Ban Everything | 2020 Democrat Platform (Updated)

GATEWAY PUNDIT noted: …CNN hosted a seven-hour climate hysteria event on Wednesday and Democrats went hog wild. By the end, they’d called for bans on plastic straws, red meat (especially cheeseburgers), incandescent lightbulbs, gas-powered cars, airplanes. They also want an end to fossil fuels, oil drilling, fracking, natural gas exploration and coal plants, along with nuclear energy.

Adapted a bit from LOUDER with CROWDER:

ONE: culling the population of undesirables (the poor) through genocide.

[….]

TWO: Deciding what we can and cannot EAT!

“My body, my choice” my ass. Now you’re telling us what we can and cannot consume.

Kamala says she wants to “ban certain behaviors.” Not like killing your baby. No that’s fine. Especially if it’s some poor brown baby. But eating cheeseburgers or meat at all, that’s verboten.

Oh sure, Kamala is talking about reconstituting the food pyramid and “incentivizing” certain behaviors. But let’s play this out. Take a cheeseburger and treat it like cigarettes, which have a “sin” tax to de-incentivize smoking. The sin is just eating that which tastes good….

[….]

FOUR: Banning things we use, as small as a plastic straw to as large as our gasoline-powered cars….

Almost all the candidates want to stop oil, gas, and coal selling/production. Gas powered cars will be a thing of the past — almost immediately — if they get their way.

DAILY CALLER video

GRABIAN video

I updated a post showing the impossibility of Trump being a “Russian Asset” as the MSM and Democrats said for almost 3-years. Here is the updated portion:

when oil prices rise above $60-$65 a barrel… fracking increases supply, serving as an effective cap on energy prices. (Broadly speaking, the same principle is true of natural gas prices.) Putin’s government revenue and foreign policy are dependent on high crude prices and foreign nations buying their crude from Russia. Lower prices due to U.S. or other nations’ competition cost him a lot of money, and put the Russian economy and his public support at risk. Even more importantly, it deprives him of the tool of energy blackmail, which he has used to extort other countries into adopting Kremlin-friendly foreign policy choices. This is why Russian intelligence services have been so active in supporting western environmental groups and other interests opposed to fracking. (WASHINGTON EXAMINER — in other words, our energy policy, under Trump, is anti-Putin. By contrast, ALL of the Democratic 2020 candidates energy policies will enrich Putin.)

WATTS UP WITH THAT has a linked DAILY CALLER article that highlights 7-BANS by the candidates:

1: Biden Applauds The Green New Deal

“I think the Green New Deal deserves an enormous amount of credit,” former Vice President Joe Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper before listing off what he considers to be the problems with the much-criticized idea to stop global warming.

He noted that “85 percent of the problem” (climate change) is coming from the rest of the world.

2. Harris Says She Would Ding The Filibuster To Implement The GND

“If [Republicans] fail to act, as president of the United States, I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal,” Sen. Kamala Harris of California said to audience applause.

Harris said Republicans should “look in the mirror and ask themselves why they failed to act,” calling the fight for the GND one “against powerful interests.” Democrats would need to win Senate control along with the presidency to have any hope of ending the longstanding tradition.

3. Yang Won’t Talk About Electric Cars

Yang skirted questions about whether every American will need to drive electric cars in the future. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Yang why he would promise federal funds for “potentially risky” and experimental means of energy production.

“We’re here together because we can. This is a crisis. In a crisis, all solutions have to be on the table. If you were attacking on one side, you should be researching various alternatives on the other side. That to me is just responsible management and responsible leadership,” Yang explained.

4. Sanders’ One Word Answer To A Question About Light Bulbs

“The Trump administration announced plans to overturn requirements on energy-saving lightbulbs. … Would you reinstate those requirements?” CNN’s Cooper asked Sanders, who has described himself as a self-avowed democratic socialist.

The Vermont senator answered with one word: “Duh.” Sanders’ comment came several hours after the Trump administration announced new rules Wednesday rolling back requirements for energy-saving light bulbs.

(Read it all at WUWT)

See some more articles:

Larry Elder Responds To CNN’s Accusations Regarding Trump

Larry Elder looks into 5 accusations that CNN made against president Trump. Did Trump call himself the chosen one? Did he praise conspiracy theorists? Did he call the Danish Prime Minister “nasty”? Did he flip flop on tax cuts, and did he blame Obama to defend his administration? Larry checks each one of these claims to see if they’re true and if Trump’s actions are unprecedented.

I also asked Larry Elder where he found the clip at the end… he said, Kentucky Fried Movie. A movie I think Terrence K. Williams has on loop in his home. Here are some of my posts on these recent “flaps” (My post on “FREYDO“):

Comey’s Tarnished Image – IG REPORT

  • “The lion’s share of the Inspector General’s investigation deals with lying to the FISA court in order to gain a wiretap warrant to spy on a former associate of President Donald Trump, Carter Page…James Comey is one of the individuals who signed off on a FISA warrant and concealing evidence and deceiving the judges. That’s — according to my count — six different potential felonies.” — Gregg Jarrett

Here is Comey’s Tweets HOTAIR focuses on:

And here is HOTAIR’S EXCELLENT response:

Ahem. The report does say that Comey didn’t leak his memos directly to the media. However, Horowitz describes how Comey used a cutout to achieve the same thing, a point which Comey had already admitted in public testimony:

At the time, the OIG also was aware of Comey’s June 8, 2017 congressional testimony that he had authorized a friend (who was also one of his personal attorneys) to provide the contents of Memo 4 — which did not contain any classified information — to a reporter for The New York Times. The focus of the OIG’s investigation was to determine whether Comey violated Department or FBI policies, or the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement, in his handling of the Memos during and after his tenure as FBI Director. The OIG’s investigation included review of the Memos as well as numerous additional documents, emails, and news articles; and forensic analysis of certain computer systems. As part of this investigation, the OIG also interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey’s request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter for The New York Times.

Emphasis mine. This can literally be found on Page 1 of the report. Comey is parsing out his vindication on the thin edge that the memo he directed Richman to leak to the Times didn’t have classified material in it, but as Horowitz points out, Memo 4 was designated “For Official Use Only.” This is what Comey’s claiming as vindication:

Comey instructed Richman to share the contents of Memo 4, but not the Memo itself, with a specific reporter for The New York Times. Comey did not seek FBI authorization before providing the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter. As noted above, the FBI later marked Memo 4 “For Official Use Only” and determined that it did not contain classified information. We found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the Memos to members of the media.

Why did Comey direct Richman to leak Memo 4? Politics:

Comey sends a digital photograph of Memo 4 (describing the meeting in which Comey wrote that President Trump made the statement about “letting Flynn go”) to Richman via text message from Comey’s personal phone. Comey asks Richman to share the contents, but not the Memo itself, with a specific reporter for The New York Times. Comey’s stated purpose is to cause the appointment of a Special Counsel to ensure that any tape recordings that may exist of his conversations with President Trump are not destroyed. Richman conveys the substance of Memo 4 to the reporter.

Horowitz makes specific mention of Comey, Richman, and Memo 4 in his conclusion. It’s clear that Horowitz doesn’t see the lack of classification as any sort of vindication for Comey:

However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.

You’d better believe an apology is owed, but it’s not owed to Comey. It’s owed from Comey. Clearly, we will wait a very long time to hear it.

Update: Maybe Comey should check in with his town hall partners at CNN before demanding apologies. They read the report and don’t seem to think it’s very vindicate-y:

LEGAL INSURRECTION chimes in with similar warnings by Horowitz to Comey:

The IG found “no evidence” that Comey or his lawyers provided the media with classified information.

However, the IG “concluded that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.”

[….]

Horowitz wrote (emphasis mine):

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties.On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

Horowitz stressed that FBI employees must “adhere to Department and FBI policies,” especially when they come across “extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions.”

The IG criticized Comey for not using the “several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel.” He told the IG office that a Special Counsel “was his goal in making the disclosure.”

