Share This Article with a Friend!


100 Days of Trump: Democrat witch hunters fire torches to pursue Jeff Sessions

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think the 1981 song “Witch Hunt” by the rock band Rush would apply to a 21st century political situation, but that’s exactly what’s happening with the Democrats and their single-minded quest to pin the Russians to Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

First (after a nefarious tip from the intelligence community) the Democrat inquisitors went for National Security Advisor Michael Flynn over a phone call he made three weeks prior to Trump’s inauguration. Now they’re after Witch huntAttorney General Jeff Sessions for job-related conversations he took part in as a senator.

Jeremy Lott and Kelly Cohen of the Washington Examiner report, “Democratic lawmakers are demanding Attorney General Jeff Sessions' resignation after new revelations emerged Wednesday that he did not disclose two encounters during the presidential election with Russia's ambassador to the United States.

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Sessions is now ‘not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign.’

“And while Republicans have said Sessions can recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations, Pelosi argued Thursday morning that ‘we are far past recusal.’”

(Note: Sessions on Thursday afternoon announced he was recusing himself from any investigations involving the Trump campaign.)

Funny how the Democrats didn’t call for Loretta Lynch to recuse herself from the Hillary email scandal investigation after meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. But the rules are always different for Democrats – they’re the ruling class.

And let’s not forget Pelosi also said the other day that Democrats have “plenty of grounds” to impeach President Trump right now. She’ll say just about anything to get her witch hunters stirred up and ready to go draw some blood .

The “encounters” in question here involve one brief conversation Sessions had with Sergey Kislyak after a public event and another private meeting the two had in Sessions’ Senate office (with two aides present) in September. A spokesman for Sessions said the latter face-to-face confrontation was related to Sessions’ Senate responsibilities (is that so far-fetched?).

The Democrats are particularly up in arms because the existence of these two “encounters” would seem to contradict testimony Sessions gave during his confirmation hearings, when the then senator indicated he did not have any contact with the Russians in reference to the campaign.

Who’s to say Sessions is lying about his meeting with the Russian ambassador? If Sessions says the meeting had nothing to do with the campaign, shouldn’t he be believed?

Once again, there is ZERO proof Trump or his surrogates actively cooperated with the Russians during the campaign and there is likewise no evidence indicating the Russians tampered in any way with the actual vote count. All of this hysteria dates back to the original Wikileaks release of damaging and embarrassing – but true – emails from the Democrat National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Doesn’t no evidence equal no evidence? Just because it looks like someone could be guilty doesn’t mean they are in reality. Should we just rewrite all the criminal statutes to change the standard of proof for conviction to “looks like he might be guilty?”

No matter. The Democrats don’t need any proof to assume guilt and their gullible followers eat it up regardless.

These charges are absurd, but considering the cast of characters involved in advancing them it’s not surprising. Those Democrats (in addition to Pelosi) calling for Sessions to resign or be investigated  are Representative Elijah Cummings (radical leftist in the Congressional Black Caucus), Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, Ron Wyden, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren. There are undoubtedly more but these are the ones quoted in Lott’s and Cohen’s article.

Which brings me back to Rush’s “Witch Hunt” number. It is, well, a song about a 17th century Salem (Massachusetts) witch hunt, the kind many of us learned about in high school while reading “The Crucible.” You know the story -- a woman does something suspicious to someone, an accusation is made, a mob forms and after a chase they capture her and charge her with witchcraft. It ends with the woman being executed for her “crimes”.

The song concludes,

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand
...”

Isn’t that basically what’s happening here to Jeff Sessions? Isn’t Sessions being accused of something that could be true but most likely isn’t and the Democrats want his scalp anyway? They’re more than willing to call for a hanging without examining the evidence or a trial.

That’s not accountability -- that’s a witch hunt.

A couple things don’t smell right here.

First, is this another case of an insider “leaker” who found a tidbit of suspicious dirt on Sessions, turned it over to the more-than-willing media to spread and then spun it to make it look like Sessions was concocting some sort of scheme behind closed doors on behalf of the Trump campaign?

Second, the timing of these new “revelations” is more than a little curious considering the Democrats are still smarting from the public relations beat-down they received at the hands of the stunningly effective speech Trump made to the joint session of Congress the other night.

Even many liberal press members commented on how well the speech was put together and delivered and public opinion polls seem to back up the notion that perhaps more Americans would at least be open to listening to Trump now.

The Democrats recognized all this and desperately needed to reverse the flow of the political stream back towards their “Trump is a slime ball who colluded with the Russians and can’t be trusted” narrative. The fact Attorney General Sessions is tied-up in this mess makes it a twofer for Democrats – aside from Trump, the administration member they’d most like to bring down is Sessions.

Why? Because Sessions is a principled conservative who will actually enforce the law. How many illegal aliens will be deported and how many corrupted Democrats are going to prison because Sessions is now in charge of the Justice Department? How many leakers will be caught?

It sounds like a prime time for a Democrat witch hunt. Fire the torches, assemble the tribunal and assume guilt just because Sessions apparently talked with a Russian.

Who knows, maybe the Democrats will even call for Sessions to be burned at the stake. They’ll say if he’s truly not a “witch” he will be saved, right?

Can the “presidential” Trump go places the combative Trump never could?

One of many offshoots from President Donald Trump’s excellent speech to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday night is the discussion it generated concerning his temperament and restraint in delivering a substantive and unifying “presidential” message to the attendees and the nation.

