Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Anatomy of a Coup”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

Every place you look in Robert Mueller’s investigation, the same names keep popping up: FBI agent Peter Strzok and sleazy, foreign private eye — or “British intelligence agent” — Christopher Steele.

So it’s rather important that they both are Trump-hating fanatics, and one was being paid by Trump’s political opponent in a presidential campaign. 

Steele is the author of the preposterous dossier that sparked the special counsel investigation, and Strzok is the FBI agent involved at every crucial turn of both the Trump and Hillary investigations.

As we found out from the House Intelligence memo, Steele told Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” (Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS, and, like Steele, was being paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.)

In the hands of Trump-obsessive Peter Strzok — he of the estrogen-dripping texts to his Trump-hating FBI lawyer mistress — the dossier was used to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Trump’s alleged “foreign policy adviser,” Carter Page. The FISA warrant against Page constitutes the last crumbling piece of the “Russia collusion” story.

Strzok was the person who instigated the Russia investigation against Trump back in July 2016. He was the lead agent on the investigation into whether Hillary, as secretary of state, sent classified information on her private email account. (Conclusion: She had — but it wasn’t any of the FBI’s business!) He volunteered for the Mueller investigation and remained there, right up until his Trump-hating texts were discovered by the inspector general of the FBI. (He was also, one surmises, the authority for many of the media’s lurid, anonymously sourced claims about how the investigation was proceeding.)

Most strangely, Strzok was the FBI agent who asked Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, about his phone call with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

There was nothing wrong with Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, but Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to an FBI agent about it, based on a secretly recorded intercept of the phone call. The question remains: Why was any FBI agent even asking about a perfectly legitimate conversation? No one seems to know. But we do know the name of the FBI agent who asked: Peter Strzok.

Aside from Strzok’s girl-power text to his mistress upon Hillary becoming the first female presidential nominee — “About damn time!” — his most embarrassing message to her was about the Russia investigation:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office (FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) — that there’s no way (Trump) gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …”

The media have tied themselves in knots trying to explain this text as meaning anything other than its obvious, natural meaning. To wit: “Although the worst is unlikely (Trump wins/you die before age 40), you still prepare by taking out ‘insurance’ (we take Trump down with the Russia investigation/your family gets a payout).”

I keep looking for a plausible alternative interpretation, but they’re all absurd; e.g., The Washington Post points out that even with an insurance policy, YOU STILL DIE! (Yes, and even with the Russian investigation, TRUMP IS STILL PRESIDENT.) Everyone except American journalists understands that Strzok’s “insurance” was their plan to tie Trump up with an endless investigation. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what they’ve done.

Contrary to every single person talking on MSNBC, the issue is not whether FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. In a probe of the president, FBI agents shouldn’t be dying to take him down for political reasons.

You want drug enforcement agents to be hungry to shut down drug cartels. You want organized crime prosecutors to be hungry to dismantle the mob. You want your maid to be hungry to clean your house. But the staff on a special counsel’s open-ended investigation of the president aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

This is an investigation with no evidence of a crime, apart from politically motivated, anti-Trump investigators relying on a Hillary-funded dossier.

Also contrary to every single person talking on MSNBC, Steele’s dossier is not like a neighbor who hates you telling the police you’re cooking meth in your basement. The police still have to investigate, don’t they?

First of all, if after 18 months of police work, the only evidence that you’re cooking meth in your basement is STILL your neighbor’s bald accusation, reasonable people will conclude that your neighbor is a liar. That’s what the Steele dossier is. It was the only evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia 18 months ago, and it’s the only evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia today.

Moreover, it’s not just the informant who hates the target. The investigators do, too. This is more like a police officer calling the police on his wife, sending himself on the call, shooting her, then writing up the police report concluding it was a justified shooting.

When your entire investigation turns on a handful of people with corrupt motives, maybe it’s time to call off the investigation.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Carter Page: Agent 000”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

If you’ve been watching MSNBC and, consequently, have no idea what was in the CONTROVERSIAL! DISPUTED! AMATEURISH! memo released by the House Intelligence Committee (the “Nunes memo”), here is a brief summary:

  • The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee paid a Trump-hating British private eye, Christopher Steele, to produce a “dossier” on Trump, relying on Russian sources. 
  • The Department of Justice used the unverified dossier to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an alleged “foreign policy adviser” to Donald Trump and the last frayed thread of the Russian collusion story. The FISA court was not told who had paid Steele to create the “salacious and unverified” dossier — in the words of the showboating former FBI Director James Comey — much less about Steele’s personal hatred of Trump.

