Articles by "Opinion"
Quotes by TradingView
loading...
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Hundreds of protesters demonstrate against Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington. (NuNu Japardize/Fox News)


Journalists spent last week rewriting history as it happened and denying the thuggery of left-wing protests. It was like watching a reality TV version of “1984.”

President Trump helped get the show rolling when he called left-wing protesters “an angry mob” and Republicans and conservative groups picked up the term. It was repeated in several videos and in a key GOP commercial that highlighted scenes of violence.

The scenes in the commercial included: the rioting and arson that took place protesting President Trump’s inauguration; attacks on Trump campaign events; harassment of members of Congress; and protesters pounding on the Supreme Court doors to object to the Senate confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

This was all more than the media could stand and they spent the week trying to disprove reality.

The Washington Post ran one piece calling the idea of “the angry mob” a “myth.” Then it did just the opposite by publishing an opinion piece stating: “Why is the mob angry? Because Trump is ripping us apart with bigotry and hatred.” That piece blamed Trump for having “spent the past 18 months actively stoking civil tensions.”

NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd agreed, claiming the GOP “arguably created this current environment.”

Hardly.

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace revealed that she urged former Florida Republican governor and unsuccessful presidential candidate Jeb Bush to punch then-opposing candidate Trump in the face during the 2016 presidential elections. This was Wallace’s second call for violence.

The Post even fictionalized the protests, calling it a “lie” that there were paid protesters. Rejecting that argument, Vice News and Washington Bureau Chief Shawna Thomas admitted “there were people who were paid” protesters.  Read More...


Nearly two years ago, the British people voted for Brexit. They rejected the arguments of the political, business, academic and media establishment, which were united in their support for the European Union and its elitist agenda that favors the rich. 

Instead, voters chose populism, voting for Britain to become a self-governing, independent nation outside the EU.

You can say they were wrong; you can lament their decision. But you can’t deny the facts of what happened.

But guess what? Denying the facts is exactly what the elitists are trying to do.

Right now, the political debate in the United Kingdom is about whether, after Brexit, the UK should ... kinda, sorta, stay in the EU really. Or whether in fact there needs to be a second referendum. Because, you know, the people got it wrong the first time.

Well, I suppose the Brits should be thankful for small mercies. At least in the UK they’re talking about a second vote.

Nothing so democratic is happening in the equivalent situation here in America, as the establishment seeks to overturn the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. But how can that happen? In the U.S., the chosen path to remove President Trump from office has become the Russia probe led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and its tabloid offshoot, the Stormy Daniels imbroglio.

The elitists in Washington (including – frighteningly – current and former leadership in our law enforcement and security bureaucracy) are monumentally aggrieved that the people had the temerity to elect a populist outsider to the White House. And they’re not prepared to wait for the 2020 election to try to replace populist Donald Trump.

That’s why this week I described the Mueller probe as a political counter-revolution.

Think back to the investigation’s origins. It was set up after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and told NBC’s Lester Holt that it was because of the “Russia thing.”

Yes – it was because of the “Russia thing;” not because there’s any basis to the “Russia thing” but precisely because there isn’t – and because Comey refused to say that. Read More From Fox News...

DBliss Media Opinion
Nancy Pelosi (Fox News TV Channel)


By Liz Peek | Fox News


Democrats are threatening to shut down the federal government, refusing to pass a spending bill unless it contains a path to legal status for the so-called “Dreamers” protected under President Obama’s DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program.

Are the Democrats really concerned with the status of these young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, or with reforming our broken immigration system? No. They are trying to score political points.

Let’s review:

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., recently went to a closed-door meeting at the White House to push his immigration plan. He was so genuinely intent on getting a bipartisan deal done to save the Dreamers that he torpedoed the entire undertaking by running to the microphones and claiming President Trump’s made a “racist” comment about “s---hole” countries.

Does that make any sense? No, it does not.

