News Summary from the Week that Was (8 – 14 December)

This is my weekly summary of news that the legacy media and Democrats have obfuscated for partisan political reasons.

1. Let’s start off with some excellent polling news in the midst of the Democrats’ impeachment farce:


As the race currently stands, President Trump is in the lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in hypothetical match-ups against former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Across the three states, Trump’s closest contest is against Joe Biden, although the president leads by an average of 6 percentage points against each Democrat.

Read the rest here. LMAO! Economy booming, great jobs report, impeachment fizzling, @POTUS polling goes up in key states – as exactly should be happening in a sane world. Americans are smarter than the despicable Democrats think we are.

2. Lots of news on the DoJ IG FISA abuse report. Here’s one tidbit among many.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was ripped for deviating from department policy concerning the application process. The FBI used the unverified Trump dossier, which was a Democrat-funded opposition research project. The Hillary Clinton campaign hired research firm Fusion GPS, who then contracted ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile the document. It’s riddled with inaccuracies. And it’s the work that set off this Russian collusion nuke in the media. It was a myth. There are over a dozen instances where DOJ IG Michael Horowitz cites as when the bureau omitted information, including exculpatory evidence when applying for surveillance warrants against Carter Page

Read the rest here. The deluge of spinning by Democrat media operatives is almost overwhelming, but there are plenty of independent media reports that expose the bombshells in the report.

3. More definitive proof that the Democrats’ impeachment gambit was a sham from start to finish.

Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, confirmed the European country never felt U.S. military aid was tied to any investigations into allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. “We never had that feeling,” Yermak told TIME magazine when asked about whether Ukraine felt pressure from the president to probe into the Bidens in exchange for aid. “We had a clear understanding that the aid has been frozen. We honestly said, ‘Okay, that’s bad, what’s going on here.’ We were told that they would figure it out. And after a certain amount of time the aid was unfrozen. We did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

Read the rest here. Multiple copies of this article need to be printed out, crumpled up separately, and then sent to Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Goldman, and Berke for their use as suppositories.


4. Historian Victor Davis Hanson provides some adult guidance and rules for impeaching a president that Democrats have ignored.

Rule I. Impeachment is not credible when it involves criminalizing a president for thinking about doing what other presidents have routinely done. A president should be specifically impeached on the basis of evidence that shows he committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or “treason” or “bribery.”

Rule II. Impeachment and conviction, to be credible, require bipartisanship and careful step-by-step deliberation. In 1998-1999, the Republicans found some bipartisan help in the House but hemorrhaged more Republican votes in the Senate while failing to pick up a single Democratic Senate vote. It is likely that not one Republican House member will vote for impeachment and not a single Republican senator for conviction, but at the same time likely that a handful of Democratic representatives will join Republicans in the House.

Rule III. It is hard to remove a president even for perjury and obstruction of justice during boom times. The public believes it is counterproductive to try. The current Democrats, nonetheless, since acquiring control of the House, are oblivious to the growing economy and feel as the Republicans did in 1998, that the mere idea of impeaching a president will over time change the polls. It did not then and will not this time around. They will likely pay the same price of hemorrhaging seats as the Republicans did in both the congressional elections of 1998 and 2000.

Rule IV. Some sort of special prosecutor’s report is needed for impeachment. The Democrats do not have one. And worse, they have already sought to use special counsel Robert Mueller as a pathway to impeachment. Yet the charge of “collusion” was found to be nonexistent and the second writ of “obstruction” was found not actionable in the Mueller report. The only thing worse than not having a special counsel brief is having a prior exonerating special counsel’s brief.

Rule V. Majority public support is needed for impeachment.  The Democrats currently lack it. And they are likely not to obtain it if the economy holds and they can find no sensational new witnesses or evidence.

