Kimberley Strassel

Joe Biden’s Executive Order Purge

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager reads a portion of Kimberley Strassel’s WALL STREET JOURNAL article about the tyrannical purge of Hunter Biden’s father. The full article to follow the audio:

Via the WALL STREET JOURNAL:

The “unity” lasted all of a couple of minutes. Then, hours after President Biden pledged in his inaugural address to show “tolerance and humility,” the brass knuckles came out.

One duster was aimed at Peter Robb, general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Within minutes of Mr. Biden’s swearing-in, and as the new president told the nation it needed to “be better,” the new White House delivered Mr. Robb an ultimatum: resign by 5 p.m., or be fired.

The general-counsel position is a Senate-confirmed four-year appointment at an independent agency; Mr. Robb had 10 months left in his term. No NLRB general counsel had ever been fired, and the Biden White House provided no cause for the action. Mr. Robb pointed all this out in a return letter and respectfully declined to step down. So Mr. Biden (“we must end this uncivil war”) canned him.

For four years, the media and Democrats cast every action of the Trump administration as something law-breaking or verging on a constitutional crisis. This week’s headlines, by contrast, were a mass media celebration of the return to “normalcy.” Mr. Biden ran on, and won on, a promise to restore norms to Washington.

The Robb firing illustrates the falsehood of both those narratives. For all Mr. Trump’s bad manners, his administration’s actions were largely by the book. Mr. Trump never fired Richard Griffin, Barack Obama’s NLRB general counsel, who served nine months to the end of his term in 2017. For all the talk of Mr. Biden as the embodiment of gentlemanly politics, Democrats have no intention of playing by the rules. They intend to impose an agenda and won’t let a little thing like a 70-year-old precedent, or embarrassment over double standards, get in their way.

The Robb firing is an early indicator of Mr. Biden’s top priorities. Democrats rely on unions to get elected, and unions are therefore first in line to get rewarded. The most effective vehicle for that is the NLRB, which has sweeping power to enforce labor practices on companies across America. Mr. Obama used the NLRB to rig the rules so that unions could dominate workforces.

Mr. Biden nonetheless has a problem. The five-member NLRB currently has three Republicans and one Democrat. Even as Mr. Biden fills the empty position in coming weeks, he still won’t have control—and won’t likely get it until August of this year, when the term of GOP member William Emanuel expires. Mr. Biden is moving to install a powerful general counsel who will block, sabotage or undermine the board’s work until that time.

It is also an early indicator of Mr. Biden’s governing philosophy, which is straight out of the Obama playbook. The last Democratic president was so intent on rewarding labor bosses, he proved willing to break almost anything (including the Constitution) to do it. Mr. Obama was frustrated in 2012 that the Senate wouldn’t rubber-stamp his radical appointments to the NLRB. So in January he named three NLRB members as “recess” appointments. The problem? The Senate wasn’t in recess. The Supreme Court in 2014 unanimously declared those appointments void.

Then there was the Obama acting NLRB general counsel, Lafe Solomon. Even after a lower court in 2013 declared the Obama appointments illegitimate, the NLRB continued to pump out pro-labor decisions. Mr. Solomon explained that these rulings were valid because he held a powerful and “independent” position—“appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” That would be the same “independent” position that Mr. Biden just kneecapped in firing Mr. Robb. The new president can be forgiven for wanting his own people in office, but a little consistency would be nice.

It won’t be forthcoming, because the NLRB will be even more important to Mr. Biden than it was to Mr. Obama, given growing rifts in the labor community. The new president is under massive pressure from the progressive left, including many service unions, to act aggressively on climate. Yet his first-day executive action canceling the Keystone XL pipeline prompted a furious rebuke from blue-collar unions that are set to lose jobs. Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters scored Mr. Biden for listening to “the voices of fringe activists instead of union members.”

Control of the NLRB will allow Mr. Biden’ to soothe labor divisions by handing out sweeping rule changes that will benefit unions across the spectrum. Mr. Robb’s firing will likely be only the first of many exercises of raw power, many of which will likely make the Obama NLRB look tame.

The nation will soon be disillusioned. Mr. Biden is likely to continue speaking a lot of pretty words in coming months. What matters are his actions.

Democrats Again Call For The End To The Electoral College

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hillary Clinton again calls for the Electoral College to be nixed:

Mark Levin does a few second response to this idiocy:

CIVICS 101

  • “…the possibility that the [Constitutional Republic] in which we live provides us with opportunities for [representation] that… exceed those provided by primitive orders to far fewer people should not be dismissed.”

I wanted to edit/adapt the above HAYEK quote to fit the broader idea that what our Founders created is the most fair to the most people. I will include the larger quote at the end, in context, as, it has nothing to do with what I adapted it to. As I was reading this section of “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” I thought of the attempt by Democrats to do away with the Electoral College. Which immediately brought to mind that MORE voters will be disenfranchised if it is eliminated. Why? Because the popular vote could be won by almost 4-states alone: California, Texas, Florida, New York. So, let’s take the most recent election as an example:

  • The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. (CNN)

In the Electoral College world, the smaller states had a say and 2.9 million voters were “disenfranchised,” so-to-speak. In a direct democracy, which our Founders specifically wrote against, all a candidate would have to do is campaign in about 11-cities to win the election.