After 18 months of steely-eyed investigation, the only parts of the dossier that have been “confirmed” are bland factual statements — Moscow is a city in Russia — while the untrue parts are anything having to do with Trump or his associates.

As New York Times national security reporter Matthew Rosenberg explained to MSNBC’s easily excited Chris Hayes last March:

“Both journalists and others who had copies of it for a long time have not been able to report much of it out. We’ve heard that, you know, the FBI and the Intelligence Community believe about 30 percent of it may be accurate, but most of that 30 percent, if not all, has been non-Trump stuff.”

Four points:

1. The only reason the hapless Carter Page was mentioned by Trump as a “foreign policy adviser” during the campaign was that the media and “foreign policy community” (FPC) threatened to excommunicate any FPC types who went near Trump, the better to laugh at him for having no decent foreign policy advisers.

Danielle Pletka, with the “conservative” American Enterprise Institute, expressed the FPC’s disdain, telling the Times: “It’s always surprising when a member of our relatively tightly knit community is willing to sacrifice their reputation to stand with someone like Donald Trump.”

This is standard procedure for the left, akin to how they treat black Republicans. Step One: Viciously attack any black person who works for a Republican. Step Two: Mock the GOP for being all white.

Their slanders against Trump worked! No one from the FPC would associate with him, so in a moment of desperation, Trump read five names off a list, including Page’s, during an interview with The Washington Post.

The New York Times, the next day:

“Top Experts Confounded by Advisers to Trump …

“… the Republican foreign policy establishment looked at them and had a pretty universal reaction: Who?

“… even Google offered little but outdated biographies of Mr. Trump’s new cast of experts …

“… None have spoken to their new boss.”

This has led to an inane media narrative, with Page being simultaneously portrayed as an all-powerful spy of Kim Philby proportions — but also a laughable nobody. Or, as a Russian spy described him in an intercepted conversation back in 2013: “An idiot.”

2. No one ever checks anything in Hollywood. You could go around claiming to have written “Gone With the Wind,” and you’ll never be busted.

It’s the same in Washington, D.C., only worse. Contrary to the self-admiring cliche about Washington being a city that runs on power, almost no one in D.C. has any real power, so it’s a city that runs on suck-uppery and B.S. I personally know of five people who claim to be advising the president, who aren’t, and I don’t get out much. That’s why Page won’t just come out and say: DONALD TRUMP HAS NO EARTHLY IDEA WHO I AM.

3. The use of the federal government’s spying powers against an American citizen is yet another problem of unrestricted, unvetted immigration.

The only reason the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act can be used against American citizens in the first place is that we have all these “American citizens,” like Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub), Syed Farook (San Bernardino), Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon), and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (killed by Obama drone strike in Yemen).

Maybe like California’s new “Real” I.D. cards — required by the federal government because the state gives driver’s licenses to illegals — we could start distinguishing “American Citizens” from “Real American Citizens.”

Because of this confusion, the FISA court that was supposed to be used against terrorists and spies is instead being used against Trump supporters. Here’s Malcolm Nance, terrorism analyst, smugly warning Page back in March 2017 on MSNBC:

“I have a message for him, all right? U.S. intelligence is not going to be coming at him like a lawyer, right? We will turn on the entire power of the U.S. collection system. And if he is lying, it is going to become very well-known very quickly. … If there’s a FISA warrant out there … we have the ability to collect anything on him, including all of his finances and every relationship he has with anybody in this world.”

If only the federal government were as gung-ho about spying on terrorists as it is to spy on Page, the FBI might not be a complete laughingstock right now. (My late father, an FBI agent, is rolling in his grave.)

The FBI will still miss the next 9/11, but at least no one is going to forget to file with the Foreign Agents Registration Act anytime soon.

4. Rep. Trey Gowdy recently defended the Mueller investigation in a clip that has now aired on TV more times than “The Shawshank Redemption.” According to Gowdy, the House Intelligence memo has nothing to do with Robert Mueller’s investigation because he’s just looking into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

With all due respect to Gowdy, that’s not what Mueller is investigating.

The letter from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing Mueller expressly directs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”

Since it has appeared for quite some time now that there is no collusion, the only thing left for Mueller to investigate is Trump’s “obstruction of justice,” i.e. Trump being pissed off that his time is being wasted.

