Comey Admitted It - What's to Investigate?

So it has come out that what James Comey leaked to his buddy about President Trump to give to the NYT was classified. That is a felony! I heard a Republican Senator or Congressman say that needs to be investigated! WTF? He admitted it under oath in testimony to Congress! It is a crime. What's to investigate? Send it to a grand jury! Prosecute him and let a jury decide! Same with Hillary. Comey spelled out the violations of the law committed by then Secretary of State Clinton. Does anyone believe that the average citizen would escape prosecution? Public officials need to be held to a higher not lower standard than the average citizen and it's about damn time that starts happening. Comey and Clinton should be the examples!

Mueller Hires OJ Simpson

Breaking News: Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller hires OJ Simpson for Trump collusion investigation based on his experience finding the real killers of his wife Nichole and her friend Ron Goldman.

I'm kidding of course but it makes as much sense as the list of Democrat donors and discredited investigators Mueller has already selected for his team. How about throwing in a few Bigfoot investigators too. At least they have experience following a trail with some evidence.

Comey's Most Important Character Trait

Comey's testimony yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee reinforced his singular, personal character trait: he is very tall. That's it!

Trump-Russian Collusion

What is the difference between:

1. UFOs

2. Bigfoot

3. Ancient Astronauts 

4. Atlantis

and

5. Trump/Russian Collusion?

There is at least some evidence for #s 1-4.

With that in mind, most of what Democrats like Chuck Schumer say is more suited for the 1-2am segment of "Coast to Coast" with George Noory rather than the House floor or the well of the Senate.

The Next Looney Left Conspiracy Theory?

The AP is reporting that Russia knew in advanced about the chemical attack in Syria. Any bets on how long it will take for the looney Left to begin speculating that Trump also knew in advance? After all, he and Putin are BFFs, right?

Pelosi's Expanding Vocabulary

Last June in the heat of the presidential campaign and in the lead up to the FBI's announcement as to whether or not it would recommend indicting Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton for her private email server and failing to properly safeguard classified emails, the then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had a private meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport with Hillary's husband former President Bill Clinton. As Attorney General, Lynch was the boss of FBI Director James Comey - the man making the determination whether to indict or not indict Hillary. This was completely inappropriate and many, myself included, called for Lynch to either resign or at least recuse herself from the decision process. Many but not Rep Nancy Pelosi (D - CA).

A few days later, Director Comey called a press conference where he described a list of potential criminal acts that appeared to have committed by Mrs Clinton but to the amazement of most, he concluded by saying  he was not recommending an indictment based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and because he believed the case wasn't strong enough to get a conviction.

Fast forward 9 month later and Pelosi is demanding that Attorney General Jeff Session recuse himself from the investigation into whether Russia influenced the 2016 presidential campaign because he met with the Russian Ambassador when he was a senator.

Is "recuse" a new word for Speaker Pelosi? Perhaps she got one of those "Word of the Day" calendars in her stocking last Christmas.

Why Putin Would Prefer Trump

I'm not saying I believe the Russians affected the outcome of the 2016 election but if they did, why would they prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I can think of several reasons right off the top of my head. First, Trump would mean a strong America. One might be tempted to think a strong America is not in Russia's best interest but that would be a mistake. A weak America is actually a more dangerous America and a Clinton presidency would have certainly guaranteed a weaker America. A weak America invites challenges from provocateurs like Iran, North Korea, and ISIS. Additionally, perceived weakness on the part of the United States reduces our negotiating power which further increases the likelihood of conflict. Moreover, as an extension of the Obama Administration, a Clinton Administrative would have continued to fail to provide leadership on the world stage which would make it necessary for Russia to step in as it has had to do in Syria. Putin and the Russians know that a strong America makes everyone safer. There are other reasons why the Russians would prefer Trump over Hillary.

The second reason the Russians would have tried to influence our election in addition to insuring a stronger America providing real leadership in the world again is that Trump will be better for the economy. A strong American economy is essential to a healthy global economy. Obama and the Democrats have more than doubled our national debt, imposed anti-business regulations and legislation, and embarked on a wealth redistribution scheme that will sooner rather than later cripple our economy. Their zero sum game economic view sees America as the world robber baron rather than as a powerful economic engine driving a healthy global economy. Trump understands that America is the solution not the problem and unlike Hillary, he plans to work to fix the American economy rather than "manage its decline". A more healthy and vibrant US economy will lead to a better world economy by creating a "bigger pie" from which Russia stands to benefit. In addition to a stronger America with a stronger economy, there is one other reason Putin might have wanted Trump to win: it's better to deal with a pragmatist rather than an ideological zealot.