Horowitz reminded Comey:

What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome……

FOX NEWS lists some of the “infractions specifically:

  • “Comey did not seek authorization from the FBI before providing Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to his attorneys.” (page 2)
  • “Comey did not seek FBI authorization before providing the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter.” (page 2)
  • “As described in this report, we conclude that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.” (page 3)
  • “Comey told the OIG that he did not notify anyone at the FBI that he was going to share these Memos with anyone, and did not seek authorization from the FBI prior to emailing these four Memos to Fitzgerald.” (page 38)
  • “Accordingly, Comey stated that he did not notify anyone at the FBI that he was going to share the contents of the Memo 4 with Richman or the media, and that he did not seek authorization from FBI to provide Memo 4 to Richman.” (page 40)
  • “Accordingly, after his removal as FBI Director, Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” (page 52)
  • “Despite knowledge that Memo 3 contained classified information, Comey did not appropriately mark Memo 3 with classification banners, portion markings, or a classification authority block. By failing to do so, Comey violated Executive Order 13526 and Intelligence Community, Department, and FBI policies governing marking of classified information.” (page 53)
  • “Comey’s actions with respect to the Memos violated Department and FBI policies concerning the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information, and violated the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.” (page 54)
  • “Comey violated Department and FBI policies, and the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement, by retaining copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 after he was removed as Director, regardless of each Memo’s classification level.” (page 55)
  • “As a departing FBI employee, Comey was required to relinquish any official documents in his possession and to seek specific authorization from the FBI in order to personally retain any FBI documents. Comey failed to comply with these requirements.” (page 55)
  • “As the FBI Director and Head of a Department Component, Comey was required to apply for and obtain authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to retain any FBI records after his removal. Comey violated these Department and FBI policies by failing to surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 upon being removed as FBI Director and by failing to seek authorization to retain them.” (page 55)
  • “Comey violated FBI policies and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he sent a copy of Memo 4 to Richman with instructions to provide the contents to a reporter, and when he transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and a redacted version of 7 to his three attorneys.” (page 56)
  • “Comey violated FBI policy and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he chose this path.” (page 56)
  • “Comey was not authorized to disclose the statements he attributed to President Trump in Memo 4, which Comey viewed as evidence of an alleged attempt to obstruct the Flynn investigation and which were relevant to the ongoing Flynn investigation.” (page 56)
  • “Rather than continuing to safeguard such evidence, Comey unilaterally and without authorization disclosed it to all.” (page 56)
  • “However, Comey’s own, personal conception of what was necessary was not an appropriate basis for ignoring the policies and agreements governing the use of FBI records, especially given the other lawful and appropriate actions he could have taken to achieve his desired end.” (page 57)
  • “The unauthorized disclosure of this information—information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director—violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy.” (page 57)
  • “However, Comey was not authorized to provide these Memos to his attorneys without prior approval from or coordination with the FBI.” (page 58)
  • “By providing Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to his attorneys without seeking FBI approval, Comey took for himself the ‘carte blanche authority’ expressly denied by the courts, in clear violation of the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy and the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement. As a result, Comey not only disclosed sensitive law enforcement information to his personal counsel but also a small amount of information contained in Memo 2 that the FBI subsequently determined was classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” (page 58)
  • “Once he knew that the FBI had classified portions of Memo 2, Comey failed to immediately notify the FBI that he had previously given Memo 2 to his attorneys.” (page 59)
  • “The FBI’s Safeguarding Classified National Security Information Policy Guide clearly states that ‘[a]ny person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, compromised, or disclosed to an unauthorized person must immediately report the circumstances to his or her security office.’ Comey violated this requirement by failing to immediately inform the FBI that he provided Memo 2 to his attorneys.” (page 59)
  •  “By not immediately reporting that he had provided Memo 2 to his attorneys when Comey first learned that the FBI had designated a small portion of Memo 2 as classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level, Comey violated FBI policy.” (page 59)
  •  “However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times.” (page 60)
  •  “But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information. Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility.” (page 60)
  •  “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy. Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” (page 61)
  •  “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” (page 61)

Here is my RPT Page’s Facebook post with the above info:

CNN Freydo Primetime Fight Night (Italian Humor Update)

  1. JUMP to Trump’s Tweet
  2. JUMP to Italian Humor

 NEWSBUSTERS intros the video:

In a YouTube video released on Monday by “independent media journalist” with the title “That’s the Point with Brandon,” CNN’s Prime Time host Chris Cuomo can be seen threatening to throw a reported “Trump supporter” down some stairs. The incident appeared to be designed to get a rise out of Cuomo, but the CNN host completely blew up at a minor slight.