But without evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, no independent counsel should have been appointed in the first place. The Department of Justice already has more than 10,000 lawyers. Why pay another dozen to look into foreign interference in our elections unless the president is implicated and can’t investigate himself?

The reason Rosenstein appointed Mueller was that he believed the “salacious and unverified” dossier. We know that because Rosenstein personally signed one of the FISA warrant applications based on the dossier — backed up by a Yahoo article, which was also based on the dossier.

A cabal of anti-Trump fanatics cooked up the Russia collusion story, and don’t-rock-the-boat bureaucrats went along with it, so we now have a behemoth investigative monster chasing unicorns.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Lindsey Graham, the Uninvited Guest”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Why does Sen. Lindsey Graham have a seat at the table on immigration? Are Jorge Ramos and Vicente Fox unavailable?

Graham’s claim to fame is:

1) having twice negotiated a voluntary surrender for the GOP on immigration; and

2) winning 0.00 percent of the vote when he ran for president two years ago. 

You could run for president on the platform that we should kill babies and eat them, and you’d get more votes than Lindsey Graham. Who designated this most remote of back-benchers, thoroughly rejected by the American people, as the principal negotiator on Trump’s central campaign promise?

Graham’s thought process seems to be: We had an election, I ran for president; literally no one voted for me, so my views should prevail over the guy who won an Electoral College landslide.

How about getting Dennis Kucinich in there? Has anyone asked Martin O’Malley for help in the “DACA” negotiations?

To a rapturous media, Graham has been peddling the lie that President Trump blew up a beautiful bipartisan deal on immigration. It wasn’t “bipartisan,” except in the sense of being “angrily rejected by the voters.”

It’s the same deal that has gone down in flames at least twice before. It’s the same deal that has already destroyed the careers of Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Kirk and Gov. Jeb! Bush.

It’s the same deal President Bush tried to push through Congress in 2006 — with Graham’s support! — leading directly to the Republican wipeout in the midterm elections later that year. (Innumerable polls showed that the public hated Bush’s proposed amnesty even more than it hated the Iraq War.)

It’s the same deal that voters repudiated for approximately the 87th time when they made Donald Trump president (and — again — gave Lindsey Graham zero votes).

Notwithstanding the media’s phony polls showing 98.6 percent of voters wildly enthusiastic about amnesty for “Dreamers” — or “Nightmares,” as radio host Howie Carr calls them — every time the public gets its hands on an actual ballot, it votes for: less immigration, punishing employers who hire illegals, no government services for illegals, no driver’s licenses for illegals, no amnesty ever, English-only and Donald Trump.

What the media call a “bipartisan deal” didn’t even meet the basic definition of a “deal.”

For at least a decade now, the argument for amnestying the Nightmares has been: Screw the parents. THEY SUCK! They were the lawbreakers … but don’t blame the innocent children (single typewriter key) brought-here-through-no-fault-of-their-own.

Then we get to see the big bipartisan deal, and it’s: We amnesty the kids — but also the parents! Not only is this not meeting Trump halfway, it’s also doubling the distance.

It’s like negotiating in the Kasbah:

Democrats: We demand $30!

Republicans: We’ll give you $10.

Democrats: OK, $200.

Lindsey Graham: DEAL!

How did an existential issue for the Republican Party get assigned to the single worst person to negotiate it?

It would be as if during Bush’s presidency, anti-war Republican Chuck Hagel had anointed himself spokesman for the GOP on the Iraq War. Republicans would have gone nuts! They would have been screaming at the media, the Democrats and the president: DO NOT TALK TO CHUCK HAGEL!

The fact that Senate Republicans have not done this in the case of Graham and immigration makes me think the fix is in. If we had a party that was serious, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP would say, “That’s great that you and Jeff Flake have been having meetings, Lindsey, but you don’t speak for us.

It’s hard to avoid the impression that other Republicans are saying, God bless Lindsey. There, but for the grace of God, go I — because this is what our paymasters want. The Business Roundtable doesn’t care what Republicans have to do to fool the base, provided: Another year goes by, the Nightmares are still here, and we haven’t sealed the border.

Either Mitch McConnell is very, very stupid or the reason he’s not pulling Graham is precisely because he keeps missing shots.