Even some of Trump’s former political enemies are saying they’d like to see more of this “new” man.

David French of National Review writes, “There is a time to fight, but there is also a time to inspire, and to demonstrate dignity and integrity. Whatever else one thinks of him, Trump is shrewd; does he not have eyes to see that all but his most partisan opponents want him to be the man who nominated James Mattis and paid tribute to Carryn Owens? Does he not know that the man who spoke [Tuesday] night is capable of reaching beyond even the base that put him in the White House?

“There are some who will never be pleased with Trump and will fight him at every turn (even when he proposes policies they once advocated). But there are also millions who could support him not just when the alternative is Hillary Clinton but also in the crucial time between elections when presidents do the substantive work of governing.”

This is an interesting observation considering French is no Trump fan. For those with short memories, French was at one time rumored to be the independent “conservative” #NeverTrump candidate promoted by disgraced establishment neoconservative Bill Kristol and many of the short-sighted folks at RedState.

French’s attitude towards Trump has improved considerably since the election and he was one of the first to humbly admit he was wrong about Trump’s electoral prospects. But seeing French’s material since you can still detect some Trump distaste, including in the article quoted above. That being said, French does seem objectively fair – and at least he isn’t a Democrat stooge masquerading as a Washington Post “conservative”.

Beyond the source, French does make a good point about the president and his potential effectiveness going forward. For close to two years now Trump has gotten by largely on his instincts alone – perhaps with some significant coaching from his closest advisers, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and even Reince Priebus.

And while it’s never a good time to tell Trump to stop “being Trump,” the occasion could have arrived to suggest a “presidential” tone will buy him more goodwill from those on the political margins who might be in position to help him.

Assuming Trump really does want to “Make America Great Again” he’ll have a much higher likelihood of accomplishing it by speaking softer, imposing some self-discipline on his Twitter habit and encouraging good relations with Republicans in Congress. Luckily, there’s already some evidence he’s doing it.

Much as he’d prefer, there are times when punching back isn’t always the best policy. Did Jesus not say (in the Sermon on the Mount) to “turn the other cheek?”

Don’t hit your potential friends, Mr. President. You’ll need them later.

As already amply demonstrated, the Democrats aren’t the least bit willing to speak with Trump let alone work with him. Just pulling numbers out of the air, I’m guessing there are about four or five Democrat senators and fifteen to twenty House Democrats who may be persuadable on certain issues.

That’s it folks. No need to call Keith Ellison’s office…or John Lewis…or Al Franken. They’re gone. They might as well turn in their congressional pins for all the influence they’ll have on policy or legislation going forward. The only thing they – and the rest of the Democrats – can achieve is obstruction and destruction.

Or maybe to help their constituents get capital tour tickets. Otherwise, they’re just squandering their office budgets.

So yes, Trump will need Republicans, a few Democrats and a majority of the public on his side. I think French is right: a more “presidential” Trump would help him – and the country – get where we all want to go.

Fantasyland liberals dream of running for president against Trump

Perhaps even more hilarious than those Democrats attempting to explain why President Donald Trump is so popular with his supporters is the liberals who believe they can take his example and make their own credible run for the highest office in the land.

If he can do it I can too, right? At least according to rumors, two prominent liberals are now considering a second career in presidential politics.

Amanda Schiavo of The Street reports, “Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to be considering friends' suggestions that the leader of the House of Mouse attempt to pack his Mickey Ears for the White House, with a presidential bid in 2020, sources told the Hollywood Reporter.

“Another rumor swirling around on Wednesday is that American icon and media mogul Oprah Winfrey is going to consider running in 2020. In a video clip from Bloomberg's ‘The David Rubenstein Show’ Winfrey replied to a question about her running with smirk, saying ‘now I'm thinking,’ as the audience cheered.”

I assume Iger and Oprah are liberals because if they’re running in 2020 they’ll likely be entering the Democrat primaries (which no conservative would ever do). To even contemplate the circus atmosphere that would accompany the Disney guy and Oprah in the party debates – it would definitely be must-see TV alongside Hillary (thinking about another run?), Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker and a host of other ambitious socialists.

If Warren runs as expected, she might even gain recognition from Iger as “Pocahontas” in trying to promote Disney movies. It could happen.

And Oprah will certainly try to model her campaign on Obama’s. After all, a lot people probably think of her as the female version of the former president with the same ethnic background and celebrity quality -- and lots of adoring TV talk show fans.

Other than pure entertainment value, none of this is going to come to pass.

Get over it liberals – President Trump struck a chord with the American public because he was willing to champion a set of issues that resonated with many, many people, not because he’s been a very visible celebrity or rich-guy real estate developer with a lot of buildings named after him.

I’d venture to say only a small fraction of those who voted for Trump had ever seen one of his buildings, played one of his golf courses or bought one of his products. Trump steak is not a staple in American households.

As far as his TV show – Trump basically played himself in real life.

It’s safe to say a lot of Americans – myself included – didn’t take Trump seriously when he originally announced he was running for president. But we take him seriously now.

It would take much, much more for Iger and Oprah to get past the “joke” stage. What would be their platform? Mouse ears for every kid? A free couch and TV for every woman or transgender man who identifies as a woman?

It’s a world of laughter, a world of tears, it’s a world of hope and a world of fears…”

Put this idea back in Fantasyland where it belongs.

Share this