Here is what’s on the president’s agenda today:
- The president participates in a bilateral meeting with the president of the Republic of Rwanda
- The president participates in a bilateral meeting with the president of the Swiss Confederation
- The president addresses the World Economic Forum
- The president departs Switzerland en route to Washington, D.C.
Text messages found and other developments on the Mueller “investigation”
Back during the election, when Trump-confused friends and family could not fathom why someone would vote for that “buffoon Cheeto man,” I explained that a large part of Trump’s support originated from voters who were tired of being bullied. They were tired of being bullied by the Democrats who scream that policy disagreements are really career-ruining racism and bigotry. They were tired of having college administrations restricting the free speech of their children and the anti-man sexual harassment campus witch hunts. They were tired of having Hollywood, recently revealed to be a bunch of sexual predators and degenerates beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, lecturing and shaming them toward proper “thought and behavior.” And finally, they were tired of watching a weaponized government being used against them (IRS scandal, anyone?) for their political opinions. These were all things where voters saw little pushback from “our” side and big pushback from Trump. There were no leftist-created sacred cows for Trump. Finally, they thought, someone who will give back as good as we are getting.
The accumulation of questionable conduct with this Trump investigation is piling up sky-high and only reinforces the perception that there is little fairness or justice to be found in our highest law enforcement agencies. “The deck is stacked against us and Trump,” people think. Perhaps you don’t like Trump; he’s brash, he’s unrefined, he’s rough around the edges. But does that mean the force and reach of government should be used to take him out by any means necessary? (Will these tactics now be considered acceptable by the Trump administration against their political opponents?) Because if you believe this, then we no longer share a political framework based on the Constitution, which was devised with a view toward limiting the tyranny of the government over the citizen. We indeed live in two different countries and if “anything goes” in the battle of politics and culture, well then “anything goes” for both sides. Let’s go.
Now, onto the latest peek at the man behind the curtain:
More text messages between DOJ/FBI power couple Peter Strzok and DOJ attorney Lisa Page have been released where we learn the duo was concerned that if they were “loaded for bear” in the interrogation of presumed presidential victrix Hillary Clinton, they might face retribution when she ascended to her Queendom. Contrast this with the stormtroopers that raided former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s house. This doesn’t seem fair. Clinton trafficked classified information through a MacGyvered home-brew server and the feds are going to tiptoe around her during an interrogation not even conducted under oath? Not even a record of the interrogation! Meanwhile, Lt. General Mike Flynn participated in a meeting he eventually learned was a formal interrogation and he didn’t even have a lawyer. (Was Strzok worried that he might face retribution coming in “loaded for bear” from the sitting National Security Advisor? I guess not so much, eh?) That doesn’t seem fair. So when the public sees text messages talking about a “secret society” of government employees, it doesn’t seem that far-fetched. We’ve watched repeatedly over the years how things always seem to work out for them, and almost never for us.
Remember the IRS targeting of the Tea Party? The missing IRS hard drives of targeter Lois Lerner? The Clinton server evidence destroyed by the FBI? Clinton’s smashed-with-a-hammer BlackBerries? The bleach-bitted Clinton server? Why would anyone be skeptical that the FBI lost text messages from key bad actors during a very convenient time period, right? A “secret society” is outrageous, right? A former FBI director leaking classified memos to kick off a special counsel to investigate the president (what’s his punishment for this, by the way?) is perfectly normal, right?
Here’s a clip from Hannity’s show last night, where another text is revealed that shows the FBI trying to skirt constitutionally-mandated congressional oversight.
“Very inflammatory things” that “weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”? What other kinds of judgment calls are being used when responding to Congressional oversight?
These are the kinds of things that have soured many on the right against the law enforcement leadership. And curiously, turned the former law enforcement, cop-hating left into their biggest cheerleaders.
More related news: Carter Page, questionably surveilled by the Clinton-supporting Obama-fied FBI, supports releasing the House memo on FISA abuse. Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to release all the interviews related to Fusion GPS client and RUSSIAN operator Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump campaign officials at Trump Tower. Also a big deal and important narrative flip from the FBI bias fiasco: Trump wanted to fire Mueller last year but Don McGahn, White House counsel, threatened to quit.
White House releases immigration plan
On Thursday, the White House released the immigration plan heading to Congress next week. It offers a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children as well as funding for the wall and changes to the legal immigration system.
The plan would demand $20 billion in funds for construction of a wall along the U.S.- Mexico border and significant cuts in family-based migration, making it so only the spouses and younger children of immigrants can enter the country with their “sponsor.” The administration is also calling for an extra $5 billion in border security measures and an end to the Visa Lottery system.
In exchange, the White House said President Trump would sign an immigration bill that includes a 10-12 year path to citizenship for 1.8 million ‘Dreamers’ “with requirements for work, education and good moral character,” according to the White House framework.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is not amused.
“I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally,” Cruz told reporters, according to Bloomberg. “Doing so is inconsistent with the promises we made to the men and women who elected us.”
“For some reason, that to me is utterly inexplicable. We see Republicans falling all over themselves to gallop to the left of [former President] Obama in a way that is contrary to the promises made to the voters who elected us,” he added.
The Democrats are unhinged and I suspect they wrote their talking points before the White House even released their plan. They only have one mode of operation: RACIST. As I’ve written before, the Democrats have no interest in fixing the problem because the problem is one of the few issues the party has to campaign on and rally their nutter base. The WH plan seems more than fair: the DACA kids get protection and citizenship, immigration quotas get reallocated toward the backlog of legal immigration requests, and border security/the wall gets funded. What kind of problem does the left have with this? I thought they wanted to “protect” the Dreamer crowd? If they reject this, they will have to explain how they sacrificed Dreamer security in favor of a bunch of other things. Let’s see how many Dreamers are down with that.
[Alleged] sexual harassment/predator update
Historical picture of the day:
And that’s all I’ve got, now go enjoy your weekend!