Let’s see, what’s the stupidest way we could do this? Every single day of Trump’s campaign he promised everyone a wall and mass deportations. What if we DON’T build a wall, but take the person who got zero votes, was the earliest and most vociferous in attacking Trump — and involve him centrally in the negotiations on immigration?

Recall that McConnell spent $8 million to defeat Rep. Mo Brooks in the Alabama Senate Republican primary last August, leading to Trump’s humiliating defeat in the reddest state in the Union in December. There’s nothing embarrassing about Brooks. But he’s with Trump on immigration, so he had to be stopped.

Voters get lip service on “securing the border” at the same time that Republicans are letting Graham negotiate amnesty. The complicit senators hide in their offices and practice looking shocked. No, Lindsey! That’s not what we wanted at all! … Oh well, what are you going to do? Let’s just get those illegals their permanent residence cards and move on to more tax cuts for Wall Street.

It’s said so often that it’s become a cliche: Elections have consequences. Just this once, couldn’t an election have a consequence? A wall and deportations — YES! Amnesty for the Nightmares — NO!

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “The Left’s Dirty Little Secret – Cleaned By Rosa!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

One thing no liberal will ever turn down is the opportunity to get a standing ovation for accusing someone else of racism. Democrats have placed their opening bid in the immigration talks on Trump’s 10-yard line — a hilariously unbalanced “compromise” that is worse than their original proposal. Now, they are battering him with accusations of racism to force him into an amnesty deal that he was specifically elected to prevent. 

Forced to choose, soccer moms are going with MSNBC — and, hey, if that means we’ll still have Rosa to clean the house, well, that’s OK, too!

Liberals have gotten a free ride for too long on using phony claims of “racism” to promote policies that hurt black people but help themselves. It’s like spoiling a kid; by the time he’s 15, it’s impossible to get him to clean his room.

The virtue signalers have been out in force lately, putting in museum-quality performances ever since receiving an unsubstantiated report about Trump’s alleged “s—hole countries” comment in a private meeting.

At least all the raging sanctimony is based on a solid source: the claims of one guy with a track record of making up things said in private meetings. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is the only person accusing Trump of referring to Haiti and African nations as “s—hole countries.” Four people at the meeting deny it.

Headline on Politico: “Durbin Confirms Trump’s “S—hole Remarks During Meeting”

Wow, so he not only leaked the remarks — he confirmed them!

Just a few years ago, both the Obama White House and Republican House leaders denied Durbin’s claim that a Republican congressman had said to President Obama, “I cannot even stand to look at you.”

The four people who deny that Trump used the word “s—hole” are Trump himself, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.). They have been required to retract nothing about the meeting. None of them have a history of being contradicted by both Republicans and Democrats over claims they made about a private conversation.

Media: WHY ARE SENS. COTTON AND PERDUE LYING ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID AT THE MEETING?

When it comes to Trump, our media have thrown the rulebook out the window. They make it up as they go along. The virtue signalers are so proud of their anger, tears and profanity over Trump’s alleged remark, they’ve taken to complimenting one another about their own performances:

You were awesome!

No, YOU were awesome!

Meanwhile, I can’t help but notice that there are some great openings for their kids at Haitian public schools in Brooklyn. We’d love to — really — but we’ve already made other arrangements (after pulling strings, waiting four years and paying tens of thousands of dollars to make sure their kids never go to school with blacks or immigrants).

I also can’t help but notice that just as black Americans had won their full civil rights and were about to burst into the American economy … Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) helped pass the 1965 immigration act that began dumping millions and millions of low-wage workers on the country to compete with them.

Obviously, the people hurt most by the mass immigration of low-skilled workers are black Americans, aka, The Only Reason We Care So Much About Racism. I refer you to the Jordan Report — overseen by actual civil rights icon Barbara Jordan.

Far from making up for the legacy of slavery, our immigration policies solve the exact same problem that slavery solved: rich people’s eternal need for cheap labor.

We don’t owe immigrants anything. They aren’t black Americans. We didn’t do anything to the Mexicans streaming across our border. Or, for that matter, to the Haitians, Ecuadorians, Pakistanis and so on. No slavery, no Jim Crow laws, no redlining — just billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid. (Hey, does anyone know if billions of dollars would be enough to pay for a wall?)

We certainly don’t owe them more than we owe our own fellow citizens, especially our black fellow citizens, who could use our help. 

But foreigners who showed up yesterday act like they’re the descendants of American slaves, helping themselves to the jobs, affirmative action, government assistance and racial sensitivity meant for the likes of John Lewis and Chris Rock, not illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas.