Hillary Clinton is a far left ideolog who, even when faced with mountains of evidence contrary to that ideology, is unable to adjust her positions to comport with a dynamic world. This leads to bad decisions like prematurely pulling out of Iraq, overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi and the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Trump on the other hand appears to be pragmatic and willing to adjust his positions and courses of action in order to take advantage of changing situations. That is the mark of a successful businessman who makes good decisions. Bad American decisions are bad for Russia too.

It now seems pretty clear that the Russians did do some hacking during the 2016 election. What isn't clear is if those hacks affected the results in Trump's favor. Apparently what they did do was leak inside information from the DNC and the Clinton campaign that exposed their dirty tricks and their real opinion of the American voters. If that had an effect on the election, it was because it exposed the truth. What is also clear is the truth benefits everyone including both America and Russia. How can that be a bad thing?

Spike (Putin) and Chester (Obama)

This old Warner Brothers cartoon reminds me of the relationship between Putin and Obama.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg

Russia A Regional Power: Yes But What Region Mr. Obama?

At a press conference yesterday at The Hague, Netherlands, ABC White House correspondant, Jonathan Karl, asked "Mr. President, . ... In China, in Syria, in Egypt, and now in Russia we've seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored. Are you concerned that America's influence in the world -- that your influence in the world -- is on the decline? And in light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America's greatest geopolitical foe, if not Russia, who?" President Obama responded, Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness. ... Karl's question was a truly good one but he missed a golden opportunity for a follow-up. If Russia is only a 'regional power' then what region would that be? Russia covers 11 time zones and 1/9th of the earth’s land area. It reaches from the North Pole to the Black Sea and from the well into the European continent in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east. With 6,592,800 square miles of territory, it is 1.7 times larger than the second largest country, Canada, and its 3,855,100 sq miles of land. Russia has close ties in the western hemisphere with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Columbia. According to RIA Novosti, a leading Russian news outlet, “Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Russia is looking to build military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Seychelles, Singapore and several other countries.” So my follow-up question to Mr. Obama would have been, “And what region is that, exactly Mr. President?” The answer to that question would certainly be interesting wouldn’t you agree?

Unilateral Disarmament: Rosetta Stone for Small Nations

There's just no better way for a small nation to learn a second language. Give up the means to defend yourself. It's like geo-political Rosetta Stone. Just ask Ukraine and the 40% non-ethnic Russian Crimeans in a few years.

US-Russian Relations

Crimea: Another Secretary of State Clinton Success?

America elected our current president based mainly on the superficial desire on the part of liberals and well-meaning but otherwise confused moderates to elect our first African-American president. Will we make the same grave error in 2016 by electing the first woman president, Hillary Clinton? For the sake of the country and the free-world for that matter, let's hope not. The Office of the President of the United States of America is far too important to allow it to continue to be used as an affirmative action program. A major factor in judging Mrs. Clinton's qualification to be president has to be her performance as Secretary of State. For our nation's top diplomat, performance comes down to the answer to two questions. One: Are America's interest throughout the world better now than when they took over their post. And Two: Are ties with our friends and allies stronger now than they were before. To both questions, the objective answer has to be a resounding no. Starting with her first diplomatic trip to Russia and the ill-fated "reset button" incident, our relationship with Russia has continued to deteriorate. Russia has resisted our attempts to prevent Iran from continuing to develop nuclear weapons, interfered with efforts to stop the violence in Syria, and now invaded Ukraine. (As of this writing, a referendum in Crimea seems to indicate that it will break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia leaving the US with few good options.)Furthermore, during her tenure as Secretary of State, North Korea has joined the group of countries with nuclear weapons capability, Libya went from a country that was cooperating with the US and strengthening its ties with America to one where Al Qaeda affiliates have taken control of a large part of the country and it is no longer a safe place for American diplomats to serve. This became abundantly clear when our Ambassador and three other personnel in Secretary Clinton's charge were murdered in Benghazi. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the costly gains paid for with American blood and treasure have been lost as Al Qaeda and the Taliban return to Iraq and Afghanistan respectively due to a failure to reach diplomatic agreement on how the US should support the new governments after our military role has ended. As a result, America is withdrawing our forces from the region without any mechanism in place to maintain those gains. The answer to question two is also clearly, no. Relations with Russia have not been this bad since prior to the collapse of the old Soviet Union. President Putin's actions make it obvious he has no respect for President Obama or his current Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry. Relations with key friends and allies such as the UK, Israel and Germany are strained as a result of snubs, inattention, and the embarrassing revelations of NSA eavesdropping on personal communications of their leaders. In Egypt and Libya, we encouraged the ousting of two leaders, Muammar Khadafi and Hosni Mubarak - no gems of humanity to be sure - but they were favorable to our national interests. Following Mubarak’s overthrow, unbelievably, our government supported Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood – the original Islamist movement organization. For their first official act once in control, Morsi and his government announced that, after 30 years of peace with Israel under Mubarak, they would no longer honor the Camp David Accords thus undoing one of the few accomplishments of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Today, chaos reigns in both nations as Islamist groups vie for control. As we get closer to the 2016 presidential campaign season, look for Clinton supporters to try to rewrite the record of her accomplishments, especially as Secretary of State. We should also expect the bootlicks at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post and the other leading mainstream media outlets to continue to ignore the diplomatic wreckage left in the wake of her Sec State aircraft's contrail. This won’t be an easy task but they are a clever lot and I’m confident they will do their best. Perhaps they will continue to ignore stories like Benghazi in favor of the items the public is clamoring for and really needs to know about such as Gov. Christie’s Bridgegate scandal. Any sarcasm detected was intentional.

