Cats, Guns, and National Security

Donald J. Trump , you magnificent bastard! 1. Obama is responsible for his administration; 2. "Wire" includes the Internet (cf. "wire fraud"); 3. "Tap" can be "reverse targeting" (tapping one source to monitor another); ... 4. Obama administration's intent to target Trump is known. Conclusion: Saturday's tweets were not luck at all. What you call "dumb luck," the rest of us call Mad Skillz https://t.co/8u6PV6wo0b — CNN Lies & Is Hitler (@NolteNC) March 9, 2017 Some would call it the "Columbo" approach--bumbling, or so it seems, and winning in the end, just as he did in the campaign. @EliLake @NolteNC He bumbled his way past the entire GOP field and HRC. At some point, you may want to consider the Columbo hypothesis. — Bill Harvey's Ghost (@TheGhostsGhost) March 9, 2017 This article below was written by someone who can't quite get that, but does give a picture of the results...

If no FISA warrant, then either it was a criminal warrant--which means nothing criminal was found--or it was an illegal tap, which indicts Obama because no honest person can doubt he was running everything. If there was actually no tap, then the anti-Trump crowd has destroyed their credibility with HUGH lies, and thus literally NO anti-Trump story can be given any credibility at all without complete proof. If in fact Obama (or anyone else) did not tap Trump Tower, Trump flushed out the lie. And his little fib is more than forgivable. After the 2016 campaign, literally ANYTHING Trump does in this ongoing political fight is legitimate. ANYTHING.

Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 10:03 AM Subject: Must Read: Obama's Shadow Presidency   David Horowitz Freedom Center | HorowitzFreedomCenter.org Lee, I want to bring an article that we featured on FrontPage this week to your attention. The idea that Barack Obama is operating a "shadow presidency" as part of the Left's efforts to undermine the new administration is disturbing. But in light of recent leaks, Democrats' refusal to approve President Trump's cabinet and the media's fake news – I'm concerned this is exactly what's happening inside our federal government. My friend, this is an issue my Freedom Center is actively investigating. Please keep an eye ...

MARK LEVIN: ANDREW MCCARTHY: https://t.co/4QSwxOmFx4 — Deplorable LTW (@TgGRA) March 5, 2017 TONY SCHAFFER: . @T_S_P_O_O_K_Y : Potential Obama Wiretapping Is 'Soviet-Level Wrongdoing' https://t.co/1WXGzkpDpV — Fox News (@FoxNews) March 4, 2017

If you don't know who Ace Lyons is, you don't know squat about national security! Let us not forget that all the criminal activity of Hillary, the Clinton Foundation and Obama have been off the front pages! What needs to — James A Lyons, Jr. (@JamesALyonsJr) March 5, 2017 be investigated is Hillary uranium One deal; what kind of "flexibility" did Obama provide to Russia; sedition charges should be brought — James A Lyons, Jr. (@JamesALyonsJr) March 5, 2017 against Hillary and Obama for both of them using Hillary's unsecured server; wiretapping Trump Towers etc. — James A Lyons, Jr. (@JamesALyonsJr) March 5, 2017 Retweeted by Lyons: #TheNewRedScare #Witchhunt The #Democrats are being extremely #dangerous AND disingenuous ... https://t.co/lMYY1jDqBn pic.twitter.com/caHkbIobCk — David Klein (@dkleinTP) March 3, 2017

The flipside of the Fake News phenomenon as exposed and indeed elevated by the 2016 election and its ongoing aftermath is that it is now indisputably rational, even perhaps obligatory, to hold any anti-Trump report as false until solidly proven true, and--get this--to give higher credence to pro-Trump stories from the same outlets.  It's a matter of "statements against interest."  The liberal media would have no reason to make up positive things about Trump and company.  Thus they are more likely honest and truthful.  Normally this would be a dangerous and even inappropriate or dishonest way of digesting news reports.  But then came the 2016 election.  It's all different now. Below are two articles in rather liberal outlets that, in their own ways, demonstrate the fallacy of so much anti-Trump smoke-stirring, especially alleged incapacitating connections to Russia.  These analyses hold a certain credibility for two reasons: 1. Liberals tend to be bet...

U.S. Senators meet with the Russian ambassador ALL THE TIME. It would have been an absurd Q to ask a U.S. sen if he'd met with Russian amb. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 2, 2017 SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILL., MSNBC, June 7, 2012: "I have met with the Russian ambassador here in my own office, with several other senators…" — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 2, 2017 SEN BOXER, SENATE HEARING 2/23/16: "Sen Durbin called a bunch of us together to meet with the Russian ambassador ..." — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 2, 2017 SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN, Congressional Quarterly News,9/10/13: "I had lunch yesterday with the Russian ambassador." — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 2, 2017 SEN. DURBIN, SENATE HRG, 4/27/16: "And I called the Russian ambassador...Several times, I've had this conversation w the Russian ambassadr" — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 2, 2017 Asking if a SENATOR had met w/ Russian ambassador would ...