Do you understand what the Electoral College is? Or how it works? Or why America uses it to elect its presidents instead of just using a straight popular vote? Author, lawyer and Electoral College expert Tara Ross does, and she explains that to understand the Electoral College is to understand American democracy.

  • James Madison (fourth President, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the “father” of the Constitution) – “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general; been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
  • John Adams (American political philosopher, first vice President and second President) – “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
  • Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration) – “A simple democracy… is one of the greatest of evils.”
  • Fisher Ames (American political thinker and leader of the federalists [he entered Harvard at twelve and graduated by sixteen], author of the House language for the First Amendment) – “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will provide an eruption and carry desolation in their way.´ / “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.”
  • Governor Morris (signer and penman of the Constitution) – “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate… as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism…. Democracy! Savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”
  • John Quincy Adams (sixth President, son of John Adams [see above]) – “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
  • Noah Webster (American educator and journalist as well as publishing the first dictionary) – “In democracy… there are commonly tumults and disorders….. therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”
  • John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence) – “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
  • Zephaniah Swift (author of America’s first legal text) – “It may generally be remarked that the more a government [or state] resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

Take note that as well ArticleIV, Section4 of the Constitution reads:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…“

Right now, there’s a well-organized, below-the-radar effort to render the Electoral College effectively useless. It’s called the National Popular Vote, and it would turn our presidential elections into a majority-rule affair. Would this be good or bad? Author, lawyer, and Electoral College expert Tara Ross explains.

You vote, but then what? Discover how your individual vote contributes to the popular vote and your state’s electoral vote in different ways–and see how votes are counted on both state and national levels.

CATO Article:

Critics have long derided the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority president. That day has arrived, assuming Gov. Bush wins the Florida recount as seems likely.

The fact that Bush is poised to become president without a plurality of the vote contravenes neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. The wording of our basic law is clear: The winner in the Electoral College takes office as president. But what of the spirit of our institutions? Are we not a democracy that honors the will of the people? The very question indicates a misunderstanding of our Constitution.

James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these two-fold divisions — the separation of powers and federalism — provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California.

The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system — a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform).

If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.

How did the terms “Elector” and “Electoral College” come into usage?

The term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to “the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors,” but he does not use the term “electoral college.”

The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 – 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term “college” (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800’s, the term “electoral college” came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as “college of electors.”

More Common Sense

Who exactly are the “Resistance,” as explored in Kim Strassel’s new book “Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters are Breaking America”?

How are “Trump haters” different from “Trump critics?” How is the Resistance different from past political movements? What are the long-term implications of its activities? And how are the media involved?

And, how can the Trump “impeachment inquiry” be seen as the latest chapter of the Resistance’s efforts?

This is American Thought Leaders??, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Today we sit down with Kim Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a prominent political commentator. She was the recipient of the Bradley Prize in 2014, and she writes the Journal’s long-running “Potomac Watch” column.

Kimberley Strassel: “Honey We Shrunk The Impeachment”

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Adam Schiff spent six weeks lecturing the country on the proper definition of bribery, which was something removed from all statutes or the history of the country, but it was the way they had to define it in order to pack it in what they say Donald Trump did,” she explained. “And then suddenly it disappears and this is because someone in the Democratic Party realized, if you’re going to expand the definition the way they did and say any time any politician asks for something from another country in a way that might benefit them in some way, that their own party would be implicated.”

Kimberly wen after Hillary as well on Twitter:

Some More Commentary On IG Related Stuff

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Hat-Tip to OK BOOMER) Trey Gowdy shares his biggest takeaways from the DOJ Inspector General’s FISA abuse report on ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum.’

The next article is thanks to AMERICAN GREATNESS: “Ratcliffe: Dems Withholding Transcript That Reveals How ‘Whistleblower Got Caught With Chairman Schiff’”

…Ratcliffe pointed out that Democrats keep using the word “demand” do describe Trump’s suggestion to the Ukraine president that corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden should be looked into.

“Guess which word isn’t anywhere in the transcript?” Ratcliffe asked before informing the committee that the word is “demand.”

“Nowhere in that transcript does the president make a ‘demand,’” he declared. “Do you know where the word ‘demand’ came from? It came from the whistleblower.  That’s the first time we heard the word demand,” Ratcliffe explained.

When he notified the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, he said President Trump made a demand! He thought he could do that because he thought no one would ever be able to prove that because what president would take the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript with a foreign leader. This president did! Something that the whistleblower never expected.

President Trump, we keep hearing, got caught. President Trump, we keep hearing, is obstructing justice. The president that took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so that everyone could see the truth is not obstructing congress. The president didn’t get caught. The whistleblower got caught. The whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with Chairman Schiff!

Ratcliffe noted that rather than run the impeachment inquiry out of the House Judiciary where it belonged, Democrats put the highly conflicted chairman of the Intelligence Committee in charge of the case.

“The person who got caught with the whistleblower!” Ratcliffe exclaimed.

The Texas Republican recalled how Schiff had initially denied having any contact with the anti-Trump complainant identified online as Eric Ciaramella (seen below shaking hands with former president Barack Obama).

[….]

When questioned by Ratcliffe during his closed door testimony on October 4, Atkinson revealed information about a potential link between Schiff or his staff and the whistleblower.