Durbin knew full well when he made his accusation that President Trump used such vulgar language that a media firestorm would be unleashed. He was betting that if the talks broke down, and Congress failed to resolve the Dreamer issue, President Trump would be blamed.

That, to Durbin and his Democratic colleagues – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California – is much, much more important than actually lifting the cloud of uncertainty that hovers over the heads of the so-called Dreamers.

Here is the reality: Democrats are scared to death that a Republican Congress and a Republican president may actually effect some reform of our flawed immigration system. They have pursued the Hispanic community vigorously for many years, seeking to solidify their support within the country’s fastest growing demographic. 

Part of the Democratic strategy has been to demonize the GOP as racist and anti-immigrant. Trump’s candidacy and his careless comments about Mexicans greased the skids.

In their eagerness to curry favor with Hispanics, Democrats have increasingly abandoned their earlier professed support for secure borders. Though they continue to pay lip service to protecting against illegal immigration, many have opposed the use of E-verify and other approaches that might reduce the allure of entering the U.S. without authorization.

The Democrats have also encouraged the spread of sanctuary cities, where local governments limit their cooperation with federal officials on the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. And they just hate Trump’s proposed wall along our southern border.

Now many Democrats are insisting they will not vote for a spending bill needed to keep government operating beyond Friday night unless it includes a lopsided DACA fix proposed by Senators Durbin and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., which allows Dreamers a path to legal status but skimps on border enforcement.

Though nearly everyone supports protecting Dreamers against deportation, Republicans and the White House want to couple that with enhanced border security, to make sure that what some are calling “amnesty” does not result in great numbers of new people flooding in without permission. 

Democrats are taking a risk. Most Americans are compassionate and welcoming to immigrants, recognizing the invaluable contributions of those who have come to the U.S. from other nations legally.

But, at the same time, most Americans favor border enforcement. Hillary Clinton found that out the hard way, when WikiLeaks exposed her making this comment in 2013: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future.…”

Those remarks gave candidate Trump the ammunition he needed to paint his opponent as weak on protecting our borders; it didn’t help that the lines came from a paid speech Clinton made to a Brazilian bank.

Polling has shown that 65 percent of Americans favor coupling legal status for the Dreamers with tougher immigration enforcement. Some 79 percent of those surveyed think employers should have to verify the legal status of their workers, for instance. Democrats balking at such a compromise are on the wrong side of this issue.

Many in the liberal media argue that the GOP will be blamed for any spending impasse that forces a government shutdown, since Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and occupy the White House. But Americans understand that passing a budget requires 60 votes in the Senate, which Republicans do not have. Republicans will need at least 10 Democratic votes.

Democrats are in a pickle. They can anger the nation by blocking a proposed spending resolution that lacks a DACA fix but that would fund our military and provide a six-year extension of the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program. Or they can infuriate Hispanics by keeping the federal lights on and working to resolve the Dreamer problem as part of a broader immigration package.

Latinos do not look to Republicans to fix this problem; they expect Democrats to do so. It isn’t the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that has attracted a protest demonstration by immigration activists – it is Chuck Schumer’s.

Everyone wants changes to our immigration system, including the White House. And nearly everyone wants to protect the Dreamers. There’s lots of room to negotiate, and President Trump has signaled support for a compromise.

But a compromise – a win – on immigration would be another nightmare for Democrats. The optics of President Trump hosting a signing ceremony in the White House to celebrate passage of an immigration bill, which has eluded the past several presidents, would be unimaginably valuable for Republicans as we approach the November elections.

A new immigration law would be almost as valuable for Republicans as the millions of workers getting bonuses and wage hikes because of the GOP tax bill that President Trump signed into law.

A few more wins and Democrats are going to have a hard time persuading voters that President Trump and a Republican Congress aren’t indeed Making America Great Again.