Putin Saves Obama's Political Bacon Over Syria

I don't know if President Obama has one or not but if he doesn't, I nominate Vladimir Putin for Obama's BFF after Vlad saved his political bacon this week over Syria. To say that Obama mismanaged the situation with Syria is a mistake because it suggests he tried to manage the situation with Syria. He did not. What happened was a series of missteps that has become the trademark of the Obama Administration - this inept team of amateurs. Fortunately for them and everyone else, it is often better to be lucky than to be good. Here is what I mean.

What started the sequence of events that had the Administration careening toward what appeared to be yet another blunder was President Obama's statement back in 2012 that if Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons that would be crossing a "red line." The off-handed and off-teleprompter remark placed the United States in the position of having to either take action against Syria or losing credibility when on August 21st of this year, someone (allegedly the Assad regime) fired rockets armed with chemical warheads into eleven neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs killing 1500 civilians - 400 of which were children. Over the next several days, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry tried to make the case for attacking Syria to let Assad know there are consequences to violating international law regarding the use of gas. Initially, Mr. Obama claimed he didn’t need the approval of Congress in order to strike Syria but as his efforts to build the support of the international community failed, he pivoted and said he would ask for Congressional approval. As the Administration tried to convince lawmakers and the American public that attacking Syria was in our national interest, the president began to receive criticism for “drawing the red line.” True to form, Mr. Obama denied drawing the red line and tried to blame everyone else - the world and Congress - despite the video of him clearly using the words “red line.” It was soon very apparent that this effort was also doomed to failure.

While answering the question, ‘Is there anything that Syria can do to avoid being attacked?’ during a CNN interview, Sec. Kerry made his own off-handed remark. Kerry flippantly replied, ‘Well of course they could give up all their chemical weapons within the week but that’s not going to happen.’ Kerry made this remark never dreaming anyone would take it seriously. However, when Russia and Syria indicated that they might be willing to discuss this proposal, he soon began backtracking and even the liberal press recognized this to be a major screw-up. With an address to the nation scheduled to take place within two days, things were looking pretty bleak for Team Barry. Suddenly it must have occurred to Obama and Company, that they had just been thrown a “life line.” What had initially been universally seen as a blunder was now being hailed by Kerry, Obama, and liberals everywhere as a great secret plan that had been weeks in the making. You know what they say, ‘Success has many parents; failure is an orphan.’ In his Tuesday night address, the president said he would delay asking for Congressional approval to strike Syria and that he would allow time to see if diplomacy might still lead to a peaceful solution. The president did however say that a military strike was not off the table if the weapons turnover proposal failed. President Obama was ‘off the hook.’

Since his speech, Mr. Obama and his administration have been patting themselves on the back for getting Russia to take the lead on Syria. Barack Obama has slipped comfortably back into his preferred leading from behind mode. In his new role as world leader, Mr. Putin wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times that chastised President Obama for his handling of the crisis in Syria and warned him not to take military action. Not fully recovered from having so narrowly dodged a bullet, Obama and the gang that can’t shoot straight hasn’t had time to realized that they should be humiliated.

There is a saying, “There are three kinds of people in the world: Those that make things happen; those that watch things happen and those who say, ‘What just happened?’ I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself which one is Obama; which one is Putin and which one is Kerry.