Our country is hypersensitive about race because of specific injustices done to black Americans, not because we wanted to shower favors on anyone in need of a handout who manages to sneak into our country. The Democrats treat black people like the wife who will iron your shirt for a date with your mistress. They know they don’t have to do anything to keep winning 90 percent of the black vote, so they’ve dedicated themselves to bringing in millions of Latin Americans who will vote for them — and also do their gardening.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “It Turns Out Bannon Was Trump’s Brain”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

In order to prove he doesn’t have dementia, as alleged in a recent book, President Trump called a meeting with congressional leaders on Tuesday — and requested that it be televised.

Ivanka: Show them at your best, Daddy!

He then proceeded to completely sell out the base and actually added to his problems by appearing senile.

In a half-dozen exchanges — which, again, he wanted televised — Trump responded to remarks as if he had no clue what the person was saying. One senator would talk — he’d agree. Someone else would say the exact opposite — he’d agree with that, too.

Actual exchange:

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: “What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure? …”

TRUMP: “… I have no problem. … We’re going to come up with DACA. We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive.”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Would you be agreeable to that?”

TRUMP: “I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.”

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: “Mr. President, you need to be clear though. I think what Sen. Feinstein is asking here: When we talk about just DACA, we don’t want to be back here two years later. You have to have security, as the secretary would tell you.”

TRUMP: “But I think that’s what she’s saying.”

REP. MCCARTHY: “No, no, I think she’s saying something different. …”

TRUMP: “I do believe that. Because once we get DACA done — if it’s done properly — with, you know, security and everything else …”

Trump was more than willing to sell out the base to solve a personal problem of his — the Michael Wolff book — but managed to not convince a single American that he’s articulate, bright or a good leader.

On MSNBC, the hosts didn’t say, “You know, we saw a new side of Trump today …” Instead, they could barely suppress their giggles over the great negotiator being rolled.

The Democrats’ opening bid is: Not only does every poor person in the world get to come live here, but all their relatives get to come, too!

They don’t control any branch of government, and they’re not budging from that.

Trump’s counteroffer is: OK! My immigration policy is whatever you send me!

The end result was: On the left, they’re happy, but still think Trump’s a moron. On the right, they’re unhappy, and also think Trump’s a moron.

The people who do not realize Tuesday was the lowest moment of the Trump presidency have no idea what they’re talking about. The headline on Trump’s sit-down could have been:

“TRUMP ANNOUNCES SAME FAILED AMNESTY DEAL WE HAD 30 YEARS AGO”

The media have done such a fantastic job lying to the public that no one knows that. To the average viewer, it sounds like a totally fair deal. We give only the BEST illegals a “pathway” to citizenship, they’ll have to jump through all sorts of hoops, and in return, we’ll get REAL security. That’s exactly what we were promised the last time. What we got: No hoops, no security and everyone got amnesty.

You don’t need chain migration for the alleged 800,000 “Dreamers” to swell to 60 million — or 100 or 200 million. First, there are already at least 50 million illegals (aka Dreamers) living here. (For more, see “Adios, America!” pp 72-74.)

Second, ANY amnesty means there will be lawsuits, whereupon the courts will grant amnesty to everyone. All of Latin America, including Latin Americans still living in Latin America, can mosey up sometime in the next 20 years, present themselves to a Ninth Circuit judge and claim they were brought here as children.

HOW CAN PEOPLE BROUGHT HERE AS CHILDREN BE EXPECTED TO PROVE IT?

Application approved!

How do I know this? Because that’s how the 1986 amnesty worked.

The Ninth Circuit was still approving applications under the 1986 amnesty in 2007 — i.e. 20 years later — from applicants who claimed it wasn’t fair that they weren’t in the country at the time to apply for amnesty.

The 1986 law was also loaded with all sorts of requirements on the illegals. We’d be getting only the best! As Trump said on Tuesday, “It’s an incentive for people to do a good job, if you want to know the truth. That whole path is an incentive for people.”

Result of requirements placed on illegals in the 1986 amnesty:

English-language requirement — dropped by the INS.

Fines — dropped by the INS.

Fees — waived by the INS.

Back taxes — dropped by the IRS.

Congress could pass a law giving amnesty ONLY to left-handed Ph.D.’s in nuclear physics, and everyone would get amnesty. Even illegals who haven’t arrived yet.