Liz Peek is a writer who contributes frequently to FoxNews.com. She is a financial columnist who also writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter @LizPeek.
DBliss Media Opinion



By John Fund | Fox News


Oprah Winfrey ignited speculation she will run for president with her impassioned speech celebrating women at the Golden Globes on Sunday night. Her speech contained “trigger” words that indicated it was about something bigger. 

Oprah said a “new day is on the horizon” in America. She then went on to say of “brutally powerful men” who abuse their position: “Their time is up.” 

Most importantly, Oprah gave the green light for her confidants to start talking about 2020, after previously dismissing the idea of running for office. Stedman Graham, Winfrey’s longtime companion, told reporters that a White House run would be “up to the people.” But “she would absolutely do it,” he said. That’s an open invitation for a Draft Oprah movement to start forming.

The Hollywood chapter is already launched. The Washington Post quoted Meryl Streep saying that Winfrey "launched a rocket" with the speech.

"I want her to run for president," Streep told the Post. "I don't think she had any intention [of declaring]. But now she doesn't have a choice."

So what are the chances that Oprah will throw her designer glasses into the ring and mount a campaign? Here are some of the factors that will go into her thinking.

  • Number One: She couldn’t ask for more favorable media coverage.
If Donald Trump’s media coverage was only five percent positive duirng his first year in office, Oprah’s would be completely the reverse if she geared up to run for president. NBC even had to pull back a tweet noting there was “Nothing but respect for OUR future president.” What is the term for something beyond media bias? Media adulation?

A possible Winfrey candidacy dominated network morning shows on Monday. Pundits pointed out that her star power endorsement was a major asset to Barack Obama’s rise in 2008, and that while campaigning for Hillary Clinton in 2016 she proclaimed the need for the country to elect a female president: "America, it's about time that we made that decision."
  • Number Two: The building blocks for a candidacy – name recognition and money – are there.
Winfrey has almost universal name recognition and her fans transcend traditional political categories. As actress Reese Witherspoon told the Golden Globes audience in introducing her: “There’s only person whose name is a verb, an adjective, and a feeling. And that is Oprah.” Polls show that she has a 39 percent favorable rating even among Republicans, and a majority of Independents admire her (along with over 70 percent of Democrats.)

And with a net worth of several billion dollars, Winfrey could spurn contributions from special interests, labor unions and corporations and declare her independence from politics-as-usual – much as Donald Trump did in 2016.  Read More
DBliss Media Opinion


By Newt Gingrich | Fox News

The great political surprise of 2018 will be the size of the Republican victory.

After members of the elite media have spent two years savaging President Trump, lying about Republican legislation, and reassuring themselves that Republican defeat was inevitable, the size of the GOP victory in 2018 will be an enormous shock.

Two very interesting columns (one by Barry Casselman and one by Scott Adams) illustrate how the media is deceiving itself.

Casselman contends that the Democratic victory in Alabama may have blocked a year-long embarrassment and actually strengthened Republican prospects in the Senate. He asserts there may be a new political wave coming, but no one knows whether it will be a red or blue wave.

Adams, the author of Dilbert, has a list of 20 political opinions and predictions made about President Trump and his Administration, which were just plain wrong. He suggests if you were wrong about 15 or more of these assertions, you might quit talking about politics while Trump is in the White House. By Adams’s standard, most elite "analysts" would have to be quiet, because they have been so consistently wrong about Trump.

As I listened to the end of the year "analysts," I was struck by how little they know, how little they have questioned their own mistakes, and how mutually reinforcing their false information has been.

These are not analysts. These are liberal propagandists. Much of what they assert is just plain wrong. Fake news is, sadly, an accurate term. And the topic about which they have been the most fake is the GOP’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Read More
DBliss Media Opinion
Palestinian protesters, Israeli troops clash in Bethlehem

 By Mitchell Bard | Fox News

Nations around the world have condemned the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, saying the recent move by President Trump is an obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. But the real obstacle to peace is the stubborn refusal by Palestinian leaders to accept the reality of Israel as a permanent Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

This refusal to accept reality can be labeled Palestinian Derangement Syndrome. As long as Palestinian leaders continue to embrace it, they will not agree to a fair and realistic peace deal acceptable to any Israeli government. And as a result, ordinary Palestinians will suffer.

Every time the U.S. makes demands of the Palestinians – to end terrorism, to stop paying terrorists in Israeli jails, to end efforts to circumvent negotiations by seeking U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state – the delusional Palestinian leaders threaten to stop talking to U.S. officials.

Sure enough, the Palestinians did it again when they announced that President Mahmoud Abbas would not hold a scheduled meeting with Vice President Mike Pence after President Trump announced U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. 

Most Palestinians are good people who would like to have normal lives – go to work, educate their children, live in peace. They would no doubt be happy if Israel disappeared tomorrow, but they’ve reconciled themselves to living with Israelis.

So if it were up to them, the majority of Palestinians would probably agree to a compromise peace plan with Israel. But unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority is a dictatorship run by Abbas without public support and with little regard for his people.

A recent poll in the West Bank and Gaza – conducted by an independent Palestinian think tank – found that 67 percent of Palestinians want Abbas to resign. 

It’s true that the Palestinian people suffer deprivations because of Israel’s policies and actions – but these problems are self-inflicted, because some Palestinians engage in terror that provokes Israeli countermeasures necessary to protect the safety its people. In the same way, the United States and many other nations have beefed up security after terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, Abbas has prevented elections for a decade and denies his people most civil and political rights. Palestinians lack freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, women’s rights and gay rights. Arabs in Israel have far more rights and freedoms that Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza.

Sadly, no one cares. The international community, the U.N., human rights groups, and pro-Palestinian advocates are silent when it comes to Palestinian abuses inflicted on their own people. They only care about Palestinians if some alleged abuse can be blamed on Israel.

President Obama was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Yet Abbas ignored Obama administration entreaties not to go to the U.N. with Palestinian grievances. And Abbas refused to negotiate with Israel based on Obama administration initiatives.

Palestinians also continue to make demands upon Israel as if they are the dominant power in the relationship. They delude themselves when they act as though Israel has any reason to accept such unrealistic demands.

In reality, Palestinians have no choice but to make concessions or live under current conditions. Israelis do not want to maintain the status quo, but they can do so if given no choice by the Palestinians.

The belief that the international community will force Israel to surrender to Palestinian demands is the latest manifestation of Palestinian Derangement Syndrome.

For decades, Palestinians have harbored the delusion that the Arab states cared about their cause and would drive the Jews into the sea on their behalf. But in truth, Arab leaders were interested in divvying up lands Palestinians claimed and for many years wanted to destroy Israel.

Fortunately, Arab armies were unable to defeat Israel in battle, though they tried repeatedly by attacking the Jewish State in war after war. And today Arab states are moving closer to Israel, as they recognize their mutual enemy is Iran and conclude that the Palestinian issue is irrelevant to their national interests.

As a result, following President Trump’s announcement accepting the reality that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, Arab leaders made perfunctory statements condemning the decision but did nothing. Muslims around the world did not answer Abbas’s call for three days of rage. In fact, few Palestinians paid attention.   Read More
DBliss Media Opinion


By Alan Dershowitz | Fox News

The Trump team is probably not going to seek to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. To do so would be to provoke Trump’s crucial supporters in Congress. Instead, they seem to be seeking to discredit him and his investigation. 

This is apparently designed to achieve two possible results: the first is to put pressure on the special prosecutor to lean over backwards in order to avoid any accusation of bias against Trump and his team. Mueller cares deeply about his reputation for integrity and will want to emerge from this process with that reputation intact. Accordingly, he may err – consciously or unconsciously – in favor of Trump in close cases so that the public will regard him as unbiased and fair-minded. 

