CNN - more lies

Finally the lies and distortions being spewed by CNN became so gross that they had to fire three of their writers. CNN has lost all creditability as a real news source. It is little more than a gossip column for outrageous articles which have little or nothing to do with reality. In the ongoing 'hate trump' campaign they are conducting there is little resemblance to either truth or morality. The latest lies led to the resignation of several of their 'journalists'.

CNN Money reported the departing journalists are Thomas Frank – who wrote the story that cited a single anonymous source – Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the new CNN investigative unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit.

The CNN owner, Mr Zucker, is quoted as saying that he has little concern for the truthfulness of the material on CNN. Instead, he is elated by their rise in the ratings. You can be certain that he is only concerned about how much money he is making, and the truth be damned!!!

An article by Christopher Ruddy

When it comes to the Russian-Trump collusion "smoke" we keep hearing about, one thing has become crystal clear: there isn't any smoke, there isn't any fire, and this nothingburger isn't even worth lighting a match for.

This "scandal" has been the major topic of press attention since Election Day last year.

Yet, no one has provided one scintilla of evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in hacking or otherwise interfering in the U.S. election.

No evidence. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Consider that we've had Obama's own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tell "Meet the Press" there is "no evidence" of collusion.

With two congressional inquiries and an FBI probe underway over the last 6 months — not to mention dozens of voracious media organizations like The New York Times and Washington Post frequently reporting leaks of convenience — nobody has unearthed any evidence that Russians at any level worked with the Trump campaign.

When President Trump responds to this madness, he's declared "crazy," "paranoid," and even "obsessed."

With so many false reports and innuendo being placed in the public sphere, let's review key points the fair-minded person should consider:

1. To repeat, no one has provided any evidence the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton.

The closest they come is that the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak showed up at the Republican convention last year in Cleveland and rubbed shoulders with party big-wigs.

The media reports conveniently forget to mention the Obama State Dept. organized the effort to have diplomats like Kislyak attend the convention.

2. There is no question the Russians tried to interfere in the U.S. election. 

3. This interference took place during Obama's watch.

Obama did little to stop it. Putin took these actions with impunity because he viewed the Obama administration as weak. Putin saw this weakness first hand when he invaded Crimea and Obama slapped him on the wrist.

It was only after Trump was elected did the Obama administration raise the temperature against the Russians over the interference.

4. The Obama administration took the unusual step of "unmasking" the identities of Americans, including people close to Trump, discovered in classified NSA and intelligence intercepts.

Still, this highly questionable action found no evidence of collusion.

5. There is no evidence the Russian interference changed the election outcome or helped Trump.

In fact, Russia's involvement may have actually hurt Trump.

Any review of the election results shows Hillary not only won the popular vote, she actually outperformed Obama's 2012 result in many states, including Blue States like California (she won by over 4 million votes, Obama beat Romney by just 2 million) and Red States like Texas (Hillary cut Obama's loss of 16 points almost in half to 9).

6. Trump won the election fairly and squarely.

He studied the rules, grasped the critical importance of the Electoral College and out-campaigned Hillary in key states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Remember, Hillary did not even campaign in Wisconsin during the general election.

7. Trump faced a brutal campaign onslaught.

Liberal media savaged him with billions of free, earned media for Hillary's campaign.

Additionally, Hillary and her allies raised $1.2 billion and outspent Trump by over $600 million. (Trump only raised $258 million through Joint Fundraising from the RNC, less than half of what the DNC raised for Hillary.)

8. Trump's election last November was greeted by immediate protests denying his legitimacy, and some Democrats even called for his impeachment before he took the oath of office.

9. A federal investigation that began simply as a "counter-intelligence" probe has morphed into a sprawling inquiry of Trump's advisers.

Unable to find evidence of collusion, this probe is reportedly looking at the advisers' activities completely unrelated to the "collusion" claim and largely for activities after the election.

For example, Gen. Michael Flynn is said to have received payments from Turkey that he did not disclose.