Responding to a question about the transcript on Twitter last month, Ratcliffe said: “It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his ‘investigation’ into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified ‘secret’ so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions.”

This article excerpt comes by way of RED STATE: “Kimberley Strassel: ‘Buried in the IG Report is a Line that Poses an Enormous Question, Central to Everything’”

On Wednesday evening, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel noticed something peculiar in the IG report and posed a question via a twitter thread:

Buried in the IG report is a line that poses an enormous question, one that is central to everything, and really must be answered. Remember: According to all relevant players, prior to July of 2016, nobody had a Trump-Russia collusion narrative on their minds.

Indeed, the FBI says it was only the Downer tip-off at end-July that spurred the investigation. Downer for his part says it was public revelation in July of the DNC hack that caused him to finally wonder about collusion and connect his spring conversation with Papadopoulos.

Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson, meanwhile, in Senate testimony, “stress[ed]” he hired Steele in May to look at Trump’s “business activities” in Russia….By Simpson’s telling (under penalty of perjury), Steele just sort of stumbled on this much “broader” “political conspiracy.”

But here is what Steele told the IG: That in May 2016, Simpson approached Steele to “assist in determining Russia’s actions related to the 2016 election”; “whether Russia was trying to achieve a particular election outcome”; and…

“whether there were any ties between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign.” (Page 93) Seems Simpson had a pretty good bead on the “narrative” long before the govt. claims to have had it and before even his own source had reported it to him. Huh.

Let’s hope Attorney John Durham provides some answers on who exactly knew what in the spring of 2016.

The answer could be that Glenn Simpson and his wife, Mary Jacoby, wrote the script a long time ago.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) appeared on Fox News’  “Hannity” in the spring to discuss the origins of the Steele dossier. He said it should really be called the “Simpson” dossier. Although Christopher Steele likely contributed “stories” to the dossier, and his years of experience in British intelligence lent credence to the document, Nunes said he believed that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson may actually have written the majority of it.

[….]

Simpson hired Christopher Steele in June 2016. According to Smith, Steele had been “identified as a British spy in 1999.” He had been chief of the “Russia desk when Russian assassins killed FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko in London and was hardly in a position to make discreet inquiries. Still, Simpson must have thought Steele’s name at a minimum would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Reportedly, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI, and journalists love spies who spill secrets.”

Kimberley Strassel | American Thought Leaders

Published by Papa Giorgio

Who exactly are the “Resistance,” as explored in Kim Strassel’s new book “Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters are Breaking America”?

How are “Trump haters” different from “Trump critics?” How is the Resistance different from past political movements? What are the long-term implications of its activities? And how are the media involved?

And, how can the Trump “impeachment inquiry” be seen as the latest chapter of the Resistance’s efforts?

This is American Thought Leaders??, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Today we sit down with Kim Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a prominent political commentator. She was the recipient of the Bradley Prize in 2014, and she writes the Journal’s long-running “Potomac Watch” column.

FBI Spy Operation On Trump (SPYGATE)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(JUMP)
UPDATES will appear above  [scroll up] Ace of Spades

ALSO, Go To: JUNE UPDATES TO SPYGATE

Keep in mind this whole story is about BIG government and makes Prager’s maxim stand taller:

  • The larger the government, the smaller the individual.

The NEW YORK TIMES offered a major correction to its “official” timeline of when the spy operation started against the Trump Campaign. The NYTs confirms a spy in the Trump campaign, thus, undermining its own attacks on “crazy Trump” and his and other conservative “conspiracy theories” – so called.

  • Crossfire Hurricane | Rush Limbaugh (YOUTUBE)
  • Crossfire Hurricane | Mark Levin (YOUTUBE)

Since Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General who was appointed by Obama, signed the first FISA application using the Steele Dossier as evidence to spy on a campaign of an opposing political Party, you bet Obama would have been aware.

One thing the NYT article did admit, and that is that “…No Evidence Exists of Trump-Russia Collusion” (EPOCH TIMES). And there have been many concerted efforts to whitewash the players in this cabal from the article in the New York Times — proving they are helping soften the blow (MOLLIE HEMINGWAY) — click graphic to enlarge:

What is the bottom line of this issue?

  • The NYTs reveals FBI used a secret type of subpoena to spy on the Trump campaign, as well as human spies inserted into the campaign – BEFORE Carter-Page, before Papadopoulos, BEFORE Flynn (BREITBART). Meaning, this is a concerted effort by a political party to overturn an election. Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, head of Stalin’s secret police, once told Stalin, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” – Me

All I will do is give a listing of some articles that are noting the NYT column:

  • Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW, by Andrew C. Mccarthy | May 17, 2018);
  • Crossfire Hurricane: Category Five Political Espionage (AMERICAN SPECTATOR, by George Neumayr | May 18, 2018);
  • National Security Letter (WIKIPEDIA)
  • 10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying On Trump Campaign (THE FEDERALIST, Mollie Hemingway | May 17, 2018);
  • NYT Report Confirms Obama Administration’s FBI Spied on Trump Campaign (LEGAL INSURRECTION, by Kemberlee Kaye | May 16, 2018);
  • Just WOW: Kimberley Strassel’s thread on NYT ‘Hurricane Crossfire’ piece incredibly DAMNING for Obama DOJ/FBI (TWITCHY May 17, 2018| THREAD READER, May 16, 2018);
  • The Origin of The Feces – Corrupt Intelligence Community Now Leaking To Justify Unlawful Election Surveillance: Operation “Crossfire Hurricane” (CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE | May 16, 2018);
  • The Morning Report (ACE OF SPADES | 5/17/18);
  • Trump: Obama FBI ‘Probably’ Had a Spy Inside Presidential Campaign (FREE BEACON, byPaul Crookston | May 17, 2018);
  • A “Crossfire Hurricane” Of Partisanship (HOWARD KURTZ | May 17, 2018);
  • Operation Crossfire Hurricane + I.G. Report Update (SEAN HANNITY | May 16, 2018)
  • Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation (ABOVE TOP SECRET | May, 16 2018).

