BloggeRhythms

Yesterday’s entry began with the premise of wondering  if “those on the left exist in a naïve alternate universe or are simply unable to grasp the practical realities of what really transpires around them.” 

The thought arose whereas from inception of the Trump administration, the Democrat party has had no attractive platform or constructive premise of its own for the nation’s betterment. And thus has chosen to take the tack of hostile disagreement to everything proposed by Trump and his administration instead.  

However, that approach has not only proved fruitless, it’s caused growing situational embarrassment for Democrat leadership as well. And that’s because virtually every attempt to demean, discredit or belie Trump in any way has not only failed immeasurably, those efforts have made the accusing Democrats look like bumbling imbeciles themselves.    
  
In that regard, two more huge Democrat political miscues became disclosed today.

The first is found in an article @FoxNews.com saying: “A meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could mend the rift between the two nations, a Kremlin spokesman said Sunday.

“Dmitry Peskov told ABC’s “This Week” that relations between the U.S. and Russia are “maybe worse” than the Cold War, but a meeting between the two sides have a chance to repair divisions. 

“I think if two presidents meet each other, if they exchange views, then there will be a chance for our volatile relations to get better,” Peskov said.” 

Putin himself has suggested that a meeting could take place in Germany at the G20 summit “or at a later summit for the Arctic Council in Finland, according to the New York Post. He also said that Russia was “ready” for the meeting, but will wait for the heated political divisions to die down for Trump.” 

Thus, the question arises that if Trump is so closely tied to Russia, as leading Democrats claim, why would there be a need for “volatile relations to get better?” 

What’s more, “California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that panel members still have no “definitive” evidence that the Trump campaign was working with Moscow to defeat Clinton.” 

Joel B. Pollak took the issue further @breitbart.com this morning, writing that Schiff told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “he “can’t say whether anything was masked or unmasked properly” after visiting the White House on Friday to see the same the surveillance documents that committee chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) saw last month.” 

The unusually muted response from Schiff “suggests that the documents substantiate Nunes’ claims that the Obama administration conducted surveillance on members of the Trump transition team, and unmasked the names of U.S. citizens improperly before the intelligence was disseminated throughout the government.”

“In addition, Schiff backed off claims he made last month on MSNBC that there was “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. When Tapper asked him point-blank whether there was “collusion,” Schiff said: “I don’t think we can say anything definitively at this point.” 

And therefore, two major Democrat attempts to injure Trump have in fact evolved to do the complete reverse as summarized by Mr. Pollak below: 

“Schiff’s failure to contest Nunes’s claims directly, and his refusal to repeat his conclusions about Russian collusion, add subtle support to two arguments: first, the contention by two senior former Obama administration intelligence officials that there is no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia; and second, the contention by President Donald Trump that he and his team were the victims of improper surveillance and leaks by the outgoing Obama administration.” 

Which leads right into another item found @bloomberg.com this morning, written by Eli Lake and reporting that: “White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. 

In February, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, National Security Council's senior director for intelligence “discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. 

“One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.”  

As far as Rice herself is concerned: she “has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today." 

Which is typical from Rice who reacted similarly when the Benghazi attack occurred as was recalled by Alex Griswold @mediaite.com back on June 28th, 2016 

At the time, Mr. Griswold wrote: “U.N. Ambassador and current National Security Advisor Susan Rice was lambasted by Obama administration critics when she went on all five Sunday morning shows in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack and blamed a YouTube video for the attack. But included in the newly-released Benghazi Committee report is the revelation that even within the Obama administration, State Department officials were flabbergasted by Rice’s appearances. 

“State Department employees in Washington D.C. who had spoken with those on the ground in Libya after the attack were universal in their condemnation of Rice’s statements,” the Republican-controlled committee revealed, citing emails obtained in the course of their investigation. 

“The State Department’s Senior Libya Desk Officer wrote an email to his colleagues saying, “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” 

“Also included in the new report is the revelation that Rice was not briefed by the CIA, Defense Department, or State Department officials before making the Sunday show appearances. Instead she was briefed by David Plouffe… Barack Obama‘s 2012 campaign manager.” 

Thus, as the Democrat party’s current polarizing strategies not only implode, but rebound in a highly damaging way, another material fault of theirs resurfaces. Because it’s now painfully obvious to everyone but them that they not only seem unable to learn from their own mistakes, they seem fixated on repeating them.  

Which is cause to recall once more, Albert Einstein’s perceptive quotation that: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios