nChrist
|
 |
« on: February 06, 2018, 06:39:47 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 2-6-2018 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest Feb. 6, 2018 · https://patriotpost.us/digests/53962-mid-day-digest
IN TODAY’S EDITION
Two more Demo memos muddy the waters over the FBI. Trump was kidding, but he shouldn’t have said “treasonous.” The new Nuclear Posture Review is a welcome change from the Obama years. Objection: Marines shouldn’t have been used as “door-pullers” for NFL celebrity athletes. California’s “free” health care and universal basic income in one city are too expensive. Is #MeToo becoming a lame anti-men campaign? Plus our Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.
THE FOUNDATION
“It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)
IN BRIEF
Demo Memo(s)1
By Thomas Gallatin
The House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously Monday to release the Democrat rebuttal to the Republicans’ FISA memo2. President Donald Trump will now have five days to decide if he will release it to the public, which he has previously stated he would do. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the author of this rebuttal memo, accused Republicans of seeking to distort the facts with the FISA memo produced by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA). Democrats claim that Nunes coordinated with the White House in creating the FISA memo, a charge Nunes has strongly denied.
Meanwhile, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) “leaked” a six-page response to the FISA memo, in which he argues that the FBI’s acquiring of a FISA warrant based on the dubious and unverified Christopher Steele dossier was perfectly fine because of Steele’s solid reputation with the FBI and because the allegations made within the dossier have not been disproven.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review astutely notes3 that the court is interested in the credibility of eyewitnesses, not the reputation of the agent who collected the information. If the FBI, as the FISA memo alleges, relied heavily on the unverified information from the Steele dossier, then the FBI did not meet the standard necessary to justify receiving a surveillance warrant. McCarthy writes, “So far, the FBI and Justice Department have provided only cause for grave concern that they gave a federal court unverified, highly unreliable information that was essential to the court’s probable-cause finding, and that they did so without being candid with the court about the biases of the information’s purveyor. That being so, the burden is on the FBI and the Justice Department to prove that they did not act improperly in seeking the FISA warrant — especially since they, rather than the rest of us, are in possession of the information that they insist would vindicate them.”
McCarthy also points out that the burden is on the DOJ and the FBI to prove they had credible witnesses for seeking a FISA warrant. He writes, “Before you ever get to the point of having an expert explain factual transactions that are beyond the ken of the layman, the occurrence of these factual transactions has to be established by competent, reliable witnesses. Steele and the FBI point us to none.” He continues, “Warrants are issued based on the quality of the information proffered to the court, not the duration of the information-gathering process.”
Democrats are clearly scrambling to regain control of the narrative surrounding Russiagate, with spurious accusations of a Republican Congress going out of its way in seeking to protect Trump. However, the stench of deep-state corruption is all wafting from the Democrat side of the aisle, and no amount of political spin perfume will cover the stink of this growing scandal.
Trump, Treason and Democrats4
By Nate Jackson
President Donald Trump has a habit of giving powerful speeches5 only to follow them up by saying something stupid (usually on Twitter) that gives fodder to the Leftmedia and derails his momentum. That was partially the case yet again yesterday in a speech that was supposed to be about the economy but ended up devolving into partisan sniping. He told an Ohio crowd, “[Democrats] would rather see Trump do badly, ok, than our country do well — it’s very selfish — even on positive news, really positive news … they were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody [in the crowd] said ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, [Democrats] certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much. But you look at that and it’s really very, very sad.”
The crowd laughed at multiple points, and Trump was clearly playing for it, but that didn’t stop leftists from caterwauling about it as proof of his Hitlerian bent.
First, it should go without saying such language is not the way American presidents should speak. Every Trump fan would lose their mind if Barack Obama had said the same thing, even in jest. Obama did make lesser but similar charges against opponents, and every conservative objected. But Trump does often speak like an authoritarian and thus it makes such labels far easier to apply to him. It’s also one reason why he had such vociferous opposition in the GOP primaries. Treason has a specific definition (Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution6), and it’s not a word that should be thrown about flippantly. Chief of Staff John Kelly, call your office.
On the other hand, Trump has never made the first move to carry through with anything remotely like the language he uses on the stump — language that he intends as New Yorker bluster, not policy or law enforcement prescription. Obama, on the other hand, actually weaponized federal agencies to punish political opponents.
Leftist hypocrisy goes even deeper. They wail every day about Trump, his family and his campaign committing treason. What else is the whole “collusion with Russia” nonsense about? And for eight years, those of us who steadfastly opposed Obama’s statist policies meant to “fundamentally transform” America were labeled7 not just racist but treasonous. All the time8. The difference is Democrats weren’t kidding. So please, Demo and media talkingheads, spare us your phony outrage now.
Finally, aside from agreeing to a word suggested to him by a member of the audience, Trump was right — Democrats certainly do seem to hate him more than they love America9.
Top Headlines10
Congress returns with just days to avoid shutdown (The Hill11)
McCain’s DACA fix is likely dead on arrival (The Daily Signal12)
Suspect in Colts’ Edwin Jackson, Uber driver deaths was twice-deported illegal alien who was previously convicted for drunk driving in California (Indianapolis Star13)
U.S. economy fundamentally strong despite stock market plunge (Associated Press14)
Clinton donor and Hollywood mogul Haim Saban gives $1,000 bonuses to staff thanks to tax reform (The Daily Wire15)
Supreme Court won’t block Pennsylvania ruling that state redraw congressional boundaries immediately, in decision that could help Democrats (The Washington Post16)
Here are the Philadelphia Eagles who plan to skip the White House Super Bowl visit (Fox News17)
Super Bowl airs call for “equal pay” after NFL rejects #PleaseStand ad as too political (The Washington Times18.)
Canadian PM Trudeau mansplains to woman questioner: “Peoplekind” is “more inclusive” than “mankind” (The Washington Free Beacon19)
Berkeley spent almost $4 million to keep campus safe from people angry about opinions (Washington Examiner20)
Policy: 2018 solutions for federal spending and debt (The Heritage Foundation21)
Policy: CFPB case threatens the power of a president to shape his administration’s policies (National Review22)
For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report23.
FEATURED ANALYSIS The Nuclear Posture Review Brings Military Readiness24
By Todd Johnson
The release of a new nuclear posture25 is the latest initiative by President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis to revive a Department of Defense capability that, in the words of one senior official, needs to be updated to meet a “challenging and dynamic security environment26.”
The 74-page nuclear posture document27, the first since 2010, reflects the administration’s attempt to deal with “a more diverse and advanced nuclear-threat environment than ever before, with considerable dynamism in potential adversaries’ development and deployment programs for nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”
|