And Trump's son-in-law had several business contacts with Russians after the election, which by itself is not improper. The FBI is said to be looking at Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort for his dealings in the Ukraine well before Trump ran for office.

So what is this all about?

10. There has never been any evidence that President Trump or the White House sought to obstruct justice or close down any Congressional or federal investigation.

By virtue of the investigations continuing, the president is actually cooperating with these probes.

11. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, which was his prerogative.

Comey never complained during his tenure that Trump was seeking to obstruct justice. After being fired, Comey declined to tell Congress Trump had obstructed justice.

12. The FBI Director did admit that rather than bring his concerns to the attention of the Attorney General or Congress, he wrote memos-to-file of his private conversations with the president.

Comey admitted to Congress he leaked at least one of these memos to The New York Times, a serious breach of presidential executive privilege and ethics.

These are just some of the matters that can help guide the perplexed about the so-called Russian-Trump collusion story.

Meanwhile, the president has been the target of leaks by government insiders of his highly-classified conversations with world leaders.

The Justice Dept. appears to be taking a lackadaisical approach to finding the perpetrators.

Then there's Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's probe which grows by the day, as new heavyweight prosecutors join his team.

In fact, just this week Mueller added Elizabeth Prelogar, a Harvard law grad who clerked for Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and is fluent in Russian.

The president is right to be worried about an investigation that was created with no evidence of a crime. Apparently finding no evidence, it is careening into other areas as it seeks to justify its own existence.

Christopher Ruddy is CEO of Newsmax Media, Inc.,

Robert Mueller

Robert Mueller should recuse himself from the position of special prosecutor. He is very good friends with James Comey and has a blatant conflict of interest in participating in any kind of investigation which involves James Comey, especially where his friend James Comey was fired by the subject of the investigation. His meeting with James Comey prior to Comey's testimony before congress to help Comey prepare for the testimony is blatantly not within the scope of the job and appears to be massively prejudicial. The appearance of collusion between him and Comey is too obvious to be dismissed.

James Comey meets with Robert Mueller

Before James Comey testified before Congress, he met with Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian interference in the last election. Robert Mueller is a good friend of James Comey. In my opinion, here is a paraphrase of the conversation which transpired between the two.

James Comey: I am really pissed off at Trump for firing me!

Robert Mueller: I can see how you feel that way.

James Comey: I know that he only fired me because he dislikes me.

Robert Mueller: We both know that you have done nothing that you should be fired for.

James Comey: Can you help me get back at him?

Robert Mueller: Sure. What do you need?

James Comey: Well, just what can I say to the committee regarding Trump’s inquiry about the Michael Flynn investigation that can get Trump into hot water?

Robert Mueller: You know if you directly accuse him of obstruction of justice, you can be prosecuted for a felony. So all you can do in make statements that imply that he might have been thinking wrong.

James Comey: I don’t know if that will be enough. Can you use my testimony to justify an investigation on your part? After all, you have plenty of leeway to do just that.

Robert Mueller: If you can project the proper innuendo, I can probably do that. Let’s prepare the exact words you will use.

The shooting of Rep Steve Scalise

The shooting of Rep Steve Scalise is a totally disgusting event that should never have occurred. Having said that, I have to say that it was totally predictable based on the extremely hateful rhetoric that the Democratic leaders spew every day. The daily flood of hateful language directed at the republicans and the total acceptance of violence and hateful behavior by the political left has provided an excuse for those people with extreme views to act on their hateful desires! In my opinion, the political left does not desire to work with the republicans in any constructive manner. Their agenda is to always demonize the republicans. They care little or not at all about accomplishing anything positive, and if given the choice of doing something that will help the American public or doing something destructive to obstruct the republicans, you can be sure that the welfare of the American public will lose. None of this is any surprise. When you have leaders in the democratic left that cannot speak two sentences about the republicans without cursing, are you really surprised when the radical left commits violent acts! What are the elected representatives’ responsibilities? Are they elected to elicit hatred and violence? I was under the impression that they were supposed to be concerned with running our government in a manner which encourages law and order and working for the public good! The radical left does not support law and order. Instead they encourage anarchy.

The ongoing vomit expelled every day by the liberal media expounding on gossip and outright lies for the express purpose of harming the Trump administration is sickening!! The hatred of the liberal media appears to even exceed the hatred emitted by the leftist politicians. There is an ongoing effort to destroy any free speech for anyone that does not support the so-called ‘liberals’ opinions. They are anything but 'liberal'! They are nothing more than fascist hoodlums using common tactics that have always been employed by anarchists who are intent on destroying the rule of law. The riots in the street initiated by the ‘left’, and the riots by the fascist-leaning college students are further evidence of the purposeful intent to destroy freedom of speech and the rule of law in our country!

In my opinion, the ongoing suggestions of assassination thinly-veiled as either ‘humor’ or grotesque performances which portray assassination as ‘art’ are nothing more than attempts to encourage ‘radicals’ to attempt assassinations! It is not free speech to advocate violence. It is not free speech to participate in violence. The unfounded accusations which are intended to defame or otherwise harm President Trump or other republicans should be classified as libelous statements, and the authors should be prosecuted with the maximum possible punishment meted out. Free speech should allow someone to freely express their opinion, but lies and unfounded accusations are not an expression of one’s opinion. An author should be legally libel for printing false, unfounded accusations which have the effect of defaming someone.

Comey testimony

Well!! What did we learn from the Comey testimony? First of all, in my opinion, it is crystal-clear that Comey has a very devious mind. Let me ask a question. What is the big deal about Comey writing a memo to himself as opposed to just testifying to what he says happened. It seems that he was simply trying to play a mind game to try to make his statements seem to have more validity. Why did he sit on the memos as long as he did? He did not write any ‘memos’ documenting meetings with President Obama or meetings with Loretta Lynch where he claims that she told him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a ‘matter’, instead of an ‘investigation’. Apparently, he did not have a real problem with the dishonesty that Loretta Lynch was propagating. One thing that seems obvious to me is that Comey wrote the memos in an effort to either make himself look better or he was trying to get ‘revenge’ for being fired. No matter how you cut it, he makes it obvious that he is a devious, dishonest person.

Taking another tack, he claims that the conversation with President Trump made him ‘uncomfortable’. However, he lacked the honesty to tell the President that directly. Instead, he allowed the conversation to continue with the express purpose of telling ‘his version’ of the events in a manner that presumes the absolute worst opinion of the President. He offers a weasel excuse that he felt ‘cowed’ by the President and that he was too ‘stunned’ to reply. Hogwash!!! As a matter of fact, he basically admits that he was listening to the President with the express purpose of ‘remembering’ everything SO THAT HE COULD LATER IMPUNE THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVES. You did notice the repetitive reference to his assignment of devious motives to the President. With Comey’s mindset, President Trump could have said that “the sky is blue”, and Comey would have attributed a negative motive to the President for the comment. What do you expect? A devious, dishonest person will assume that other people think like he does, and Comey was attributing his own personality defects onto the President.

Senator Rubio hit the nail right on the head when he addressed the fact that all of the ‘leaks’ have been consistently negative about President Trump. However, Comey expressly covered up and refused to acknowledge the fact that there was no investigation of President Trump personally. Why? The answer is obvious!! Comey’s intention was to do everything in his power to impact President Trump in a negative manner. Speaking of Leaks, Comey admitted that he purposely ‘leaked’ information for the express purpose of negatively impacting President Trump. However, he is so cowardly and devious that he could not do it directly. Instead, he had to get someone else to ‘leak for him’. Disgusting!! It leads to an obvious conclusion. Comey has no reservations about leaking information to accomplish his devious goals. How many of the previous leaks were committed directly by Comey or maybe he orchestrated most of them. I would not trust Comey with anything. In my opinion, he is a backstabber with a glib forked tongue!