Here is another evidence of the New York Times carrying water for this deep state:

This example cam from an article entitled, “The Deep State Is Real, And Much Bigger Than You Know” (TOWNHALL).

  • In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures (NATIONAL REVIEW, Andrew C. Mccarthy | May 19, 2018 )

IMPORTANT!!!

Stefan Halper has been identified and confirmed as the intelligence informant used by President Obama’s CIA and FBI to engage in contact with low level Trump campaign officials during their efforts to conduct a counterintelligence operation against the candidate.  The joint CIA and FBI operation was codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane“.

Rather ironically, five days before the 2016 election intelligence agent provocateur Stefan Halper gave an interview to Sputnik News where he outlined his agenda; in hindsight the aggregate agenda of the Obama administration:

  • “I believe [Hillary] Clinton would be best for US-UK relations and for relations with the European Union. Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced and predictable. US-UK relations will remain steady regardless of the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over time.”  — Stefan Halper

(CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE | May 20, 2018)

  • Perspectives On An “Outing” (POWERLINE, by Paul Mirengoff | MAY 20, 2018)
  • Nunes Approaches The Target (POWERLINE, Scott Johnson | May 20, 2018)
  • Nunes Approaches The Target (2) (POWERLINE, by  Scott Johnson | May 21, 2018)

  • Clintonista Mark Penn: Mueller Probe Exposed — and the ‘Deep State’ Is Flailing (BREITBART | 21 May, 2018)
  • Who Is Stefan Halper? Meet the ‘FBI Informant’ Inside Trump’s 2016 Campaign (BREITBART, by Joshua Caplan | 21 May, 2018)
  • BREAKING: Rosenstein ORDERS probe into Trump spying… (THE RIGHT SCOOP, by Soopermexican | May. 20, 2018)
  • The Media See Only One Collusion Story (NATIONAL REVIEW, by John Fund | May 20, 2018)
  • Trump Gets FBI, Justice Department To Probe Claims Of Spying On His Campaign (WASHINGTON TIMES | May 21, 2018)
  • Devastating 2016 Strzok Text Found: Obama’s WH is Running Trump Investigation (CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE, by Ben Marquis | May 21, 2018)
  • Why Former Clinton Pollster Mark Penn Opposes the Russia Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW, by Alexandra Desanctis | May 21, 2018)
  • At Trump’s Urging, Justice Department Expands Investigation of Investigators (NATIONAL REVIEW, by Andrew C. McCarthy | May 21, 2018)
  • As Evidence Piles Up, The Media Ignore The ‘Other’ Trump-Russia Scandal (INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY | May 21, 2018)
  • Spies Like Obama? The Treachery Of “Crossfire Hurricane” Comes Into The Light (FRONTPAGE MAG, by Matthew Vadum | May 21, 2018)
  • NY Times Tries to Minimize Reports on FBI Informant (ACCURACY IN MEDIA, by Carrie Sheffield | May 21, 2018)
  • Pence: Reports of Politicized FBI ‘Very Troubling’ (NEWSMAX, by Jason Devaney| May 21, 2018)
  • Sally Yates: Trump Has Taken His ‘Assault on Rule of Law to a New Level (NEWSMAX, by Brian Freeman | Monday, 21 May 2018)
  • Mueller ‘Has No Right’ To Investigate POTUS (ONE NEWS NOW, by Chad Groening | May 21, 2018)
  • Outing Of FBI Informant Underscores British Spy Service’S Ties To Shadowy Trump Investigations (WASHINGTON TIMES, by Rowan Scarborough | May 21, 2018)
  • House Republicans to call for second special counsel to investigate alleged FISA abuse, Hillary Clinton probe (FOX NEWS, by Samuel Chamberlain | May 21, 2018)
  • Grassley requests DOJ documents on Bruce Ohr dealings with Christopher Steele on anti-Trump dossier (FOX NEWS, by Samuel Chamberlain | May 21, 2018)
  • Does The Justice Department Have To Tell Congress What Mueller Is Doing? (WASHINGTON EXAMINER, by Byron York | May 21, 2018 — also, SOOPERMEXICAN)
  • Diplomat Who Prompted FBI Trump Spying Helped Raise $25M for Clinton Foundation (BREITBART, by Nate Church | 21 May 2018)
  • In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures (NATIONAL REVIEW, by Andrew C. McCarthy | May 19, 2018)

  • BREAKING: E-mails Show FBI Brass Discussed Dossier Briefing Details With CNN (THE FEDERALIST, by Sean Davis | May 21, 2018)
  • Byron York: When Did Trump-Russia Probe Begin? Investigators Focus On Mystery Months (WASHINGTON EXAMINER, by Byron York | May 21, 2018)

  • The Real Origination Story of the Trump-Russia Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW, by Andrew McCarthy | May 22, 2018)
  • FACT CHECK: Cnn Claims There Aren’T 13 Democrats On The Mueller Probe (CHECK YOUR FACT, by David Sivak)
  • NYT Columnist Worries Mueller Investigation Actually Helping Trump (DAILY CALLER, by Peter Hasson | May 22, 2018)
  • Manafort’s Lawyers Suggest Key Mueller Deputy Is Leaking To Media (DAILY CALLER, by Richard Pollock | May 22, 2018)
  • About That “Sensitive Matter” (POWERLINE, by Scott Johnson | May 23, 2018)
  • Deep State James Clapper: Embedding Spy Inside Trump Campaign Is “Standard Investigative Practices – Goes On All the Time” (GATEWAY PUNDIT, by Jim Hoft | May 22, 2018)
  • CNN Water Boy Don Lemon Calls BS on Trump’s Spying ‘Conspiracy’ – Then James Clapper Tells Him Spying on Trump “A Good Thing” (GATEWAY PUNDIT, by Jim Hoft | May 23, 2018)
  • Concealed FISA Docs May Hold Key to Trump Surveillance (SARA CARTER | May 22, 2018)
  • Sources: FBI Agents Want Congress To Issue Them Subpoenas So They Can Reveal The Bureau’s Dirt (DAILY CALLER, by Kerry Picket  | May 22, 2018)
  • Mueller Probe Is ‘Just Plain Wrong’ and ‘Has Got to Be Ended’ (POLIZETTE, by Kathryn Blackhurst | 22 May 2018)
  • Of Course, Obama Knew of the Spying on the Trump Campaign (CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE, by Cillian Zeal | May 26, 2018 )
  • The Dummies Guide To The Russia Collusion Hoax: Who, What, Where, When, & Why (ZERO HEDGE, by Tyler Durden | May 26, 2018)

(Meadows: We Need to Know Who Directed Spy Campaign – BREITBART)

  • Sorry, But Obama White House, Not Dossier, Was Behind Trump Investigation (INEVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY | May 23, 2018)
  • CIA Or CNN? The Media Deep State’S Echo Chamber (FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE, by Daniel Greenfield, May 25, 2018)
  • Did the Obama Administration Spy on Trump Using Flimsy Evidence? (NATIONAL REVIEW, by  David Harsanyi | May 25, 2018)
  • Enough w/Semantics: Let’s See Evidence to Justify Spying (NATIONAL REVIEW, by  Andrew McCarthy | May 26, 2018)
  • Crossfire Hurricane: Is The Code Name A Reference To Christopher Steele? (HOT AIR, by John Sexton | May 26, 2018)
  • It’s Time To Admit The Russia Investigation Was Illegitimate From The Start (THE FEDERALIST, by Margot Cleveland | May 23, 2018)
  • Steve Hilton: “Sufficient Reasons To Think” Intel Services Acted To Thwart Trump’s Election (REAL CLEAR POLITICS, by Ian Schwartz | May 23, 2018)
  • Michael Hayden Calls BS On James Clapper (POWERLINE, by Paul Mirengoff | May 27, 2018)
  • Explicating “Crossfire Hurricane” – One More Thought (POWERLINE, by  Scott Johnson | May 27, 2018)
  • Giuliani says Mueller probe is ILLEGAL and ILLEGITIMATE, Russian indictments are ‘PHONY’ (RIGHT SCOOP, by Soopermexican | May 27, 2018)
  • Rudy Hits Another Home Run: Mueller’s Team is Rigged So Bad Some of His Team Were “at Hillary Clinton’s Funeral!” (GATEWAY PUNDIT, by Joe Hoft, May, 28, 2018)
  • Trump Has More Questions for the ’13 Angry Democrats’ (TOWNHALL, by Cortney O’Brien | May 27, 2018)
  • Law Professor Insists Mueller ‘Has No Clothes’ (LIFE ZETTE, by Brendan Kirby | May 27, 2018)
  • Obama’s spying scandal is starting to look a lot like Watergate (NEW YORK POST, by Michael Barone | May 27, 2018)
  • Trump campaign vet: Informant used me to get to Papadopoulos (WASHINGTON EXAMINER, by Byron York | May 28, 2018)
  • Fox News Contributor Claims Hillary Clinton ‘Gave’ Russians Money During 2016 Campaign (WASHINGTON EXAMINER, by Mandy Mayfield | May 28, 2018)

