This may explain why the Dems don't want to investigate voter fraud

12 Staffers At Dem-Linked Group Charged With Voter Fraud

Local prosecutors in Marion County, Indiana, charged 12 employees of a Democratic-linked voter recruitment organization of submitting fraudulent voter registration applications prior to the 2016 election.

According to the Associated Press, prosecutors say that 11 temporary canvassers working for the Indiana Voter Registration Project made and sent in an unknown number of fake voter applications. The canvassers’ supervisor, Holiday Burke, was charged as well.

The organization, the AP reported, is managed by Patriot Majority USA  a group with strong ties to Democratic Party, including former President Bill Clinton and former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, as well as labor unions.

Daily Caller

Former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy nails it

Why Trump Fired Comey

He believed that the FBI director misled the public to think that the president was under investigation.

At last, at least for your humble correspondent, this week’s big hearing brought clarity. I now believe President Donald Trump fired Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey because he believes Comey intentionally misled the public into believing Trump was under investigation by the FBI. There is enough support for this theory that, had the president been forthright in explaining it when he dismissed Comey on May 9, there might have been considerably less uproar. Instead, Trump dissembled, as he seems hardwired to do. He thus bought himself a debilitating special-counsel investigation, despite its being increasingly patent that there is no crime to investigate. . .

All that said, and as the former director learned painfully during the Clinton caper, the FBI and Justice Department should not make public statements about investigations unless and until they are prepared to file charges formally in court, where people get to see the evidence and have a chance to defend themselves. What possible good reason was there to alert the public that the Trump campaign was under investigation? Inevitably, that would induce the media to tell the world — incessantly — that Trump himself was under investigation. 

Comey maintains, as he did in the July 2016 Clinton-e-mails press conference, that there is a “public interest” exception to the Justice Department rule against commenting on investigations. But public interest is the very reason for the no-comment rule. The point is to avoid smearing people who have not been charged with a crime. Such a smear happens only if the public is interested in the case. 

More fundamentally, what is the “public interest” in misleading the public? If you know that what you are about to say is going to lead people to believe the president of the United States is under investigation (as it did), and you know for a fact that the president of the United States is not under investigation (as Comey did), why make the statement? And if it was important enough to tell Congress that Trump was not under investigation so that Congress would not be misled, what conceivable reason is there not to tell the public — especially when you must know that withholding this critical detail will make it much more difficult for the president to deal with foreign leaders and marshal political support for his domestic agenda? 

The fact that President Trump was not under investigation did not get out until Trump finally put it out himself. That was in the May 9 letter that informed FBI director Comey that he was removed from office: “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.” 

Do you suppose the desperation to tell that to the world, the exasperation over Comey’s refusal to tell it to the world, just might have been at the front of the president’s mind?

National Review

Because the Russians told him

Biden: I Knew Hillary Would Lose Battleground States

The Daily Caller

Wait, wait, this doesn't fit the Dem narrative

First US Natural Gas Shipment Arrives In Poland, Undermining Russia

“The United States welcomes the arrival of the first U.S. liquefied natural gas shipment to Central Europe, which arrived in Poland on June 7,” Heather Nauert, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, said in a press statement. “U.S. LNG exports support American jobs, lower energy prices for our partners abroad, and contribute to Europe’s energy security goals using a reliable, market based supplier.”

U.S. natural gas exports threaten Russia’s dominance over European energy markets, especially in Eastern Europe. Poland, for example, received 60 percent of its natural gas from Russia in 2013. Europe as a whole got about half of its gas imports from Russia, which may have hampered their response to Russian actions in Syria and Ukraine.

“The Department of State has worked closely with European partners to diversify European energy supplies through new sources of natural gas, vital interconnectors and new facilities to import LNG,” Nauert said. “The United States congratulates Poland on this significant step to diversify its own sources of energy and to strengthen Europe’s energy security.”

Threatening to use U.S. LNG to create a more diverse supply of natural gas could be a potent bargaining tool when Poland renegotiates its current energy deals with Russia in a few years.

The Daily Caller

Caddell: Dishonest Anti-Trump Media Have Become ‘Danger to Democracy’

Article

DOJ corrects Comey's testimony again!

DOJ: Comey Provided False Testimony About Jeff Sessions' Recusal from Russia Investigations

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday evening accused former FBI director James Comey of providing false testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. According to DOJ spokesman Ian Prior, who made the accusations against Comey via an official DOJ press release, Comey did not answer truthfully when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Cali.) asked him about the process by which Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any federal investigations of Russian interference with the 2016 elections.

The Federalist

Comey said Trump was NOT under investigation

Here's a Sampling of Media Reports Falsely Claiming Trump was Under Investigation

National Review

From National Review: The Answer is Federalism

We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward Divorce

Our national political polarization is by now so well established that the only real debate is over the nature of our cultural, political, and religious conflict. Are we in the midst of a more or less conventional culture war? Are we, as Dennis Prager and others argue, fighting a kind of “cold” civil war? Or are we facing something else entirely?

 I’d argue that we face “something else,” and that something else is more akin to the beginning stages of a national divorce than it is to a civil war. This contention rests fundamentally in two trends, one political and the other far beyond politics. The combination of negative polarization and a phenomenon that economist Tyler Cowen calls “matching” is leading to a national separation so profound that Americans may not have the desire to fight to stay together. Unless trends are reversed, red and blue may ultimately bid each other adieu. . . 

A civil war results when the desire for unification and domination overrides the desire for separation and self-determination. The American civil war is a classic example. There were grounds for separation — North and South were culturally different on a scale that dwarfs modern divides between red and blue — but the North did not consent. It sought to first unify and then transform the southern states. By contrast, had Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom, would England have mobilized in response? No, the U.K. came close to its own national divorce, the dissolution of a union generations older than the American republic.

 Here is the core American question. As we continue our own “big sort,” will the desire to separate trump the desire to dominate? Or can we instead choose to tolerate? We’re still quite far from the kind of near-miss that Britain just experienced, and we’re even farther removed from the vicious strife of a true civil war, but the trends are pointing toward continued matching of like with like — and along with that, increasing hostility against communities not like our own. In my Memorial Day column, I asked what I believe to be the key question: “Is there a single significant cultural, political, social, or religious trend that is pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart?”

 I don’t believe a civil-war mentality will save America. There are simply too many differences and too many profound disagreements for one side or the other to exercise true political dominance. Red won’t beat blue in the same way that blue beat gray. Adopt the civil-war mentality and you’ll only hasten a potential divorce. No, absent a presently unforeseen unifying ideology, event, or person, the idea that will save America is one of the oldest ideas of the Republic: federalism.

 So long as we protect the “privileges and immunities” of American citizenship, including all of the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, let California be California and Texas be Texas. De-escalate national politics. Ideas that work in Massachusetts shouldn’t be crammed down the throats of culturally different Tennesseans. Indeed, as our sorting continues, our ability to persuade diminishes. (After all, how can we understand communities we don’t encounter?)

 If we seek to preserve our union, we’re left with a choice — try to dominate or learn to tolerate? The effort to dominate is futile, and it will leave us with a permanently embittered population that grows increasingly punitive with each transition of presidential power. There is hope, however, in the quest to tolerate. Our Constitution is built to allow our citizens to govern themselves while protecting individual liberty and providing for the common defense. It’s built to withstand profound differences without asking citizens or states to surrender their strongest convictions. We can either rediscover this federalism, or we may ultimately take a third path — we may choose to separate.

David French, The Federalist

Camille Paglia has some very strong opinions about genderless pronouns

Jordan Peterson Interviews Camille Paglia

The Art of the Deal

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, & Bahrain Cut Diplomatic Ties, Shut All Borders With Qatar

Just days after president Trump left the region, a geopolitical earthquake is taking place in the Middle East tonight as the rift between Qatar and other members of the (likely extinct) Gulf Cooperation Council explodes with Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt cutting all diplomatic ties with Qatar accusing it of "speading chaos," by funding terrorism and supporting Iran.

zero hedge

My Second Favorite Economist

Larry Kudlow: Nixing Paris accord means 'the war on fossil fuels is over'

Larry Kudlow, who served as an informal economic adviser to President Trump's campaign, is praising Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, arguing it effectively ends “the war on fossil fuels.”

“Like [former President] Obama, the Europeans hate fossil fuels. It is a war on fossil fuels,” Kudlow, a CNBC senior contributor, told John Catsimatidis in an interview that aired Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

Kudlow went on to target German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been a vocal critic of Trump’s environmental policies.

“They made a big bet on renewables. Wind, solar, etc. And guess what? The bet failed,” he said, referring to the economic powerhouse’s commitment to renewable energy.

“Ironically, the queen of climate change is producing huge volumes of coal,” he added.

The former economic adviser argued that renewable energy sources were not enough to sustain the economy.

“So Trump is saying, 'I’m here to defend America, and we are going to continue our explorations and our technology. We’re going to strive for clean coal, we’re going keep natural gas fracking, we’re going to keep oil, etc.' The market loves that because the market wants growth,” Kudlow said.

The Hill

And the world didn't come to an end

Déjà Vu: Outrage Over Trump’s Paris Decision Is Identical To Bush’s Rejection Of Kyoto 16 Years Ago

About 16 years ago, Bush announced that he would continue opposing the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s first binding global warming treaty, largely on the grounds that it would hurt the U.S. economy and allow China and India to continue emitting greenhouse gases.

”The world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China,” Bush said in June 2001. ”Yet China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet India was also exempt from Kyoto.”

Bush also said the Kyoto Protocol would ”have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers,” the New York Times reported at the time.

Outrage ensued.

Daily Caller

And I couldn't be happier

Democrats Have Lost On Climate Change, And It’s Their Own Fault

When it comes to perfunctorily treating global warming as an evil, Democrats have won. The importance of “greening” everything has saturated society. Everyone gets it. When it comes to policy that supposedly mitigates climate change, though, they lose. Mostly, because they’ve hijacked “science” in pursuit of ideologically driven economic policies.

The Paris Agreement is substantively a joke. The widespread rage about President’s Trump’s withdrawal is, as many people have already noted, a case of mass virtue signaling. But the episode does reflect a larger problem for the Left.

The cycle goes something like this: Americans are marginally (or what some of us believe, appropriately) concerned about carbon emissions. For Malthusian progressives, and increasingly the rest of the Democratic Party, this won’t do. So they ratchet up the apocalyptic rhetoric in an effort to scare those people into embracing a slate of economic policies. The problem, of course, is that many people don’t like progressive economic policies. So liberals ratchet up the doom and gloom, to the point where they’re talking about this as an extinction-level event. Lots of people ignore these hysterics. Progressives then go from scaring to attempting to humiliate and bully those who won’t accept that progressive economic policies are tantamount to “science.” Half the country goes from being increasingly immune to becoming increasingly angry.

The Federalist

An idea that has outlived its time if it ever had one

George Will: Public broadcasting’s immortality defies reason

As changing technologies and preferences make government-funded broadcasting increasingly preposterous, such broadcasting actually becomes useful by illustrating two dismal facts. One is the immortality of entitlements that especially benefit those among society’s articulate upper reaches who feel entitled. The other fact is how impervious government programs are to evidence incompatible with their premises.

WaPo Opinion