Media Bias

With Michael Flynn's resignation, there is blood in the water, and the leftist sharks are circling in a frenzy, eagerly looking for their next victim.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said yesterday, "Gen. Flynn's resignation is not the end of the story. It is merely the beginning." One reporter summarized it well, saying, "Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree."

There is a well-orchestrated effort to delegitimize and undermine the Trump Administration. Some liberal politicians are quite bold about it. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told reporters recently, "I hope [President Trump is] not there for four years. . . And my greatest desire is to lead him right into impeachment."

The driving force behind this effort is the left-wing media, which ridiculed and mocked Donald Trump for over a year. Still stinging from the election results, the media are now engaged in what can only be described as "revenge reporting."

Just consider this New York Times headline: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence." Sadly, that is as far as most people will go. But let's dissect the story.

Three paragraphs in, the Times tells us: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation [between Russia and the Trump campaign.]" In other words, there is no evidence of any wrong doing.

Eleven paragraphs in, the Times writes: "It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself."

No evidence of wrong doing. No evidence that any of this involves the president. So exactly what is the story? Where's the real news?

And why all the huffing and puffing about the Russians? Where was all this outrage when it was learned that the Obama campaign had launched backdoor talks with the terrorists of Hamas and the Islamist regime of Iran?

The media's bias is breathtaking!

Crimes Were Committed

What the left and the media are engaged in is what we used to call "McCarthyism" -- smearing someone through leaks and anonymous sources. It is important to reiterate here that Michael Flynn stepped down not because he did anything illegal. In fact, three weeks ago it was reported that the FBI had cleared Flynn.

The reason Flynn stepped down was that he misled the vice president. But serious crimes have been committed, not by Flynn but by his attackers.

The New York Times cites as its sources "four current and former American officials." Those officials exposed extremely sensitive intelligence information gathered by the National Security Agency. Leaking this kind of sensitive information can result in ten-year prison sentences.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page wasn't a big Trump fan during the campaign. But it was supportive of government surveillance efforts in the war against radical Islamic terrorism. The paper supported government eavesdropping on the assumption that there were safeguards in place to protect American citizens.

But this morning, the Journal is concerned that those safeguards were breached in the Flynn case. Consider this excerpt of today's editorial:
 

"But readers should understand how rare it is for electronic intercepts of a private U.S. citizen -- which Mr. Flynn was at the time -- to be leaked to the press. The conversations of American citizens are supposed to be protected, lest private reputations be ruined without accountability. So it's unsettling to read that so many in the government claim to have read the transcripts of Mr. Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador, and then spoke about them to the press. . .

"This should also worry civil libertarians who claim to be worried about the surveillance state. . . They fret about Mr. Trump's speculative authoritarian menace but don't want to ask if authoritarian tactics were used against Mr. Flynn."

The President & The Prime Minister

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington this week. (For all the talk about foreign interference in elections, that's what Obama did to Bibi!) Unlike the previous eight years, this president really does have Israel's back and won't plunge a knife into it like Obama did at the United Nations.

President Trump understands that Israel and the United States must stand together against a common enemy -- radical Islamic terrorism. Israel is the tip of the spear. It knows the enemy better than anyone. Our two great nations will stand together or fall together.

I am pleased to report that there is a new relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. A senior administration official yesterday made it clear that this White House does not worship at the altar of a "two-state solution."

The official told reporters that while President Trump would like to secure a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, "We're not going to dictate what the terms of peace will be." The official added, "Peace is the goal, whether it comes in the form of a two-state solution, if that's what the parties want, or something else."