If there is a silver lining, it’s that this isn’t the first time Trump has sold out the base. He did it in the March 2016 GOP debate; in his “Hannity” interview in August 2016; in the meeting with tech leaders at Trump Tower in December 2016; and in his meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer last year.

But it’s now Trump’s second year in office, we don’t have a wall, and he just called a meeting to say, over and over again: “We have to do DACA first.”

At this point, any sentient person has to see that the most plausible scenario is:

Lucy’s gonna move the football …

Lucy’s gonna move the football …

Lucy’s gonna move the football …

Lucy’s gonna move the football …

Lucy’s gonna move the football …

Lucy’s gonna move the football …

She moved the football.

Ann Coulter Blows the Lid Off the ‘Surprising’ Number of Problems with Accusations Against Roy Moore


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 7, 2017 at 12:22pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/ann-coulter-blows-lid-off-surprising-number-problems-accusations-roy-moore/?

In an op-ed published Wednesday, conservative commentator Ann Coulter sought to counter the prolific misrepresentations by media outlets in their reporting about Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

“It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore,” Coulter — a lawyer and former federal court of appeals judicial clerk — wrote in a piece for Breitbart.

“Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t ‘multiple accusers.’ There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying,” Coulter highlighted.

As reported by The Western Journal, accuser Beverly Young Nelson’s attorney Gloria Allred has refused to turn over a yearbook she claims was inscribed by Moore in 1977 to a neutral party in order for the handwriting and the date of the ink to be analyzed. The yearbook was presented as proof by Allred at a news conference that Moore and Young knew each other.

Regarding Moore’s other accuser, Leigh Corfman (featured in the Nov. 9 Washington Post story alleging Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14), Coulter contended her account has problems too.

“The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after),” Coulter wrote.

Further, “There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS,” she added.

“They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it,” Coulter said.

As for the other “accusers” who claimed they dated Moore when they were between 16 and 19 and Moore was in his early 30s, Coulter pointed out that comedian Jerry Seinfeld dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein in the 1990s, when he was 39. Therefore, Moore was closer in age than Seinfeld to those he allegedly dated.

Coulter circled back to one of her main concerns with the allegations.

“It was 40 years ago!” she wrote. “But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.”

The conservative commentator recounted other late-in-the race grenades lobbed against Republican candidates in the past, including an indictment of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger four days before the 1992 presidential election by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, which seemed to implicate George H.W. Bush in a lie regarding the 1987 Iran-Contra Scandal.

In 2004, CBS’s Dan Rather employed documents easily discovered to be forged to report George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

Coulter also contrasted the reporting Moore is receiving for alleged sexual contact in the 1970s versus that given to former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds, who admitted to having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old congressional page in the 1980s. Studds defended his actions, saying it was a “consensual relationship with a young adult,” according to The Associated Press.

“Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the ‘witch hunt’ against Studds, saying his critics wanted ‘to torch the congressman for his private life,’” Coulter wrote.

The House censured him, but he was not removed from office, and successfully ran for re-election six more times.

Studds was lionized when he died in 2006 by The Washington Post (“Gay Pioneer“), The New York Times (“First Openly Gay Congressman“), NPR (“Congressional Pioneer“) among other mainstream media outlets.

Coulter, who endorsed Rep. Mo Brooks over Moore in the Alabama Republican primary this summer, concluded her piece by writing, “The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.”

As reported by The Western Journal, Brooks, who announced last week he had already voted for Moore by absentee ballot, offered a similar rebuttal to the allegations against Moore as Coulter.

“What you have is the mainstream left-wing socialist Democrat news media trying to distort the evidence to cause people to reach the conclusion that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct with a minor and my analysis of the evidence is that is not the case,” Brooks said last week on “The Dale Jackson Show,” a program on Alabama radio station WVNN-AF.

“Most importantly, the media likes to say ‘well, there are nine complainers.’ Seven of them aren’t complainers. In fact, I would be calling seven of those ladies as witnesses on behalf of Roy Moore on the issue of whether he is engaged in any kind of unlawful conduct,” the former prosecutor added.

Brooks continued, “There are only two that have asserted that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct. One of those is clearly a liar because that one forged the ‘love, Roy Moore’ part of a yearbook in order to try to for whatever reason get at Roy Moore and win this seat for the Democrats and there’s a lot more to it as to why I believe that the evidence is almost incontrovertible about whether the yearbook was forged.”