This is a classic tactic used by lawyers, athletic coaches, business people and others in how they deal with decision makers. The great Red Auerbach, former coach of the Boston Celtics, once told me that when he screams loudly at officials, he generally gets the next close call in his favor. I have heard the same from baseball managers regarding balls and strikes.

This is a somewhat risky strategy in the context of law, because attacking the decision maker could also backfire. Whoever thinks about using this tactic should understand the particular decision maker against whom it is directed. Mueller seems like an appropriate target because of his concern for his reputation for fairness.

Even if this tactic were not to work, the attack on Mueller gives the Trump team some legal weaponry in the event of an indictment or a recommendation for impeachment. If a significant portion of the country believes that the special counsel was unfair, this could help in legal proceedings before judges or jurors. 

So attacking Mueller may appear to be a win-win tactic for the team – certainly a lot better than firing Mueller. Fortunately for the Trump team, Mueller has played into their hands by his sloppiness in conducting the investigation. He has been incautious with his choice of personnel – too many of them seem biased against Trump, not only by their backgrounds, but by their tweets and messages. When you go after a president, you must be Caesar’s wife – above suspicion or reproach. Mueller seems to be failing the Caesar’s wife test. Moreover, the manner by which he acquired emails and other documents from the Trump transition team may raise some legal questions. The same may be true if he used the questionable dossier against Trump as a basis for securing warrants. 

All in all, the Trump team is in a better position continuing to challenge Mueller than trying to get rid of him as the special counsel.

DBliss Media Opinion

Trump speaks to reporters after return from Camp David The president takes questions from the press.

By Newt Gingrich | Fox News

President Trump's speech Monday on national security will be in the great tradition of Presidents Truman and Reagan.

There have been two great strategic systems articulated successfully since World War II.

The first was President Truman's public campaign to convince Congress and the American people that the U.S. needed to contain the Soviet Union. Truman’s effort was supporting implementation of the strategy laid out in National Security Council Report 68, a top-secret policy paper written in 1950 that set the framework for 30 years of the Cold War.

President Reagan, in a series of speeches and strategic initiatives, set as his goal defeating the Soviet Union and expanding freedom. Within 11 years of his election, the Soviet Union disappeared.

In the period of American dominance after the fall of the Soviet Union, President George H. W. Bush suggested we were developing "a new world order," and Francis Fukuyama, in his book The End of History and the Last Man, argued that liberal democracy had won and was the inevitable wave of the future. It turned out that Robert D. Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy was more prescient.

Four presidencies – Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama – built their strategic efforts around a system of global multilateralism defined by lawyers, diplomats, and elite media. The gap between their idealistic vision and reality has been staggering. Disasters in Venezuela, Libya, Crimea, Syria, and elsewhere have demonstrated the collapse of the "New World Order" fantasy.

The Trump campaign focused on these foreign policy failures as a major component of its appeal to millions of Americans. Candidate Trump’s critique was sincere, and President Trump has now moved to replace the failed doctrine of the past.

President Trump's national security speech today should be read by every American who is concerned about national safety (which is the goal of national security).

Then, once it is available to the public, Americans should read the new National Security Strategy Report, which is the foundation of the President’s speech. President Trump has directed his national security team for eight months as they thought through the new realities and the strategic changes required to keep America safe.

This speech is the first step toward this new strategy.


Newt Gingrich is a Fox News contributor. A Republican, he was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Follow him on Twitter @NewtGingrich. His latest book is "Understanding Trump."
DBliss Media Opinion
AP

By Bruce Riley Ashford | Fox News

What kind of welcome would Roy Moore receive in Washington?

On Tuesday, the good people of Alabama will decide whether to vote for Roy Moore, the Republican candidate who is accused of multiple accounts of inappropriate sexual contact with underage girls. Beside Moore on the ballot is Doug Jones, a pro-abortion candidate who generally supports the policies associated with his party’s secular progressive platform.

Should the good Republicans of Alabama vote for Moore, for Jones, or for a write-in candidate?

