence confirmed to The Independent that a MC-130 aircraft dropped a GBU-43 bomb at 7pm local time.

The weapon is known in the US Air Force by its nickname MOAB, or “mother of all bombs”. MOAB stands for massive ordinance air blast.

The Independent understands Donald Trump authorised the use of the bomb but commander of the US forces in Afghanistan General John Nicholson signed off the order.

The President and Pentagon officials were aware of the mission ahead of time.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the US had used a “large, powerful and accurately-delivered weapon” to disrupt the movements of Isis in the country.

Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said the bomb was dropped on a cave complex believed to be used by Isis fighters in the Achin district of Nangarhar, close to the border with Pakistan.

The Pentagon said the mission had been in the planning stages for months. However, they “did not have the information” on whether the mission was being planned during the previous Obama administration.

Little Boy, which was dropped on Hiroshima at the end of the Second World War, had 15 kilo-tonnes of TNT. The GBU-43 has 11.

Aside from “Dear God, may You have mercy on our souls”, I don’t have many coherent reactions to this. However, I do have the following thoughts:

  • The last time someone said “mother of all” anything, that regime fell.
  • This action shows the US military’s intellectual bankruptcy in dealing with its adversaries in the greater Middle East.
  • I wonder if the bomb’s name, MOAB, has any ironic reference to the city of Moab that existed during Biblical times.
  • Even with the magnitude of the bomb’s destructive capacity, I really wonder how much this reduces ISIS’s control in eastern Afghanistan. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if their support in the area increases.

I’m sure there will be more to come on this story.


Has Trump unraveled the administrative state?

Yesterday on, Sean Moran breathlessly proclaimed that President Trump unraveled the administrative state, to “reduce regulations and unleash American jobs”, in 20 ways.

The 20 measures are:

  1. In January, Trump signed an executive order that would cut two regulations for every new regulation proposed. Trump stated, “If there’s a new regulation, we have to knock out two.”

Ok, let’s stop there. It should be clear to everyone, including a Trump propagandist like Moran, that this move by Trump is simply a gimmick. Even if administrative agencies follow this order, which I doubt they will, what would stop them from deleting two tiny rules with one monstrous one?

As far as I can tell, nothing.

2. President Trump signed an executive order advancing construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, previously blocked by the Obama administration. Subsequently, the Trump administration approved the construction of both pipelines.

Ok, Trump signed off on some pipelines. Great! But I’m not aware of Trump proposing to drastically reduce the environmental review process. All he did was sign off on pipelines that went through a laborious approval process. The process itself hasn’t been touched.

3. Trump signed an executive order in February known as “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The order will create regulatory watchdogs that will find new onerous regulations to eliminate. Trump said that “every regulation should have to pass a simple test: Does it make life better or safer for American workers or consumers? If the answer is no, we will be getting rid of it and getting rid of it quickly.

The whole premise behind regulations is that regulators believe such rules make life better or safer for American workers or consumers. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have written, let alone passed, the damn rules! And if lawyers for regulatory agencies are good at anything, it’s providing arguments that provide sufficient justification for rules that, in the end, reduce choice for, and increase costs to, consumers.

4. Trump signed a bill that rescinds the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) broadband privacy rule that many scholars argue are duplicitous and onerous. Critics of the rule, including FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, argue that the Federal Trade Commission would be better suited to protect consumer privacy than the FCC. Katie McAuliffe, executive director for Digital Liberty, said this broadband rule “was a power grab under the guise of privacy.”

Ok, now we’re getting ridiculous. Rather than arguing that broadband providers should best determine how to provide their services to customers, the argument is which agency should regulate broadband providers. This is arranging deckchairs on the Titanic stuff.

5. Trump signed J.Res. 58, which overturns the Education Department’s rule that relates to how teacher training programs are assessed. The Washington Post explained the rule’s unpopularity: “Teachers unions said the regulations wrongly tied ratings of teacher-training programs to the performance of teachers’ students on standardized tests; colleges and states argued that the rules were onerous and expensive, and many Republicans argued that Obama’s Education Department had overstepped the bounds of executive authority.”

While it is good that this rule has been rescinded, all Trump did was sign legislation Congress passed. Meanwhile, the Department of Education, which Republicans have promised to eliminate since its creation in 1977, still exists.

I could go on to address the other 15 steps, but hopefully readers will get the picture.

While these steps aren’t harmful, they are nowhere near addressing, let alone unraveling, the administrative state, which suffocates businesses and consumers alike.

So far, Trump’s actions towards the administrative state has been underwhelming. There’s just not much there there.

Syncophants publishing pablum that attempt to say the opposite doesn’t change that.


Trump stabs supporters in the back by attacking Syria

I have a confession to make.

I voted for Donald Trump during the 2016 election.

I did so for two reasons. First, I considered my vote for Trump as one great, big, metaphorical middle finger to the political establishment and mainstream media, who tried to coronate Hillary Clinton as President. Second, I thought that if Clinton wasn’t elected president, we would avoid going to war with Russia.