The congressman went on to note that just left one accuser. “Well, that one witness’ testimony is in direct and stark contrast with that of the other seven ladies, who said that he acted like an officer and a gentleman.”

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Yes, Virginia, Immigration Is Turning The Country Blue


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Hey, Republicans! Did you enjoy Election Night last week? Get ready for a lot more nights like that as immigration turns every last corner of the country blue. 

When Ed Gillespie lost in Virginia, liberals crowed about how they’re winning the war of ideas. The country has thoroughly, emphatically rejected Trumpism!  Republicans, being idiots, played along, arguing only about whether Gillespie’s problem was that he didn’t embrace Trump enough or embraced him too much.

Gillespie’s campaign was fine. No cleverer arguments, community outreach or perfectly timed mailings would have changed the result. Contrary to The New York Times’ celebratory article in last Sunday’s magazine, “How the ‘Resistance’ Helped Democrats Dominate Virginia,” it wasn’t Democratic operative Kathryn Sorenson’s savvy use of Facebook, Google and Eventbrites that carried the day. “The Resistance” didn’t win.

What happened was: Democrats brought in new voters. In 1970, only one out of every 100 Virginians was foreign-born. By 2012, one in nine Virginians was foreign-born.

The foreign-born vote overwhelmingly, by about 80 percent, for Democrats. They always have and they always will — especially now that our immigration policies aggressively discriminate in favor of the poorest, least-educated, most unskilled people on Earth. They arrive in need of a LOT of government services.

According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government, compared to just over 40 percent of the general public. Even third-generation Hispanics support bigger government by 58 percent.

Polls show that immigrants are far more likely to support Obamacare and affirmative action than the general public, and are far less likely to support gun rights and capitalism.

It’s one thing not to mention ethnic differences in crime statistics or welfare usage to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, but if the GOP continues to pretend to see no difference in how different groups vote — while importing millions more foreigners to vote against them — then they should get used to a lot more elections like what happened in Virginia last week.

It’s not as if Republicans are unaware of how demographics can affect elections. They certainly notice when they’re drawing congressional boundaries. We don’t see GOP congressmen saying, No, I don’t mind trading that all-white town for part of a Chicago housing project. Why should I?

Currently, everyone seems to be blaming the total disappearance of the GOP in Virginia on another demographic trend: All those federal workers living in the northern part of the state.

This is a fairy tale, like the one about Proposition 187 turning California blue, or the one about the “complacency of old money” turning Connecticut blue, or the one about a disorganized Republican Party turning Illinois blue. Pay no attention to the millions of Third-Worlders we’ve been dumping on the country!

In the past 40 years, upward of 50 million culturally backward, dirt-poor immigrants arrived in America, and state after state has gone blue, but we’re always told states are flipping to the Democrats for some reason — any reason! — other than immigration.

True, Virginia is home to 322,198 people who are either current or retired federal employees. On the other hand, there are more than 800,000 Virginians who are foreign-born — and that’s not including the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the foreign-born who arrived in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Moreover, in Virginia, “federal employee” is not as Democratic-leaning as it sounds on account of the state’s numerous military bases. Virginia Beach, for example, the largest city in the state, has a higher percentage of federal employees in the workforce than the entire Washington, D.C., metro area. And yet, Virginia Beach still votes Republican in presidential elections and is represented by a Republican in Congress.

Almost 15 percent of Virginians speak a language other than English at home. If we double the number of Virginians who are now employed by, or have ever worked for, the federal government — and assume that none of them work on military bases — that’s still just 8 percent of the population.

The only reason Democrats want a never-ending stream of Third World immigrants is because they know immigrants will help them win elections, allowing The New York Times to write self-congratulatory editorials like this one last week: “Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump.”

Well, technically, millions of Third-Worlders living in Virginia rejected Trump’s “hateful politics.” But guess what? They also rejected John McCain’s pusillanimous politics and Mitt Romney’s soft-spoken politics.

They were brought in to vote for the Democrats. That’s the real job immigrants are doing that Americans just won’t do.

As Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote for the Roper Center 20 years ago, the 1965 Immigration Act, bringing in “a wave of immigration from the Third World,” will go down in history as “the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

There isn’t much time on the clock before it’s lights-out for the GOP. And all Republicans can think to do is argue about how quickly to grant amnesty to so-called “Dreamers” and give the Democrats another 30 million voters.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: