Reuters releases a story on the recently-announced Special Prosecutor which clearly demonstrates how close they are to becoming a second-rate distributor of left-wing talking-points.

Link: Reuters has access to people who know "how the White House thinks".

 For decades, conservatives and Republicans have groaned about a perceived liberal bias in the news.  Poll after poll confirms that the great majority of journalists support the Democratic Party, and to be fair, most members of the media have never denied this reality.  During the 1980s and 1990s, those of us on the right had to put up with the media's almost ferocious defense of Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but the public at large seemed to understand the media's inclination to sympathize with liberals.  Some people unforgivably associate conservatism with fascism, and I've noticed many left-wing thinkers like to promote the idea that Democrats are the defenders of free-speech.  In truth, the actions of numerous groups who have been supported by the Democrats in the past, which include forcibly preventing guest speakers from delivering their addresses, call into question the left's true intentions regarding the First Amendment.  Not surprisingly, the media has been all-but silent on the repeated instances of conservatives being denied the right to speak, which falls in line with the less-than-fair way President Trump has been treated by the press.  Since his arrival in Washington DC, the media has attacked President Trump on a daily fashion, and from many different directions.

Taking a chance on public burnout, CNN, MSNBC, and the three traditional news stooges, ABC, CBS, and NBC, take turns printing front-page stories that detail a White House in absolute chaos.  Every third or fourth story, though, reminds the public of Trump's plan to outlaw Muslim immigrants in perpetuity, and to hide the "fact" that he and his staff colluded with Russian espionage to unfairly steal the presidential election from the oh-so deserving Hillary Clinton.  Actually, the media can take full credit for turning a non-story with absolutely no evidence, into an investigation with a Special Prosecutor, which will cost the U.S. taxpayer untold millions of dollars.  The Justice Department has a legal threshold that they are obliged to meet before enacting the Special Prosecutor option; that threshold certainly includes the existence of evidence.  Once this investigation is complete and the Trump Administration is vindicated, we all know that the media will bring up sources who claim that the Trump Justice Department "fixed" the outcome.  Regardless, I want to know which media billionaire big-shot is going to pick up the tab for the cost of an investigation that should never have been initiated.

The fact that the mainstream media is aggressively pursuing an agenda to discredit the Trump Administration is no longer "news", so to speak, to conservative listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.  That being said, the Reuters story that I've linked at the top of the page leaves me both angry and a bit perplexed.  I realize that there are folks on both the right and left who are going to believe the worst of the other side, regardless of the truth, as this is the nature of politics in today's day and age.  The problem of leaks emanating from the White House has become a full-blown crisis, and President Trump needs to appoint someone (Vice President Pence would be a great choice from my perspective, if not, I'm happy to do the job myself) who will focus exclusively, every day, on finding, firing or reassigning persons suspected of leaking.  Heck, why not just can everyone who has "Obama" written on their resume?  Also, keep Jared Kushner and Ivanka as far away from Operation Plug the Leak as possible.  There is no question that life-long Democrat Kushner elbowed his way into getting a few like-minded friends hired, and they may not actually be part of the problem, but I would look at those people very closely regardless.

Reuters claims to not only have sources in the White House who can report on conversations and events, they also claim to have sources who are familiar with how the White House thinks (see link, first paragraph, last sentence).  Are they referring to the White House as a living, breathing creature, or just certain people inside?  How long has Reuter's sources been able to tap into the thoughts of people in the White House?  Shouldn't this be an issue for the Secret Service and the FBI?  In a very bizarre way, things are beginning to make sense.  Since the Associated Press, the United Press International, Reuters, the Washington Post and the NY Times all have multiple sources in the White House, maybe we are dealing with only a handful of leakers, all with the ability to know what Trump and his closest advisers are thinking.  During my years with the CIA, I was not aware that this type of "information collection" was legitimate, but I can't account for what is now acceptable after two terms of Obama.

My tongue-in-cheek comments about Reuters is meant to shed light on the media and their self-authorized efforts to steal information from the Trump White House that is meant to be classified.  Shouldn't the President of the United States be afforded the opportunity to converse with his staff in private?  Why is the media allowed to repeat White House conversations involving the President of the United States?  Since the beginning of this embarrassment, we have assumed that these sources exist, and what they are reporting is accurate.  Since the media has no obligation and certainly no intention of disclosing their sources, how can we be sure that the details being printed in the Post and NY Times isn't all bullshit?  Is it beyond the pale to consider that the media might INVENT something?  Actually, history is replete with journalists doing just such a thing, as both the NY Times and the Post are aware.  In today's over-the-top, angry-left political environment, I have absolutely no reason not to approach everything I hear that has been published by Reuters, the Post or the NY Times, with great cynicism.  I voted for Donald Trump, as did enough Americans to put him in the White House.  He deserves just as much respect from the media in his first term as the Community Organizer got from me in 2008.  

Media wastes little time in going to battle for Hillary Clinton.

Recently a Democrat friend complained about the media focusing on Hillary Clinton's email server mess.  Not surprisingly, when I asked him to produce negative reporting regarding Hillary, he was only able to offer reporting from Fox News.  It seems that Democrats have come to the conclusion that Fox News is the only source that matters.  As a point of curiosity more than anything else, I still visit CNN and occasionally ABC, CBS, and NBC.  I rarely hear any mention of Hillary's email server on any news station other than Fox News.  During the GOP and Democratic primary season, for the most part the media focused on congratulating the Democrats for the Bernie Sanders phenomenom, and trashing Ted Cruz.  I was a bit surprised that the media stayed away from Trump during the primaries and debates, until I realized the intention.  I kept waiting for CNN and NBC to dig into the Trump University scandal and various other stories.  I should have been patient.  The media had every intention of dumping all the scandals, bankruptcies and dirty laundry on the Trump campaign, but not until Trump had comfortably won the Republican nomination.  Is it any surprise that since Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, it has been one negative story after another on Trump?  In fact, I don't think an hour goes by without one of the major media outlets reminding Americans that Donald Trump is a racist, a bigot, and a crook.

The real irony is that In his personal life, Trump doesn't appear to be any of these three negative characterizations.  Trump has been an outspoken supporter of Visa worker programs that target specifically skilled individuals, and he has actually called for an increase in legal immigration.  Regarding the accusation of bigotry (or misogyny, which is the term I previously used to describe Trump), a review of Trump's hiring history over the years indicates that he aggressively recruits and hires qualified women at a rate greater than the US government.  As for my earlier issues with Donald Trump, I was really focused on his comments regarding Carly Fiorina and Fox News presenter Megan Kelly.  In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Trump opined that Fiorina was too ugly to be president.  He also inferred that Megan Kelly targeted him unfairly because she was dealing with her "monthly female issue" (my quotes).  Trump claims that the Fiorina comment was in jest, but he has yet to adequately account for his hypothesis rebarding Kelly.  The truth is, Trump is an uncouth man.  He lives in a world of very aggressive business practices, and he has yet to learn the importance of discretion and respect for one's political opponents.  I think it is reasonable to assume that he is trying to adjust to a learning curve, given that he has apologized and made peace with both Fiorina and Kelly.  Don't think for one second, though, that you've heard the last of these two scandals.  The media is determined to follow a daily template to make Trump look like a bigot and a racist.  The media originally avoided dumping on Trump in the primaries because they had determined that he was the Republican which would cause Hillary Clinton the least amount of difficulty in a national election.  So the media focused on stories abiut Trump"s primary opponents.  Now that the media has succeeded in picking the Republican candidate (for the third
consecutive cycle), the time has come to go after Trump with guns blazing.  Be prepared, Trump suppprters; some of the garbage that will be disseminated by the likes of MSNBC and ABC will be hard.to ignore.

Fortunately, the Democratic establishment did Trump suppprters a favor by smoothing the way for Hillary to get the Dem nomination.  Unlike most politically active people in DC, Trump has no fear of the Clinton machine, and certainly no respect for Hillary.  Buckle up, folks- this election is going to get nasty.