Boy, was I a fucking idiot.

The US attacks Syria

Last night, the US military launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against a Syrian air force base, in response to Syria’s presumed chemical attack against civilians earlier this week.

I say “presumed” for two reasons. First, there has yet to be an independent investigation of the incident. Rather, the elite’s assumption that Syria is guilty is presupposed in their collective Zeitgeist. Second, this attack is eerily reminiscent of an incident in 2013 that Obama tried to use as a pretext to attack Syria then. However, there is significant evidence to suggest that Syrian rebels mishandling of its own chemical weapons led to those deaths. Fortunately, opposition across the Western world, including the UK Parliament, did not allow Obama the popular support for such an attack.

That opposition included one Donald J. Trump.

Besides, the timing of Syria using chemical weapons at this juncture makes absolutely no sense. Its military, with Russian help, has made significant progress against ISIS, particularly in western Syria. Why would Assad use such weapons when he told a Croatian newpaper that he so other “option except victory”? In fact, Peter Ford, UK’s former ambassador to Syria, argues that not only is there no evidence that Syria conducted such an attack, but that such an attack would have been “self-defeating.”

Trump’s attack gave the neocons the jollies

Such inconvenient things as facts, history, and logic rarely have seemed to have troubled Trump in the past, and have certainly not gotten in the way of his attempt to “act decisively”. In his remarks at Mar-a-Lago that were reminiscent of a third-world tinpot dictator, Trump said that:

There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council.

(Notice that his statement says that there can be no dispute rather than doubt, thereby implying that there can be no discussion even though we may not know the full truth…)

Meanwhile, neocons in both parties are having collective orgasms in response. They are elated that Trump is flexing American military muscle once again in the Middle East. And Trump has gathered enormous support from left and right as a result.

So much for Trump playing 4D chess

Nevertheless, Trump now finds himself with three huge problems he didn’t have before yesterday’s strike. First, many of his supporters who voted for him feel betrayed. Some of the most vocal Trump supporters, including Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, Justin Raimondo, and Ann Coulter have been withering in their criticism of Trump’s decision. A significant portion of his base has permanently evaporated, and rightfully so.

Second, Trump will now be facing calls from both left and right within Congress about whether their authorization is required before any further action. Whether there will be sufficient pressure within Congress for such authorization remains to be seen. However, Trump’s unilaterial action won’t be quieting Constitutional questions anytime soon.

Lastly, nothwithstanding the U.S. warning Russia of the attack before it happened, the nuclear power is furious at Trump’s actions.

Furious Vladimir Putin has called the US airstrikes on Syria an ‘illegal act of aggression’ and suspended a deal to avoid mid-air clashes with American fighter jets over the war-torn country.

The Russian President warned of grave damage to relations between Washington and Moscow after 60 Tomahawk missiles were fired at al-Shayrat airbase near Homs.

Syrian Army officials described the attack as an act of ‘blatant aggression’, saying it had made the US ‘a partner’ of ISIS, the ex-Nusra Front and other ‘terrorist organisations’.

While Putin warned of grave damage to US-Russia relations, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev went one step further and warned that the attack “was on the brink of military clashes with Russia.”

In short:

(Yes, I know there’s a grammatical error in the tweet. I was pissed. Sue me.)

Where do we go from here?

There have been several theories floating around the internet about why Trump initiated the attack. Frankly, I don’t care. Trump’s attack on Syria was idiotic, illegal, immoral, and irresponsible. It could lead to the US clashing with a thermonuclear power over a country on the other side of the world. We have literally everything to lose, and next to nothing to gain.

We need to figure out a way to stop this madness before it’s too late.

St. Francis, pray for us!

Hail Mary…




Building evidence that the White House spied on the Trump campaign

Up until recently, there has been a great deal of innuendo concerning whether the outgoing Obama administration had been spying on Donald Trump and his presidential campaign.

The broohaha started with the tweet that was read around the world:

Notwithstanding circumstantial evidence indicating that the White House had conduct such monitoring, such as by collecting intelligence “incidentally” through monitoring phone calls of foreign nationals, the question of whether Trump’s accusation had merit got bogged down by the usual partisan bickering.

However, all of that changed yesterday.

Susan Rice reviewed “unmasked” intelligence reports involving Trump officials

Mike Cernovich, who 60 Minutes attempted to portray as a purveyor of fake news in a recent episode, dropped a bombshell by reporting that Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Adviser, requested that the names of incoming Trump officials be unmasked from communications caught in the dragnet of intelligence gathering.

What “unmasking” means

While the NSA is not allowed to collect phone call data between Americans, it routinely collects phone call data of foreign nationals, including those with an American on the other end of the line. Intelligence reports “mask” the identities of those who are not under investigation. Susan Rice was one of three officials who had authority to request the review reports with unmasked information. Such reports, however, must be reviewed under very specific conditions. There is also a log showing when officials request to review unmasked reports, including the reports Rice requested.

The response

The response thus far has been swift and furious. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentuck) has called on Rice to testify before Congress.

Paul argued the situation should not be downplayed, saying reforms need to be made to prevent individuals from being blackmailed on personal aspects of their lives through unmasking. He noted there was nothing stopping the former administration from looking through Trump officials and national security advisors’ conversations during the transition window.

“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it, but I don’t think should just discount how big a deal it is that Susan Rice was looking at these,” he told reporters Monday. “And she needs to be asked, ‘Did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama?  I think she should testify under oath on this.”

Glenn Reynolds agrees:

All these people need to be placed under oath and questioned separately about what happened. There’s also sure to be a document trail.

But wait, there’s more.

Susan Rice ordered spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” involving Trump

Earlier today, The Daily Caller reported that, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides during the presidential campaign.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

The Daily Caller also referred to Fox News and Bloomberg News reports indicating that this effort was part of a “highly organized operation”.

Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director.

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told The Daily Caller that many hands had to be involved in such an operation:

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

ZeroHedge’s analysis of this story led to a stunning, if perhaps unsurprising, conclusion:

In other words, it’s growing increasingly unlikely that this operation was anything but a direct, targeted attempt of the Obama administration to utilize the full force of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to take down a political adversary.

“I leaked nothing to nobody”

Given the whirlstorm that these two stories unleashed, Susan Rice went onto MSNBC to address the allegations these stories raised.

Not that her reaction would change anyone’s minds. As ZeroHedge reports:

If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.

However, former U.S. Attorney DiGenova had an interesting reaction to her response:

[Rice’s] denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.”

Wherefore art thou, mainstream media?

Meanwhile, the mainstream media’s response to this developing story has been, once again, quite revealing.

First of all, Vox Day has observed that the media has been quite careful in not attributing the original breakthough of this story to Mike Cernovich:

It’s fascinating to see the way in which the name “Mike Cernovich” doesn’t appear in any of these reports that I’ve seen. It’s particularly interesting in light of the fact that Scott Pelley just broadcast a 60 Minutes report accusing Cerno of being “fake news”; one would think that this breaking new story would be at least somewhat relevant in this regard.

Much the same is true when Drudge breaks a story. The obvious conclusion is that the mainstream news organizations are determined to defend their perceived status, even if that means omitting where they got the story in the first place and pretending it was the result of their own reporting. Then again, they are the fake news.

Speaking of fake news, the media in general, and CNN in particular, have been trying to downplay the story. As Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist reports:

Yesterday, the news broke at multiple outlets that the unmasking wasn’t done by a low-level official at an intelligence agency, but by Susan Rice herself. She was President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor. All of a sudden people began admitting that Nunes was right that information on political opponents had been collected, unmasked, and disseminated, but they turned to downplaying this as significant news.

This is a media-wide problem, but no one has been more shameless about this than CNN, which formerly at least attempted to position itself as politically neutral. CNN has decided to declare the news story “fake” because of this report from former Obama political appointee Jim Sciutto (who was a colleague of Susan Rice at the Obama State Department) (AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! – ed.), who now covers the Republican administration:

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Slow down here. A person close to Rice said she did nothing wrong? Well this changes … oh wow, this changes … nothing. I mean, people close to Mike Flynn said he did nothing wrong, and they even had quite the case, but I don’t recall Sciutto either running with that angle, or believing such an angle “debunked” the coordinated leak campaign against Trump he was recipient of.

Meanwhile, yesterday, the Ministry of Truth, otherwise known as CNN, attempted to recapture the narrative slipping away from their ghoulish fingers and proclaim that THE SUSAN RICE STORY IS A FAKE SCANDAL!

What next?

This is what is generally known about the Susan Rice story as of Tuesday afternoon. What comes next? Who knows. However, a tweet of Mike Cernovich’s hints that we have not heard the last of this story.

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. We are about to enter into severe turbulence.


Trump attacks Freedom Caucus for not being “on the team”

So much for “moving on” from the Obamacare repeal/replace defeat.

Still showing signs that the health care debacle continues to sting President Trump’s ego, the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump “issued a remarkable warning to conservative Republican lawmakers in Congress, suggesting Thursday he would work against them in the midterm elections next year if they don’t support his agenda.”

The Journal explains why Trump is so furious with the Caucus:

The caucus flexed its muscle last week when its members withheld support from the health-care bill Mr. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan were working to pass, leading to defeat for the president in his first attempt to pass major legislation. Next month, the group could also create a headache for the administration when Congress faces a deadline to pass a budget resolution to keep the government funded.

Instead of talking to the Caucus and figuring out whether a compromise position can be reached, Trump elevated (or demoted, I’m not sure which) it to just one more enemy for him to confront.

It appears that the lesson Trump is trying to teach is “my way or the highway”.

Fortunately, the Freedom Caucus is ignoring the “teacher”. While ZeroHedge has some of the juicier responses to Trump’s tweet, I’ll close this post with Justin Amash’s glorious slap.