  • Trey Gowdy’s Defense Of The FBI In “Spygate” (POWERLINE, by Paul Mirengoff | May 30, 2018)
  • Not Giddy Over Gowdy (POWERLINE, by Scott Johnson | May 31, 2018)
  • Yes, the FBI Was Investigating the Trump Campaign When It Spied (NATIONAL REVIEW, by  Andrew McCarthy | May 30, 2018)
  • Trey Gowdy Didn’t Even See Documents He Claims Exonerate FBI On Spygate: Reports (THE FEDERALIST, by Mollie Hemingway | May 30, 2018)
  • And Now, The McCabe Memos (POWERLINE, by Scott Johnson | May 31, 2018)
  • Grassley: Fusion GPS Founder Gave ‘Extremely Misleading’ Testimony About Trump Work (DAILY CALLER, by Chuck Ross | May 29, 2018)
  • 3 Reasons Rod Rosenstein’s Special Counsel Appointment Was Illegal (THE FEDERALIST, by Margot Cleveland | May 31, 2018)
  • Prosecutors Interview Comey As They Consider Whether To Charge Mccabe (LAREDO MORNING TIMES [WaPo], by Matt Zapotosky | May 31, 2018)
  • Rod Rosenstein’S Non-Recusal (POWERLINE, by Paul Mirengoff | May 31, 2018)
  • Boom!! Prosecutors Interview Comey, Close To Charging Andrew Mccabe… (RIGHT SCOOP, by Soopermexican | May 31, 2018)

ACE OF SPADES DUMPS

MUELLER WITCH HUNT, DEEP STATE COUP

5-31-2018

5-28-2018

5-23-2018

5-21-2018

5-18-2018

5-17-2018

 

An FBI Mole In Trump Campaign Undermines Timeline

Published by Papa Giorgio

The article is at THE WALL STREET JOURNAL and is entitled, “About That FBI ‘Source’ – Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?” But it is behind a “pay wall.” I did track it down… this is YUGE NEWS! Why? Because it is Obama that is in charge of the FBI and there would have been a mole inserted into the Trump campaign BEFORE — before — the official FBI timeline that we have all seen testimony of and have read about.

This is scary.

Full Strassel text with thanks to REAL CLEAR POLITICS:

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?

And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.

Winning – Obama-Care/UNESCO/Regulations/Courts/Christmas

Published by Papa Giorgio

Apparently in many arenas, Trump has come to kick ass AND chew bubble gum… but he seems to be out of bubble gum!

The WASHINGTON TIMES writes about the above FOX NEWS statement:

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Friday that President Trump is “systematically” removing hundreds of regulations put in place by the Obama administration.

“The president has already knocked out some 860 rules and regulations from the Obama administration, and every day we’re finding more and more to do. Remember, Obama put in something like 7,000 new rules and regulations just in the last two years he was in office,” Mr. Ross said on Fox Business.

When asked what types of regulations Mr. Trump was removing — whether oil and gas, environmental or banking — the secretary responded, “All of the above.”

“You would think the American public was a wild and woolly place two years earlier to require 7,000 new rules. But the president is systematically removing them, changing them, getting rid of them. And I think we’ll beat his formula of two reductions for one increase,” he said….

The article from Kimberley Strassel that Prager was reading from in the second half of the audio above is locked behind the WALL STREET JOURNAL’S pay wall, but here is the entire article (via INVESTOR VILLAGE) from which I excerpt from:

Scalias All The Way Down — While The Press Goes Wild Over Tweets, Trump Is Remaking The Federal Judiciary

Ask most Republicans to identify Donald Trump’s biggest triumph to date, and the answer comes quick: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. That’s the cramped view.

The media remains so caught up with the president’s tweets that it has missed Mr. Trump’s project to transform the rest of the federal judiciary. The president is stocking the courts with a class of brilliant young textualists bearing little relation to even their Reagan or Bush predecessors. Mr. Trump’s nastygrams to Bob Corker will be a distant memory next week. Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett’s influence on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could still be going strong 40 years from now.

Mr. Trump has now nominated nearly 60 judges, filling more vacancies than Barack Obama did in his entire first year. There are another 160 court openings, allowing Mr. Trump to flip or further consolidate conservative majorities on the circuit courts that have the final say on 99% of federal legal disputes.

This project is the work of Mr. Trump, White House Counsel Don McGahn and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Every new president cares about the judiciary, but no administration in memory has approached appointments with more purpose than this team.

Mr. Trump makes the decisions, though he’s taking cues from Mr. McGahn and his team. The Bushies preferred a committee approach: Dozens of advisers hunted for the least controversial nominee with the smallest paper trail. That helped get picks past a Senate filibuster, but it led to bland choices, or to ideological surprises like retired Justice David Souter.

Harry Reid’s 2013 decision to blow up the filibuster for judicial nominees has freed the Trump White House from having to worry about a Democratic veto during confirmation. Mr. McGahn’s team (loaded with former Clarence Thomas clerks) has carte blanche to work with outside groups like the Federalist Society to tap the most conservative judges.

Mr. McGahn has long been obsessed with constitutional law and the risks of an all-powerful administrative state. His crew isn’t subjecting candidates to 1980s-style litmus tests on issues like abortion. Instead the focus is on promoting jurists who understand the unique challenges of our big-government times. Can the prospective nominee read a statute? Does he or she defer to the government’s view of its own authority? The result has been a band of young rock stars and Scalia-style textualists like Ms. Barrett, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett and Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice David Stras.

Senate Republicans have so far blown their major agenda items, but they’ve remained unified on judges. They agreed to kill the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees so as to confirm Justice Gorsuch; have confirmed six other judicial nominees; and stand ready to greenlight dozens more. This is a big shift from divisions the party had over the Bush 41 and Bush 43 nominees…..

Trump is also doing some culture battle stuff in regard to Christmas:

CNN notes the speech by Trump in this battle of ideas:

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump dove into America’s culture wars on Friday, touting his administration for “returning moral clarity to our view of the world” and ending “attacks on Judeo-Christian values.”