Should conservatives across the nation support Moore or speak out against his candidacy?

GOP leaders are divided.

Some Republican leaders support Moore’s candidacy. President Trump, for example, supports Moore because, “The future of this country cannot afford to lose a seat in the very, very close United States Senate.” Similarly, Alabama’s governor Kay Ivey argues that significant policy issues are more important than Moore’s past.

Other Republican leaders argue unequivocally that Alabamans should disown Moore. Cory Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, declared that “Roy Moore will never have the support of the senatorial committee. We will never endorse him. We won’t support him.” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell says that Moore will “immediately” face a Senate Ethics Committee probe should he win. Speaker Paul Ryan has repeatedly called for Moore to drop out of the race.

What is best for our nation, for vulnerable women, and for the Republican party?

But GOP leaders are not the only people who must make up their minds about Moore. The good people of Alabama must cast their votes, and conservatives across the nation must make our voices heard on this matter of national significance.

Let’s face it: the Roy Moore situation is a sticky wicket.

DBliss Post Opinion


 By Michael Goodwin | Fox News

Not many years ago, an ad for a newspaper warned that, “If you miss a day, you miss a lot.”

Now you don’t need a day to miss a lot. Mere seconds of ­inattention can get you behind the curve. What, you didn’t hear about the latest predator to fall on his sword?

The gusher of startling events puts us neck deep in the curse of interesting times. We are in the midst of cultural reckoning over sex, could be on the brink of nuclear war with North Korea and may experience an economic boom as Congress moves closer to historic tax reform.

Then there’s the White House, where the dynamics of upheaval are entering a crucial phase. Although many deplorables believe they finally have a government looking out for them, much of Washington and the American left are preparing to dance on the grave of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Their celebration got an early start Friday with the guilty plea of Gen. Michael Flynn and his pledge to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller. The news persuaded James Comey, the insufferably self-righteous former FBI boss, and the Democratic media that the clock is ticking on Trump’s time in the Oval Office.

That is one way to look at Flynn — if you assume he has beans to spill. He was close to Trump but it’s worth noting that Flynn pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI, including about a phone conversation he had with a Russian official last Dec. 29 — seven weeks after the election.

That’s the same call that got Flynn fired after less than a month as Trump’s national security adviser because he lied to the vice president about whether the conversation covered sanctions.

So it’s clear that Flynn is a serial liar, but decidedly unclear whether he knows anything that would put Trump in jeopardy. It’s important that the content of his conversations with Russians are not the ­basis of his admitted crime and do not appear to be illegal.

“No collusion,” Trump said Saturday. “There was absolutely no collusion. So we are very happy.”

Happy seems a stretch, but it is a fact that the probe into whether Trump’s campaign worked with Russia to alter the election has found zero evidence so far. Four Trump associates have been charged, but no count relates ­directly to the probe’s original purpose.  Read More
DBliss Post Opinion


 By Tom Fitton | Fox News

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

Richard Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch's lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.

Because of the revelation in our other lawsuit, the FBI – without our knowledge—"reopened" our FOIA request. The agency supposedly found about 30 pages of information, which it needed six weeks to review. The FBI finally gave them to us late Thursday.

Now we know why the FBI played shell games. The documents show that FBI officials were concerned solely about the leaking of details of the tarmac meeting. None of the documents show top agency officials cared one whit about the propriety of the meeting itself, but only about who blew the whistle on the covert tête-à-tête.

In one email, an FBI official writes “we need to find that guy.” And in another we learn that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” An FBI official working on Lynch’s security detail even goes so far as to suggest non-disclosure agreements to keep the full facts from coming forth.

No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until we caught it red-handed, hiding and lying about them. 

Simply put, the FBI appears to be fully complicit in a cover-up that attempted to influence a presidential election for a favored candidate – Hillary Clinton. And the truth was trampled on a Phoenix tarmac.


Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch Inc. is a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.