All told, Cuomo used the “F-word” roughly 25 times.

Before the video started rolling, the unidentified man apparently called Cuomo by the name “Fredo.” The name was a stinging nickname stemming from the disgraced Fredo Corleone character in The Godfather film. Over the years, it’s been a favorite jab at him from people on the right. But according to Cuomo, it was an ethnic slur on par with the “N-word”……

I never knew this was a nickname for Cuomo from “my side.” But now I will use it:

Best Line Eva! “You’re a much more ‘reasonable’ guy in person than you seem to be on television.”

Chris Matthews used the “N-Word”


The Funnies












TRUMP TWEETS



I-TALIAN HUMOR



































CNN’s Anti-Semitic Culture (BONUS: Some U.N. Antisemitism)

MEDIA’ite notes CNN’S hiring brashness:

A CNN photo editor resigned from the network Thursday after his past, vicious tweets about Jews and Israel, including posts apparently celebrating the deaths of “Jewish pigs,” were unearthed.

Arthur Schwartz, a GOP operative, first resurfaced the posts from CNN photo editor Mohammed Elshamy. He did so by tagging CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski who, with Nathan McDermott, published an ARTICLE about their own unearthing of past statements by Trump Treasury pick and former Fox News personality Monica Crowley.

Schwartz suggested CNN look in-house equally as thoroughly.

U.N. WATCH catches us up with another United Nations loony-toones story:

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, condemned the delegates’ abuse of the UN body as a forum to target Israel.

“The UN reached new heights of absurdity by singling out Israel alone on women’s rights, yet saying nothing on Iran holding women’s rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh behind bars, Saudi Arabia jailing and torturing women’s rights activists, and subjugating women under harsh male guardianship laws, or on Yemen denying women hospital treatment without the permission of a male relative,” Neuer said.

“When you have Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen among the UN council members accusing Israel of violating women’s rights, you are in the theater of the absurd.”

[….]

YES: Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Benin, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Korea, Russia, St. Vincent, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yemen.

NO: United States and Canada

ABSTAIN: Brazil, Cameroon, Germany, Jamaica, Mexico, Romania, Togo, Ukraine, and United Kingdom

Yes, The Central Park Five Are Guilty (Three Parts)

Below are three separate shows, weeks apart, by LARRY ELDER. The first upload garnered a mass amount of thumbs down and negative comments. All by people who didn’t listen to it and are incurable victicrats. If you listen to these three uploads — below — and still believe the crap peddled over at NETFLIX… you may also be an incurable victicrat.


PART ONE


This is basically an excoriation of the idea that the “Central Park Five” are innocent. Psalm 97:10 says, “Let those who love the LORD hate evil.” I think of that when Trump mentions society “hating” these rapists (12:05 mark) Larry Elder plays how Van “commie” Jones and Chris Cuomo deal with one of the few Republicans left over at CNN (a MUST read article about CNN can be found at the WASHINGTON TIMES) who differed on the “Central Park Five.” Around the 6:00 mark Larry interviews (from last year) Ann Coulter, and then later (at the 14:41 mark) reads from a DAILY BEAST article, “The Myth of the Central Park Five”

Ann Coulter has a couple good articles on the topic:

The refusal to allow dissenting views is a BIG issue at CNN and MSNBC. In fact, Larry Elder says this episode where Lawrence O’Donnell refused to let John O’Neill of Swift Boat fame speak is what got him a job on MSNBC. NOT ONLY does the MSM censor conservative and Republicans, by doing so they perpetuate the innocence of thugs and killers. Thus, bringing a net evil to society in various ways (attacking truth, attacking innocent civilians, allowing criminal to be emboldened).

See also:

  • 7 Things You Need To Know About The Central Park Jogger Case (DAILY WIRE, August 2016)
  • Donald Trump Isn’t Alone in Believing “Central Park Five” Are Guilty (LAW and CRIME, October 2017, )
  • The “Central Park Five”: Still Guilty (FRONT-PAGE MAGAZINE, August 2014)

PART TWO


Larry Elder reads from various sources, one being the Wall Street Journal piece by Linda Fairstein entitled, “Netflix’s False Story of the Central Park Five: Ava DuVernay’s miniseries wrongly portrays them as totally innocent—and defames me in the process“. A previous upload can really be PART ONE to this audio: “Yes, The Central Park Five Are Guilty“. I highly suggest LEGAL INSURRECTION’S post on this topic as well.

Enjoy… I will share a thought from a comment from part one:

  • “The comments are filled with people who didn’t listen to the video and didn’t look at the evidence independently.”

I can only assume the same will happen here.


PART THREE


Larry Elder interviews Detective Eric Reynolds regarding his intimate knowledge of the Central Park Five.

This really is a death knell for the lies regarding this case. Detective Reynolds mentions a website where one can view all the confessions and read the judges ruling and the police report. The website is called: “THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE JOGGER ATTACKERS: Guilty – In Their Own Words”. This is great radio, enjoy, and I hope to get the detectives book at some point when (not if) he is published.

Detective Reynolds recently appeared on CNN to discuss the matter as well:

Liz Cheney’s AOC History Smackdown (CNN UPDATE)

(DAILY WIRE hat-tip) Below Liz Cheney’s linear thinking are some of the original videos which leads to Rep. Cheney on FOX… and may I say, AOC’s response to Cheney is bat-shit-crazy! (And may I say this emboldens VICTOR DAVIS HANSON”S article on Why We Should Study War!)


CONTEXT BELOW



CNN CRAZINESS UPDATE!


CNN’s Moral Insanity!

A CNN panel falsely claimed that abortion is moral and human life doesn’t begin at conception. Dennis Prager explains why this argument directly violates science and reason. MOONBATTERY notes:

In the video below, a moonbat proclaims with a straight face that an unborn baby is not a human being. That is conventional insanity, of the type treated at psychiatric hospitals.

Meanwhile, the supremely odious Chris Cuomo desperately clings to the argument that it doesn’t matter if babies are human beings so long as they are not legally regarded as persons. If only they had realized this during the Nuremberg Trials, some Nazis might have escaped the rope.

Craziest of all is the underlying liberal belief that abortion is moral….

When “Spying” Was Acceptable To The MSM

NEWSBUSTERS notes well how the current media blames the use of “spying” as a “right-wing” term. Except, just weeks ago they were using it handily…

Cable news talking heads suffered a collective conniption on Wednesday at Attorney General William Barr’s continued use of the word “spying” in reference to an FBI informant in the Trump campaign. Yet many of those melting down over this so-called “loaded language” had previously (repeatedly) used that same term in reference to the FBI’s surveillance of former Trump campaign official Carter Page.

On the day of Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN law enforcement analyst Josh Campbell did his best to explain precisely why everyone was suddenly treating “spy” like a curse word. “It’s only used to refer to what foreign governments do to us, for example when you’re trying to stop foreign spies, foreign threats,” he pontificated as the panel nodded approvingly.

Over at MSNBC, host Brian Williams was evidently appalled by Barr’s chosen terminology:

Obviously, what we just saw there was an attempt by [Senator] Sheldon Whitehouse to nail down this Attorney General on the charge of shilling for the President who appointed him. Spying, being a word preferred by the Trump right-hand side of the media to describe authorized surveillance techniques by the government the United States.

[….]

Chris Cuomo Gets A Civic Lesson from AG Michael Mukasey

Chris Cuomo Gets A Civic Lesson from Attorney General Michael Mukasey On TV:

NEWSBUSTERS notes:

Cuomo apparently didn’t know the attorney general of the United States had the authority to decide whether charges should be filed, or he was being supremely disingenuous. “[W]hat your friend did is not just by the book. He took it on himself to decide this rule. He didn’t have to do that,” he bitterly declared.

Continuing his crusade against Attorney General William Barr, Cuomo wrongly stated that the special counsel was “separate from the DOJ” and insisted Congress had the power to indict.

Mukasey had to undo the damage Cuomo was doing to his audience and called his host out for misleading people:

MUKASEY: Of course he had to do it.

CUOMO: Why?

MUKASEY: Who was going to decide if we were going to indict or not?

CUOMO: Congress, as a political matter. Leave it to them.

MUKASEY: They decide whether to impeach or not. They don’t decide–

CUOMO: And Mike, you’re skipping the big point, which you taught me about very early on.

MUKASEY: That is the big point.

CUOMO: They can’t indict him. That is the opinion from the OLC so there’s nothing to decide on that level. It’s purely political. It always would be.

MUKASEY: Congress doesn’t indict. Congress can impeach.

CUOMO: I’m using it as just a metaphor here.

MUKASEY: But you’re misleading a lot of people.

After Mukasey had to explain all the other ways Special Counsel Robert Mueller could have taken action against the President if he had the goods, Cuomo put on his rhetorical tin foil hat and accused Barr of being part of a cover-up:

CUOMO: AD Barr didn’t need to do it for that reason. He needed to do it to protect the President. That’s why he did it.

MUKASEY: Protect the President from what? When he can’t be indicted?

CUOMO: From criticism in the open question and giving Congress that kind of momentum. That’s why he did it.

MUKASEY: Oh, come on.

CUOMO:That’s why he did it. That’s why he wrote the letter the way he did. That’s why he gave the press conference the way he did. That’s why he misled us to what the report would look like the way he did…..

The Left Reverts To Racist Tropes (PLUS: Good News)

Since the Democrats have lost the “Collusion Delusion,” they are reverting back to their “NAZI” tropes. Adam Schiff is back to it on CNN’s Jake Tapper show,  as well as Chris Hayes on MSNBC:

Here is WASHINGTON EXAMINER detailing the above:

Democrats, liberals, and media figures repeatedly compared President Trump to fascists, Nazis, and Adolph Hitler this past week, much of which was centered on Trump’s reignited hard-line rhetoric on immigration.

However, some of the comparisons mistakenly conflated his comments on MS-13 gang members as his stance on all asylum-seekers.

At a campaign stop in Iowa on Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke compared Trump’s rhetoric on immigration to Nazi Germany. “When the president of the United States has called Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘criminals.’ He then went on to call asylum seekers ‘animals’ and an ‘infestation,’” O’Rourke said.

“Now we would not be surprised if in the Third Reich other human beings were described as an infestation, as a cockroach or a pest that you would want to kill. But to do that in 2017 or ‘18 in the United States of America, doesn’t make sense,” O’Rourke added.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes said in a tweet Thursday that O’Rourke’s characterization of Trump’s rhetoric as Nazi language is “100% correct.”

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, expanded on O’Rourke’s comparison.

“What the president is trying to do is to dehumanize, to otherize these immigrants. And that’s very similar, whether it’s to what Congressman O’Rourke was talking about or other regimes that try and dehumanize people,” Castro said on MSNBC.

The comparisons flooded in after a tweet Friday said that Trump called people asking for asylum “animals,” attaching a video in which Trump said “these are not people. These are animals.”

The tweet, however, misrepresented the context of the video. The clip showed Trump speaking at a White House roundtable on sanctuary cities in May 2018, and he appeared to be referencing MS-13 gang members and illegal immigrants, not all asylum-seekers or immigrants.

Nevertheless, Democrats and media figures cited the tweet and video when comparing Trump to Nazis and fascists.

“Hitler couldn’t have said it better,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said in a tweet Saturday. 

(SEE THE REST OF THE LEFT’S B.S.)

The only way out is Jesus!