BloggeRhythms

Yesterday was another in which Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt confirmed that he’s one of a very few that actually understands President Trump’s methodology and style. 

Stirewalt wrote: “Say what you will about President Trump’s claims that his predecessor was spying on him during the 2016 campaign, they have been a remarkably effective distraction.” 
Having a chance to publicly interrogate FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers about Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential campaign, “a topic that should be an absolute field day for the blue team, Democrats instead devoted much of their questioning to disproving Trump’s apparently baseless claim.”

In all, Democrats were able to coax Comey into revealing unambiguously that Russian interference was aimed at harming nominee Clinton and that “the Kremlin had a distinct preference for Trump in the election.” However, accomplishing that “took up an enormous amount of time.“ 

Coming to his point, Stirewalt went on: “As one senior Republican aide on Capitol Hill put it to Halftime Report about Trump and his distractions: “You never know if the guy is crazy or an absolute genius.” 

In that regard, Stirewalt still  believes that “it was pretty crazy for Trump as a sitting president to throw out an unsupported accusation against Barack Obama of such magnitude. Reckless, even.” However, “the genius part was revealed today as Democrats continued to chase the red herring through much of Comey’s and Roger’s testimonies.” 

From there Stirewalt makes the point that Comey’s public declaration about the existence of an investigation means that in the probably near future there will be findings released. When that happens: “Either Trump and his associates will be given a clean bill of health, or criminal charges will be laid. And finally we can have some resolution.” 

However, until that finding’s released, “it’s all about shaping the precious narrative. And in that game Trump’s either intentional or accidental misinformation about Obama turns out to be very useful to the new president. Which is because, as Trump most certainly knows: “Many of Trump’s supporters no doubt readily believe Trump’s claims, despite debunking. Trump’s critics, meanwhile, have been busy chasing their tails trying to disprove the disprovable.”

All of which goes to not only support the conclusions reached here some time ago regarding Trump’s skill at misdirecting and preoccupying his opposition, but was described by Stirewalt using prescisely the same metaphor often posted here that Trump has his critics constantly “chasing their tails.”   

In terms of the new POTUS’s maintaining popularity, “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.”

While that’s substantially higher than at any time during the presidential campaign, components of the poll demonstrate that fulfillment of his individual promises all along are received by voters quite positively, as follows: 

“The president is proposing major cuts in foreign aid. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters believe the $42.4 billion the U.S. government is slated to give in economic and military aid to other countries this year is too much.” Meaning that, although voters would like to see even less spent in this vein, the POTUS is certainly on the right track with them. 

Similarly, while Trump’s proposed foreign aid cuts will help fund a big increase in defense spending and the repair and replacement of infrastructure nationwide, most voters also agree with his idea that “any new spending must be offset by budget cuts elsewhere.” 

On a completely different matter, but one concerning the refuting of a leftist ideological premise: “Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans think when it comes to team sports for children, it’s more important to reward the winners than to make sure everyone is recognized for participating.” Raising the proposition that perhaps loser Clinton might feel much better if she was sent a plaque acknowledging her competing in the presidential election she lost to Trump.   

And then, in a surprising turn of events, according to Stephen Battaglio, Contact Reporter @latimes.com via Drudge: “Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is being kept off the air indefinitely amid the controversy over his unverified claims that British intelligence wiretapped Trump Tower at the behest of former President Obama.” 

Beginning on March 4, when Trump first tweeted the accusation that Obama ordered his “‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory,” the judge quoted unnamed sources, as saying that: “British foreign surveillance agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, “most likely” provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s recorded calls.”

In a column on FoxNews.com, the Judge wrote: “By bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access," to those calls.

And this is where the situation gets interestingly complex because: ”White House press secretary Sean Spicer cited Napolitano’s charge last week when asked why President Trump continues to stand by his initial claim. The British spy agency sharply denounced Napolitano’s allegations, saying they are “utterly ridiculous and should be ignored." 

“You shouldn’t be talking to me; you should be talking to Fox News,” said Trump, who described Napolitano as “a very talented lawyer.” 

So, here we have a case where the Judge’s comments give Trump an out, regardless of what any Congressional investigation concludes. Because both the Judge, and Fox, provided the rationale for Trump's claims of Obama’s involvement in surveillance results.        

While “Fox News gives its analysts much more latitude than correspondents and anchors in regard to what they can say on the network,” the network claims to be concerned about Napolitano saying on one program that "Fox News has spoken to intelligence community members who believe that surveillance did occur, that it was done by British intelligence.”

Nonetheless, Fox Host Shepard Smith told viewers Friday: “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way.”

Napolitano himself defended his comments in a statement read on the Fox News program “MediaBuzz” on Sunday, saying he “reported what the sources told me, reported it accurately and I do believe the substance of what they told me.” 

So, if things remain consistent regarding both the new POTUS and the judge, it’s highly probable that both will prove correct in the long run. Because they've consistently done so in the past. However, whatever the outcome derives to be, the chances are the left will come up short again in their accusations of Trump's wrongdoing. Because, they’re virtually always incorrect, regardless of the topic involved.   

That's it for today folks. 

Adios