BloggeRhythms

Each passing day adds to the obvious that the Democrat party has no positive agenda whatsoever with nothing much else to offer. As a result, they’ve chosen to predicate their approach on attacks, slurs and innuendos of wrongdoing on the part of their Republican rivals. However, events are proving that they can’t do that very competently either, more often than not winding up as the eventual wrongdoers themselves.  

Today, Kimberley A. Strassel a brilliant, perceptive writer, broached the subject of Democrat ineptitude @wsj.com in her column titled: “Dem spin can't hide evidence Nunes is right.”

Ms Strassel begins by writing: “California Rep. Adam Schiff may not offer much by way of substance, but give him marks for political flimflam. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was so successful at ginning up fake outrage over his Republican counterpart that he successfully buried this week’s only real (and bombshell) news.”

The way it worked was that “Schiff and fellow Democrats spent this week accusing Chairman Devin Nunes of carrying water for President Trump, undermining the committee’s Russia investigation, and hiding information.” The press complied by dutifully regurgitating the outrage, “as well as Mr. Schiff’s calls for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation into possible Russian electoral meddling.” 

Mr. Nunes, though, developed his own source who showed him “a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility.” 

The details included uncovering: “Dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Information that whatever those documents contained was not related to Russia. 

Although many reports did “mask” identities (referring, for instance, to “U.S. Person 1 or 2”) they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. And in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. “Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.” 

Ms Strassel summed the situation up by concluding; “Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.” 

Going further, Ms Strassel believes that Schiff’s “howls about Mr. Nunes’s methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well. Mr. Nunes has spent years cultivating 
whistleblowers and sources as part of his oversight responsibilities, and that network scored him information that has otherwise remained hidden.” 

As a result, Ms. Strassel correctly makes the point that: “If Mr. Schiff wants to be trusted with important information, he might start by proving he is trustworthy—rather than rumor-mongering that there is “more than circumstantial evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion.” 

Then, going further, she describes what’s needed from Schiff in order for him to attain any real credibility whatsoever: “He might voice some concern that a prior White House was monitoring its political opponents. He might ask whether Obama officials had been “reverse monitoring”—tracking foreign officials solely so they could spy on the Trump team. 

“Mr. Nunes has zero reason to recuse himself from this probe, because he is doing his job. It’s Mr. Schiff who ought to be considering recusal, for failing to do his own.” 

While Ms Strassel put the issue into clear and accurate perspective, readers too proved their awareness of the truth’s of the matter, regardless of MSM attempts to support the Democrat scenario.   

Reader James DiLorenzo wrote: “Do any of you Democratic posters or trolls here know that the WH yesterday invited members of Congress to come and see the evidence on surveillance and unmasking ? Do you understand it was a broad based surveillance that has nothing to do with the Russian investigation? Perhaps it would be good to have all the facts before you accuse Nunes of having nothing?” 

Jason Schnyders opined: “Instead of just regurgitating democrat talking points like most other media, Kimberly Strassels' articles share facts and educated opinions without partisan under tones. Its refreshing frankly in the current political and media climate. Obama Admin never had a shortage of political hacks willing to bend or break the law for partisan purposes. Anyone who cant see that is delusional.”  

Michael Wiley took the other side, writing: “The sources of Nunes "secret stuff" are both political appointees. 

“1) A Flynn appointee 

“2) A former Nunes subordinate 

“Trumpers looking at anything and falling short.”
 
Barbara Wade differed with Wiley, responding: “@Michael Wiley And?  You have proof of this or did you simply read the NYT?   lol, well DUH!  Just like the internet, if it's in the NYT it MUST be true, snicker.  Uh huh, whatever................."

And then Doug Schomberg put the Democrat premise into proper perspective by posting another retort to Wiley : “So what?  Ben Rhodes was a political appointee. So was Valerie Jarrett. And Susan Rice. As were all the staffers on obama's WH national security team. All of them had access to classified info. Gonna try to smear them too, mike?” 

The issue itself was addressed further by The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes who said yesterday on “Special Report with Bret Baier”  that the process of uncovering any Russian meddling in the U.S election "doesn't look good." 

Raising questions about the process, Hayes asked "did this come from the White House, was it presented to Chairman Nunes who then took it public and to the president and made a big deal about it. Was there an effort to spin this story to create some PR pushback for President Trump?"   

As a result, Hayes believes additional questions now surround the previous administration's involvement in the intelligence gathering process.   

"It's certainly the case that Chairman Nunes and those who are familiar with the material that he's seen believe there was real wrongdoing," Hayes said. 

While the Senate intelligence committee opened its first public hearing on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Hayes now said that if we see "this unmasking and the tasking for the unmasking has come from the White House or the NSC, the Obama administration, then I think that raises additional questions." 

All of which adds support to today’s premise, that by their continual push aimed at denigrating and vilifying their political rivals with very little to no real substance to bolster their claims of wrongdoing, the issues Democrats have chosen to date have all seemed to do nothing but boomerang. Despite all the help from the MSM.   

Even Fox News has, intentionally or not, added help to Democrats by leaving an outdated article on its website posted by writer Dana Blanton back on on March 15th, titled: “Fox News Poll: Trump approval slips, even as more feel economy improving.” 

Since that was more than two weeks ago, one has to conclude that despite all that’s transpired since, Fox management must have a particular purpose for reminding readers of Trump’s approval slippage. And that purpose certainly does not seem in any way like one intended to help the new POTUS. 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios