McCain not the Republican Voice of Reason

Many Democrats are using John McCain's death to politicize their hatred of President Trump, calling him the GOP voice of reson; so the neocon war hawk that was lockstep with Bush 43 is the voice of reason? John McCain never saw a military solution he didn't like. That includes Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and had harsh words against the Russian incursion into Georgia; in a precursor to his fecklessness Obama stated, "I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict,"(once President, Obama pretty much courted the Russians for the entire 8 years he was in office; the selling of US uranium to Russia was believed tied to Russia backing the Obama/Kerry Iran agreement) "The bitter battle over who's performed best has already begun. A McCain aide calls Obama "bizarrely in sync with Moscow." Obama's campaign suggested McCain had a conflict of interest because his foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, had lobbied for Georgia." the voice of reason?.

McCain was also vehemently against the Iran agreement, saying he agreed with President Trump. “I did not support the nuclear deal at the time it was proposed, and many of its specific terms will make it harder to pursue the comprehensive strategy we need. In that sense, I agree with the President that the deal is not in the vital national interests of the United States," ...Trump had twice certified Iran's compliance with the deal. But on Friday, he declared that Iran had violated the "spirit" of the accord with its non-nuclear behavior, citing its support for Assad and militant groups in the Middle East in addition to its ballistic-missile program."

McCain also roundly criticized President Obama's Israel policies, referring to the President's rhetoric as a "temper tantrum". McCain's also condemned President Obama's feckless Ukraine policy, calling the President, "the most naive president in history." This was consistent with McCains worldview of Russia, stating at one point “[Vladimir] Putin is not America’s friend, nor merely a competitor,” McCain said. “Putin is America’s enemy, not because we wish it so but because he has chosen to be.”
The left now calls McCain the voice of reason is becasue he was a "never Trumper", to the point of sending an emissary to pickup the fabricated Trump dossier, and passed it on to Comey, not knowing the FBI already had a copy. Further McCain was the key vote that stopped the Senate from repealing Obamacare.

Accusations and Investigations Looking for an Undefinable Crime

 Prior to Trump becoming President, he like many Presidents before him reached out to other countries and their leaders so they could understand what positions and policies they would have to contend with. This is not any attempt to usurp the authority of the President, it is simply taking advantage of the 2 months between the election and swearing in of a new President.  These so called back channel network are very common (what to you think the Russian "red phone" is?), it's very likely Obama had one to Russia, the UN, Germany, Saudi Arabia (and quite probably Iran for his secret treaty negotiations) as Obama was probably the most secretive and leak paranoid President the US has ever had). There is no ethical or criminal violation of the law, as there only purpose is to screen out Intelligence players to prevent the leaks that have become so prevalent. It is the speculated nefarious purposes of such a network (even though it appears it was never followed through with) from the secretive informants, that is the fake news. Obviously there has been an avalanche of  fake news, many of which have been debunked, including the Russian (golden shower) dossier, that Comey asked for more resources for his investigation from DOJ before we has fired by Trump, which was debunked by then Deputy Secretary of the FBI, Andrew McCabe; and it is “Totally false,” from DOJ spokesman Ian Prior and from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. I'm not aware of any such request. (Comey would have needed to go to Congress for more resources, not DOJ). Speaking of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, unnamed sources said he wanted to resign as a result of Trump saying he based the firing of Comey based on his uncomplimentary report; something Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also denied.

There is also fake news from again "unidentified sources" that the FBI investigation  into Russian interference was zeroing in on Trump; again a named source, Andrew McCabe told Trump the media coverage of the FBI investigation was very overstated or a fabrication; Trump also said then FBI head Comey told him he was not a subject of their investigation, something Comey has not denied.

The media is now directing an attempted coup to to try and remove President Trump, using the same tactics and have the same goals they accused the Russians of; the goals are to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, and denigrate Trump. Not to be burdened down with responsible reporting (during the Nixon investigation, the Washington demanded that all the information be verified by at least three people, who where both named and quoted; today it is any information from unnamed sources or not, that is designed to show collusion between Trump and Russia. The media then reports this unverified information as factual (accept for a disclaimer buried in the article that that  no evidence has been found the shows any collusion between Trump and Russia).  Not only that, the media can not even even describe what is was the Russians needed from Trump, to aid them with their so called "interference" in the 2016 election; it's not as if Trump could supply the Russians with intelligence they didn't already have or help with hacking computers or even increase access to social media; nothing that the media has claimed led to the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. In other words we are dealing with the media claiming nefarious actions by Trump, but they still can't explain what Trump brought to the table with his so called collusion (or example of what Trump could have possibly done to aid the Russians in hacking the election), nor can they even define how the collusion would have resulted in the loss of the election. The result is accusations and investigations looking for an undefinable crime. 

The Left's Hatred of Trump, Hypocrisy and Lies Now Threatens US National Security

The left continues with it's wishful thinking. The FBI is investigating the possibility that Russia interfered with the Presidential election, not Trump. After 10 months the FBI have found no evidence of any collusion between Trump and the Russians, so much so that both McCabe and Comey have said the FBI is not even investigating Trump at this time. Further the reports that Comey had asked for additional resources from DOJ for his FBI investigation is once again the result of leaks from unnamed "congressional officers". Those directly involved, while those directly involved Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and then Deputy FBI Director McMabe have said not only did this absolutely not happen, but there would have been no reason for Comey going to DOJ for more resources, becasue congress is who could give the FBI more money or resources, not DOJ. Further there was as a report by anonymous sources that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein threatened to quit when Trump said Comey's firing was based on his letter; something Rosenstein vehemently denied.

So the question is, why would Trump be accused of obstruction of justice of an investigation he is no longer a party to? Further, even the Democrats have demonized Comey and have called for his ouster. Yes, it sounds questionable that Comey was fired regarding his handling of Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior. but that really doesn't matter becasue Comey simply wasn't doing his job and needed to go. It's also intellectually dishonest to suppose that if Comey was fired, an FBI investigation would be compromised, as if Comey was an independent prosecutor, not an administrator of an investigative organization that will continue to follow through with whatever it is doing regardless of who is charge. IOW, it's not as if Comey has information that is not the result of the FBI personnel that actually does the investigation.

There is also the recent information about Comey's notes with the Michael Flynn investigation and the obvious spin by the Democrats.

"According to the director’s notes, Comey did not respond directly to the president’s entreaties, only agreeing with Trump’s assertion that Flynn “is a good guy.’’ The notes also described how the president said that he wanted to see reporters in jail for leaks and expressed his dissatisfaction with what he viewed as the FBI’s inaction in pursuing whoever leaked , according to Comey associates." 

 Once again no one has seen these notes, the information is coming from more (or perhaps the same) anonymous sources.  Trump was telling Comey to concentrate on the leaks more than Flynn's actions (nothing of which has been determined to be illegal), but in no way was this proof that Trump was pressuring Comey to end the inquiry into Flynn. It should alos be noted that if Comey believed we was be pressured to stop his investigation of Flynn, he would be mandated to report the offense to the DOJ. The idea that Trump has some how tried to obstruct Comey in his investigation is also contrary to Comey's sworn testimony in March.

 “So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation? ..."Has it happened?"” Hirono asked.

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded.

This is 2 two months after the dinner between Comey and Trump, where Trump allegedly tried to get Comey to stop his investigation on Flynn.

It's no different than the fact that Trump compared information with the Russians about ISIS bomb makers; it's as if WP has forgot we are at war with ISIS, not Russia. First you have the Washington Post (WP) claiming Trump gave the Russians classified intelligence information, when 1) the President can decide what information can be declassified and 2) even though it may have been technically classified, the information was already in the public domain and according to the very well respected H.R. McMaster and National Security Advisor to Trump, "denied that Trump had revealed the intelligence sources and methods used to glean this information. But when asked by a reporter on Tuesday whether Trump revealed the city from which the ISIS plot was detected, McMaster replied that what Trump discussed with the Russians about the Islamic State "was nothing you would not know from open-source reporting...All of you are familiar with the threat from ISIS," McMaster said on Tuesday. "All of you are very familiar with the territory it controls. If you were to say, 'Hey, from where do you think a threat might come, from territory that ISIS controls,' you would probably be able to name a few cities...It had all to do with operations that were already ongoing and had been made public for months," he said.

McMaster also said the WP printing leaked information from an intelligence meeting between the US and Russian intelligence personnel has done more damage to US national security and the trust of other countries sharing intelligence with the US, than anything Trump might have said. These intelligence agencies need to know that their conversations with the President will not end up on the Front Page of a newspaper the next day. What has become obvious is the lefts hatred of Trump overshadows US National Security.

It's the leak Stupid

The question comes up again and again, what is more important, the leak (or hack) or the damaging information. Well that depends on the leak and who it's likely to damage. The press will always ignore the leak if it's damaging to Republicans and ignore the information if it's harmful to the Democrats. Such was the hack of the DNC supposedly by the Russians. The only thing that mattered was the leak advantaged the Republicans, proof enough that the Republicans were colluding with the Russians, never mind the Democrats has been much more friendly in it's business deals with Russia than the Republicans. First Russia has been the darling of the left, since WW ll and Stalin (this certainly includes Hillary Clinton when Secretary of State under President Obama).Never a word that former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, John Pedesta (of the Pedesta Group) successfully lobbied on behalf of the Russians when they were petitioning the US and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State for oil drilling and Uranium mining rights...."The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, purchased in January 2005 a Canadian company — UrAsia — with uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America, reports the New York Times. This purchase made the Russian agency one of the largest uranium producers in the world....Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One. These Are The Two Companies That Might Land Clinton’s Foundation In Big Legal Trouble

The FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign staff since July 2016 and they have found absolutely no evidence that they had colluded with the Russians (none, nada); this is the only information that is germane to this argument. Yet if this point is brought up in a discussion, those leaning left has turned theses accusations backwards with the illegitimate question, "Well what proof do you have that Trump and/or his campaign staff didn't collude with the Russians?"  Of course the idea that the one needs to prove a negative, is a pointless and intellectually dishonest demand. One of the first leaks the Democrats glommed onto showed that Gen Mike Flynn (then Trumps appointed national security advisor prior to being sworn in as President ) had been less than honest, when he told the future Vice President, Mike Pence, about phone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador. General Flynn told Mike Pence that the subject of President Obama's sanctions of Russia (the result of the DNC hack), never came up. In what appears to be an illegally released of "unmasked" surveillance information, in the conversation between Gen Flynn and the Russian Ambassador, was leaked to the media, showing the subject was briefly discussed; the FBI said Gen Flynn broke no laws during the phone conversation, meaning the Ambassador most likely brought up the subject and Gen Flynn simply told the Ambassador he would have to discuss the subject with Trump. The leak led to Gem Flynn being fired becasue he was not truthful with Mike Pence, but the leak was downplayed by the media.

In this case, the leak itself was one of the most egregious violations in the history of US Intelligence. The government (NSA/FBI) is forbidden to listen in on phone conversations of Americans without specifically authorized in a VISA warrant; this is to protect American citizens from the intelligence agencies in the US from violation their Constitutional rights of privacy. However, there are sometimes when incidentally American citizen conversations are heard as the intelligence agencies routinely listen to foreign entities, such as the Russian Ambassador. In those cases the American's identity is kept secret (masked) by the intelligence agent(s) that are listening to the conversation, so the American's identity is not released, even within the intelligence agency itself. The guaranteeing of masking incidental surveillance of American citizens is the corner stone of the VISA ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) court  allowing for the "requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies" To date, this may be the first time such an unmasking violation has been leaked to the media and the public at large; in essence since it involved the future President of the United states, it is not only flagrant violation of the VISA warrant and the Constitutional rights of the citizenry by the government, but it becomes a serious case of espionage by a person (or persons) inside the government.

So yes, it is the leak that takes president, especially since the unmasked information is at best embarrassing, without showing any illegal activity by any of the parties involved, except the leaking itself. These intelligence agencies have a serious problem on their hands, and unless it is addressed,  their ability to keep Americans safe will be seriously compromised.

The real issue with Flynn and the Russains is rogue US intelligence agents

The real issue with Michael Flynn's from resignation Homeland Security is not a possible violation of the Login Act (a law that has never been charged). Rather what is emerging as a shadow government made of Obama operatives left behind by Obama when he left office. The idea that rogue intelligence officers working for the US intelligence department forwarded highly sensitive (and a possibly classified conversation) to the press, for the sole purpose of destabilizing a new Presidents Administration, smells of a criminal conspiracy. This is not the same as someone hacking into someones email account by guessing the password. This is US intelligence officers using information gleamed using highly invasive NSA technology to be used for Homeland Security, that is strictly controlled to preserve the peoples constitutional rights (the use of such information requires a court order), for a political assassination.


It is presumed that Flynn was recorded by US intelligence that was monitoring telephone calls to the Russian government. The law as I understand it says, that once the phone call was captured, the intelligence operators must get a court order to continue any investigation becasue it involved a US citizen. However, some rogue US intelligence officer bypassed this constitutional barrier, pretty much doing what Eric Snowden has been convicted of; the release of classified and/or sensitive intelligence information without permission.


As of now only the FBI, Trump and probably the person that leaked it to the press, have a transcript, however, some that have seen the transcript say Obama's sanctions against Russia were mentioned, but not discussed; something along the lines of the Russian saying he wanted to talk about what the Trump Administration was going to do about the Obama sanctions and Flynn told told the Russian that was something he would have to take up with Trump. So it's false news that any law was violated. Where Flynn screwed up is he told Vice President Mike Pence the subject of the sanctions never came up in the phone call with the Russians, resulting in Pence defending Flynn based on Flynn's denials. However  it turned out Flynn lied to Pence (or the very least was not forth coming) and left Pence hanging with his lack of candor. If the Trump Presidency is to succeed, all of his cabinet and advisers have to be on the same page. As a supervisor I often explained that I would do whatever I could to back my officers up when mistakes that are made, as long as they were honest mistakes. But there are two things that are in their best interest; 1) be completely honest (ie don't make me look stupid defending you) and 2) let me hear about it first from you; I don't like surprises. Flynn broke both rules, which pretty much showed him not to be the team player he needed to be and Trump said so much. So the issue was not so much a violation of decorum or even the law, Flynn made Pence look bad as Flynn violated an expected level of trust, so he had to go.