Trump, nine months into his presidency, has found it harder to get things done than the ease with which he made promises on the campaign trail, making speeches to adoring audiences like Friday’s in Washington key to boosting the President’s morale. And the audience at the Values Voter Summit, an annual socially conservative conference, didn’t fail to deliver.

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump said to applause, before slamming people who don’t say “Merry Christmas.”

“They don’t use the word Christmas because it is not politically correct,” Trump said, complaining that department stores will use red and Christmas decorations but say “Happy New Year.” “We’re saying Merry Christmas again.”

The comment drew thunderous applause.

Heated debates over the “War On Christmas” have raged for years, with many on the right complaining that political correctness has made it less acceptable to say Merry Christmas. Trump has seized on these feelings, regularly telling primarily religious audiences that his presidency has made it acceptable to “start saying Merry Christmas again.”…..

Kimberley Strassel Destroys Narrative on NBC’s Meet the Press

Published by Papa Giorgio

…“I think we are having a discussion that is absolutely divorced from reality this week. It is astonishing,” she quipped as she reminded them of how then candidate Obama (not President-elect Obama) set up a highly covert back channel with the Iranians:

Let me set the scene for you: It’s 2008, we are having an election and candidate Obama, he’s not even president elect, sends William Miller over to Iran to establish a backchannel, and let the Iranians know should he win the election they will have friendlier terms. Okay? So this is a private citizen going to foreign soil, obviously in order to evade U.S. intelligence monitoring and establishing a backchannel with a sworn enemy of the United States who was actively disrupting our efforts in the military in the Middle East.

(NEWSBUSTERS)

Of course there is more to this issue than the MSM has led on to… such as this BLOOMBERG (2014):

President Barack Obama’s administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

This month, Obama’s National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

[….]

Kerry has been the point man on dealing with Russia because his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow. They meet often, often without any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly. Obama and Putin, on the other hand, are known to have an intense dislike for each other and very rarely speak….

Funny that “back-channels were an Obama thing… for reals!

Trump’s Media Inspired Green-Card Mayhem

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder pours over the Sunday shows and by doing so shows the green-Card issue is at worst a misunderstanding [purposefully or innocent] on the Press’ part – at best poorly communicated through proper channels via the Trump administration. What is clear however is that nothing in the bill itself requires the conclusions by the Left and the media. Here David French makes the point:

✦ The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. (National Review)

I include in this long audio/video Mark Levin’s impersonation of John McCain.

Kimberley Strassel Discusses Trump’s “Federalist Revival”

Published by Papa Giorgio

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL discusses the fight for Federalism and how Scott Pruitt will help in this endeavor:

Donald Trump had barely finished announcing his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency before the left started listing its million reasons why Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was the worst nomination in the history of the planet: He’s an untrained anti-environmentalist. He’s a polluter. He’s a fossil-fuel fanatic, a lobbyist-lover, a climate crazy.

Mr. Pruitt is not any of those things. Here’s what he in fact is, and the real reason the left is frustrated: He’s a constitutional scholar, a federalist (and a lawyer). And for those reasons he is a sublime choice to knock down the biggest conceit of the Obama era—arrogant, overweening (and illegal) Washington rule.

We’ve lived so many years under the Obama reign that many Americans forget we are a federal republic, composed of 50 states. There isn’t a major statute on the books that doesn’t recognize this reality and acknowledge that the states are partners with—and often superior to—the federal government. That is absolutely the case with major environmental statues, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Congress specifically understood in crafting each of these laws that one-size-fits all solutions were detrimental to the environment. Federal bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency traditionally and properly existed to set minimum standards, provide technical support, and engage in occasional enforcement. States, with their unique knowledge of local problems, economies and concerns, were free to innovate their own solutions.

But President Obama never held much with laws, because he failed at making them. After his first two years in office, he never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative. His response—and the enduring theme of his presidency—was therefore to ignore Congress and statutes, go around the partnership framework, and give his agencies authority to dictate policy from Washington. The states were demoted from partners to indentured servants. So too were any rival federal agencies that got in the EPA’s way. Example: The EPA’s pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s proposed Pebble Mine, in which it usurped Army Corps of Engineers authority.

One revealing illustration from EPA world. Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans. If the EPA disapproves of a state plan, it is empowered to impose a federal one—one of the most aggressive actions the agency can take against a state, since it is the equivalent of a seizure of authority. In the entirety of the presidencies of George H.W. Bush,Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal implementation plans on states. By last count, the Obama administration has imposed at least 56.

Much of Mr. Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s AG was about trying to stuff federal agencies back into their legal boxes. Most of the press either never understood this, or never wanted to. When the media wrote about state lawsuits against ObamaCare or the Clean Power Plan or the Water of the United States rule, the suggestion usually was that this litigation was ideologically motivated, and a naked attempt to do what a Republican Congress could not—tank the president’s agenda.

The basis of nearly every one of these lawsuits was in fact violations of states’ constitutional and statutory rights—and it is why so many of the cases were successful. It was all a valiant attempt to force the federal government to follow the law. And it has been a singular Pruitt pursuit.

[….]

It doesn’t need a climate warrior, as Congress has never passed a climate law, and so the EPA has no mandate to meddle there. What it needs is a lawyer, one with the knowledge of how to cut the agency back to its proper role—restoring not just an appropriate legal partnership with the states, but also with other federal bodies. One who reminds agency staff that the EPA was not created to oppose growth and development.

If Mr. Pruitt does this successfully, and on the way crushes the current president’s legacy, Mr. Obama will have only himself to blame. His abuse of federal power helped elect a new generation of state attorneys general and Washington Republicans passionately devoted to a states’ rights agenda. They’ll be advising Mr. Trump not just on environmental policy, but on health care, labor policy, entitlement reform. Say hello to the federalist revival.

 

 

 

 

Kimberley Strassel’s Interview w/Steve Bannon (Alt-Right Defined)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(TAKE NOTE: under the article is a “Reality Check” by Ben Swann… I think he does the best job in defining the loose movement of the Alt-Right. Remember, “Monarchists” would fall into this category.) ALSO, the ADL has backed away from it’s statements somewhat in regards to Bannon:

  • The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has backed away from its earlier accusations against Stephen K. Bannon, stating on its website: “We are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements from Bannon.” (BREITBART) 

Here is the KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL article where she interviews Steve Bannon about the “war in politics.”

It’s hard to think of Steve Bannon as a low-profile guy. He has garnered about as many headlines over the past week as Donald Trump—no small feat. He is the executive chairman of the hard-right Breitbart News, among the most aggressive voices online, its website an attack machine against Democrats and “establishment” conservatives. President-elect Trump chose Mr. Bannon this week as his chief strategist and senior counselor, a slot usually filed by someone eager to play a presidential surrogate on TV.

Yet Mr. Bannon—who joined the Trump campaign in mid-August to propel its thunderbolt victory—professes no interest in being the story. “It’s not important to be known,” he says in a telephone interview Thursday night, among his first public comments since the election. “It was Lao Tzu who said that with the best leaders, when the work is accomplished, the people will say ‘We have done this ourselves.’ That’s how I’ve led.”

Nor does he profess to care that Democrats and the media are portraying him as a “cloven-hoofed devil,” as he puts it. “I pride myself in doing things that matter. What mattered in the campaign was winning. We did. What matters now is pulling together the single best team we can to implement President-elect Trump’s vision.

He continues: “How can you take anything seriously from a media apparatus—paid the amount of money you people are paid—that systematically missed something that was so obvious, that missed Brexit, that missed the Trump revolution? You’d have thought they’d have learned their lesson on November 8.”

Slight pause. “They clearly haven’t.”

Here are a few things you’ve likely read about Steve Bannon this week: He’s a white supremacist, a bigot and anti-Semite. He’s a self-described Leninist who wants to “destroy the state.” He’s associated with the “alt-right,” a movement that, according to the New York Times, delights in “harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media.”

You’ll have seen some of Breitbart’s more offensive headlines, which refer to “renegade” Jews and the “dangerous faggot tour.” You maybe heard that Breitbart is gearing up to be a Pravda-like state organ for the Trump administration.

Mr. Bannon is an aggressive political scrapper, unabashed in his views, but he says those views bear no relation to the media’s description. Over 70 minutes, he describes himself as a “conservative,” a “populist” and an “economic nationalist.” He’s a talker, but unexcitable, speaking in measured tones. A former naval officer, he thinks in military terms and likes to quote philosophers and generals. He’s contemptuous of the media, proud of Breitbart, protective of the “deplorables,” and—at least at the moment—eager to work with everyone from soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

At first Mr. Bannon insists that he has no interest in “wasting time” addressing the accusations against him. Yet he’s soon ticking off the reasons they are “just nonsense.”

Anti-Semitic? “Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America. I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement”—meaning boycott, divestment and sanctions—“in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.” He adds that given his many Jewish partners and writers, “guys like Joel Pollak, these claims of anti-Semitism just aren’t serious. It’s a joke.”

He blames the attacks on a lazy media, noting for instance that the “renegade Jew” line wasn’t Breitbart’s. Conservative activist David Horowitz (also Jewish) has taken responsibility for writing the headline himself, in a piece about Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

The Lenin anecdote came from an article in the Daily Beast by a writer who claimed to have spoken with Mr. Bannon in 2013: “So a guy I’ve never heard of in my life claims he met me at a party, and then claims I said something about Lenin, and this is taken as gospel truth, with nobody checking it.”

What about the charge of white supremacism? “I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism.”

Mr. Bannon says the accusations miss that “the black working and middle class and the Hispanic working and middle class, just like whites, have been severely hurt by the policies of globalism.” He adds that he urged candidate Trump to reach out in his campaigning. “I was the one who said we are going to Flint, Michigan, we are going to black churches in Cleveland, because the thrust of this movement is that we are going to bring capitalism to the inner cities.”

Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? “They were ready to coronateHillary Clinton. That didn’t happen, and I’m one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride.”

Mr. Bannon is fiercely proud of the bomb-throwing Breitbart News, too. He credits it with “catching and understanding this populist movement” as far back as 2013, narrating the rise of the UK Independence Party in Britain, the exit movement for Scotland, and ultimately Brexit. “We were on to this change years before Donald Trump came on the scene,” he says.

He acknowledges that the site is “edgy” but insists it is “vibrant.” He offers his own definition of the alt-right movement and explains how he sees it fitting into Breitbart. “Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”

But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views….

(Read it all at the WSJ)