Rule VI. Impeachment should not become a substitute for a looming election. The opponents of Nixon and Clinton had two powerful arguments for impeachment. First, there was no other chance of removal, given neither president was up for reelection. And, second, none of the elected officials of the House or Senate, who would be shortly voting on the presidents’ fate, would themselves be running against the president in the next election. In Trump’s case, he will be facing the voters in less than a year who can make up their own minds. More importantly, a number of Democratic senators are running for president and thus will be voting whether to convict the likely Republican incumbent nominee for president—to their obvious self-interest.

Rule VII. Impeachment should focus on one area of alleged criminality. In the Democrats’ case, Ukraine is merely one element of a three-year effort to get Trump, dating back to his election. That some Democrats are now seeking to resurrect the Mueller report to find additional ammunition is a commentary of the serial poverty of their entire impeachment effort.


Read the rest here. This article was an island of sanity in a sea of Democrat/legacy media impeachment insanity.

5. Clint Eastwood’s new movie “Richard Jewell” has apparently hurt the feelings of some “journalists.” Boo-hoo.

Media figures are outraged over the upcoming Clint Eastwood film Richard Jewell, blasting its negative portrayal of the journalists that upended the title character’s life in 1996.  Reviewers and reporters are slamming the film as misogynistic and even “Trumpian,” while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution sent a letter demanding the movie include a disclaimer stating that its portrayal of former police reporter Kathy Scruggs reportedly trading sexual favors for a story on Jewell is false.  Slate acknowledged Jewell was in part a victim of a “merciless media spotlight” but harangued the movie for making Scruggs serve as a scapegoat for “everything wrong with the press.”

Read the rest here. The lefty media are upset about a Hollywood embellishment in a movie for dramatic effect? Surely not! Richard Jewell’s life was destroyed, and the media were directly complicit. I can’t wait to see the movie.

6. James Comey continues whistling past the grave by claiming the IG report “exonerated him” and the others at FBI who were illegally spying on the Trump campaign in 2016. Horowitz says, “Not so fast, Kimosabe!”

Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz on Wednesday shot down former FBI Director James Comey’s claim that the FISA abuse report vindicates him against allegations of wrongdoing during the bureau’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign. “I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this FISA,” Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, answering a question on whether Comey was “vindicated” by the report.

Read the rest here. All of Comey’s carefully crafted public image over the past two years just went up in smoke. US Attorney Durham will come calling on him in due course.

7. Excellent news on the Brexit front here!

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to remain in power with an exit poll showing his Conservative Party winning a clear majority of parliamentary seats in a general election on Thursday. The poll projected that the Conservatives would win 368 seats in Parliament, a gain of 50 seats from the 2017 election. The U.K. pound quickly jumped more than 2% on the news.

Read the rest here. Some sanity is returning to the UK; I love it.


8. Fusion GPS’s opposition research that became the debunked “Steele dossier” is biting the FBI and DoJ in the butt – BIGLY!

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has had its worst week in modern history. The Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had deceived a federal court and abused Americans’ civil liberties. It was equally humiliating for the crew that gulled the FBI into its excesses: Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and their media acolytes. Fusion is the opposition-research firm the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign hired in 2016 to kneecap Donald Trump.

Fusion in turn hired Mr. Steele, a British former spy, to compile the infamous “dossier” that the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump aide Carter Page. Mr. Simpson, a onetime Wall Street Journal reporter, tapped a network of media buddies to provide the operation cover. For years, Mr. Simpson spun a tale of how his firm—a team of “professionals”—had hired the “extremely well-regarded” former “lead Russianist at MI6.” Mr. Simpson told the Senate in August 2017 that he wanted Mr. Steele to look into Mr. Trump’s Russia business dealings.

So it was “alarming” when Mr. Steele instead found a “political conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia. Especially because Mr. Steele had “a sterling reputation as a person who doesn’t exaggerate, doesn’t make things up, doesn’t sell baloney.” The duo felt “obligated” to report this “national-security threat” to the FBI. The media would later assert that Mr. Steele had proved a valuable source to the FBI in the past; many claimed the FBI corroborated the dossier.

Now Mr. Horowitz has exposed the many fictions. His report notes that Mr. Steele was hired from the start to find Trump-Russia collusion. Mr. Steele told the inspector general that Mr. Simpson asked him in May 2016 to determine “whether there were any ties between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign” and “whether Russia was trying to achieve a particular election outcome.” The timing is notable: Mr. Simpson was talking about collusion months before the FBI was—and even before Mr. Steele reported it to him.

Read the rest here. Democrat paid-for opposition research was used to initiate illegal surveillance against the Trump campaign in 2016. Whatever happened to the Fourth Amendment?

9. AG Barr has gone public with his views on the Horowitz report and the intel community’s actions against the Trump campaign in 2016. VERY encouraging!


In each of two video appearances, on NBC News and at Wall Street Journal’s “CEO Council,” Attorney General William Barr provided the same basic information and views about the U.S. intelligence community’s actions against the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2017. A criminal investigation is underway and being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Barr was motivated to make the public statements, he said, by the misreporting and confusion surrounding Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report issued on Dec. 9. It found serious government surveillance abuses but no evidence of political bias on the part of the offending FBI officials and agents. Below are 24 points Barr felt the need to make after the release of the Horowitz report. (All of the information is attributed to Barr.)

  1. Don’t expect Durham’s findings to be announced before late spring or summer 2020.

  2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.

  3. Regarding the FBI’s actions in surveilling Trump campaign associates, it was a “travesty” and there were “many abuses.”

  4. From “day one,” the FBI investigation generated exculpatory information (tending to point to the targets’ innocence) and nothing that corroborated Russia collusion.

  5. It’s a “big deal” to use U.S. law enforcement and intelligence resources to investigate the opposing political party, and I cannot think of another recent instance in which this happened.

  6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”

Read the rest here. Read the rest of the 24 points and be of good cheer. AG Barr appears to be just what the doctor ordered at this point in American history.

10. This is what really counts over the long haul, and Democrats who live an die by polls know they’re in big trouble!


The House Intelligence Committee held their first hearings on the Ukraine matter in November, and the House Judiciary Committee started hearings early this month. By the measuring stick of expanding the public support for removal, those hearings must be declared a failure.

Read the rest here. The polls are all trending against impeachment, and Democrats are committing political seppuku. Please pardon my crocodile tears.

11. And finally, Daniel Greenfield exposes the Democrats’ hypocrisy like few journalists can.

A Monmouth poll earlier in the year asked Democrat voters how important diversity was to them. Only 5% of Democrat voters wanted a “person of color” as the candidate. 6% wanted a white candidate. 87% said it didn’t matter. 7% wanted a woman. 12% wanted a man. 77% said it didn’t matter. And that’s in a survey whose demographic composition was 63% female and only 58% white. It turns out that women don’t especially want female candidates, and minorities don’t want a minority candidate.

The Democrats don’t have a diversity problem. Their problem is that their diverse voters have minds of their own. The Left has been tugging the Democrats leftward by promising them a new majority-minority coalition spurred by immigration and birth rates. But even young minorities are less likely to identify as lefties than young white voters. That diversity is what’s cracking up the Democrats.

Read the rest here. VERY perceptive. Ho Harris and Spartacus complain about the “lack of diversity” in preferring white Democrat presidential candidates, but they are essentially blaming Democrat voters. How’s that for logic?

Here are this week’s “honorable mention” articles:


The good news for President Trump (and the Republican Party that his is dragging along kicking and screaming, in some cases) keeps rolling out. Let the House Democrats vote out their ridiculous two articles of impeachment! They will rue the day. The economy is great, President Trump is working on a deal with China (the first increment has already been agreed upon this week), the Brits voted for Brexit BIGLY, and globalism is being directly confronted at home and abroad. Good things to come with US Attorney John Durham, too! Stay tuned.  ///The end.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos