Former FBI Director James Comey testified before a Senate Committee last week.  He prefaced his testimony with a written summary which stated that he never kept notes of meetings with President Obama, but started doing so because he thought President Trump would lie.  Comey had previously been quoted as saying that, even before the inauguration, he had concluded that Trump and his staff were “dishonorable.”  Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has summarized the most important parts of Comey’s Senate testimony.  1) There was no obstruction of justice under the requirements of the applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. §1503.  Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked if the president or anyone else working for this administration had asked him “to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections.” Comey answered “no.”  Comey claimed that while the Flynn investigation “touched” the Russia investigation, he considered them separate.  In fact, Comey admitted that Trump told him he wanted to make sure the collusion investigation continued because he wanted know whether anyone connected to him had done anything wrong.    2) The president was never under investigation in the Russia probe.   3) There was no hacking or other interference with the voting, ballot counting, and administrative process of the election.  4) There is no evidence of any “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.  However, there was some testimony about attempted interference with an FBI investigation.  Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered Comey to parrot the language of the Clinton campaign regarding the FBI’s investigation into the mishandling of classified material.  She told him to call it a “matter” rather than an “investigation.”  Comey said Lynch’s comments made him uneasy, and motivated his July press conference.  It sounds like Comey’s testimony went a long way toward clearing the President and putting this nonsense behind us, right?  Wrong!  Democrats, who never let the facts and the law get in the way of their hysteria, are still screaming for blood.  Here is how Comey’s testimony was reported by Newsweek:  Trump Impeachment Calls Surge as President Faces ‘Most Serious Scandal in U.S. History.  According to the nearly defunct periodical, “calls for President Donald Trump to face impeachment proceedings are surging.  In the past 48 hours, two of the leading Trump resistance groups have called for the first time for the impeachment process to start against Trump on charges of obstruction of Justice.” (Apparently, two calls constitutes a “surge”).  What is the source of this surge, you ask?  Which resurgent surgers are seeking to sever President Trump from his office?  MoveOn.org and the group Indivisible.  MoveOn.org called for efforts to impeach Trump in the House of Representatives to get underway, even before Comey testified.  “In the United States, no one is above the law,” read a statement from Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.  “The testimony that former FBI Director James Comey is expected to deliver today makes clear that Congress must begin impeachment proceedings immediately.  MoveOn does not make this call lightly.”  MoveOn is certainly an impartial observer.  Funded by George Soros, like all Soros operations, it is all whacko Left wing kook, all the time.  MoveOn took credit for the violence in Chicago at a Trump rally during campaign, and it protested the electoral college vote, proving that it doesn’t approve of the Constitution.  Strangely, MoveOn started out as anti-impeachment group, by passing around a petition asking Congress to “censure President Clinton and move on”, as opposed to impeaching him.  Of course, Clinton was a Democrat, so he deserved the benefit of the doubt.  The group called Indivisible is another whacko Lefty group with suspected ties to other Soros funded groups.  When asked about Soros funding of Indivisible, a spokesperson stated, “It doesn’t matter who we take money from.”  Draw your own conclusions.  Indivisible founder Angel Padilla previously served as an immigration policy consultant at the radical National Council of La Raza (The Race).  Soros is a major La Raza donor.  La Raza teaches that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs.  It believes that these are areas America should surrender to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles.  So Indivisible certainly has no bias.  But back to Comey.  If you were a chief executive, and one of your employees made clear he thought you and all around you were dishonorable liars, would you hire or retain that employee?  Comey took detailed notes, which he admits he leaked to the media after he was fired.  As Michael Goodwin of the New York Post has noted, “Comey is a Never-Trumper (and a sneaky-leaker) whose arrogance drips from him like sweat from a racehorse.”  He first assures Trump he is not under investigation, then he treats Trump like a criminal suspect, instead of as his superior.  No, that’s not right.  If he had been a criminal suspect, Comey was required to give Trump target warnings before speaking to him, or else what he said could not be used against him.  But this is not a criminal case where evidence is necessary.  This is a soft coup, where the standard of proof is “proof nearly approaching an idle rumor.”  Comey, long considered an apolitical Boy Scout, who was the ideal public servant, has proven himself to be an insubordinate megalomaniac.  When he was Deputy Attorney General under George W. Bush, he tried to usurp the authority of Attorney General Ashcroft when he became ill.  Last July, he usurped the authority of Attorney General Lynch, with his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime.  And now, he’s undermining President Trump because Trump fired him.  Make no mistake, I have no doubt that, in each instance Comey did what he did because he believed he and he and he alone could be trusted.  More’s the pity.  Mr. Comey, it’s alright to be a straight arrow, for whom honesty is the best policy.  That’s a good thing.  But when you convince yourself that you’re the only honest broker in a government run by your untrustworthy superiors, you’ve crossed the line., and it’s time for you to go.  Adios.

I spend considerable time and energy venting and ranting against the Left and all its minions, so, for a change, this edition of Frank on Friday will be an open letter to President Trump.

Dear Mr. President,  You have acknowledged that the job of President of the United States is more difficult than you expected.  Some Presidents have to deal with economic problems, some have to prosecute wars, and all Presidents have to deal with political opposition from the opposing Party.  Mr. President, you surely have economic difficulties to address.  You must rebuild a military suffering the effects of 8 years of neglect.  You must guide us through a world facing the ever-present danger of radical Islamic terrorism.  You have a Democrat Party which has dedicated itself to resisting any an all proposals you make.  All of the above may be par for the course for the President, but you suffer an additional handicap.  Other Presidents at least can count on members of their own Party for support.  You cannot.  You cannot rely on members of your Party, even the Party leaders, to have your back.  Still shell-shocked from their election debacle, the Democrats have transformed themselves from the loyal opposition (if they ever were that) to the unhinged, lunatic fringe, mindlessly opposed to anything Trump.  They are bitterly opposed to any immigration restrictions.  Once upon a time, it was said that politics stopped at the water’s edge.  When it came to national security, political differences could be set aside for the good of the country.  No more.  You want to temporarily restrict entry from six nations, and you want to beef up the vetting of immigrants.  These were sound and reasonable measures to which no one objected when they were implemented by President Obama, but when you proposed them, they were denounced as racist and extreme.  You proposed a budget of $4.1 trillion for next year.  Bernie Sanders calls your budget “a massive transfer of wealth from working families and the elderly to the wealthiest 1 percent.”  Sanders says that’s immoral.  Some would say spending $4.1 trillion itself is immoral.  Here’s how your budget proposal was described:  “Trump is seeking sharp cuts in a variety of programs for the poor from Medicaid to food stamps and disability payments.”  You proposed that we spend $80 million more for Medicaid next year, but by Washington mathematics, an $80 million raise constitutes a “sharp cut.”  You have proposed sweeping tax reform, the cornerstone of which is a large reduction in the corporate tax rate.  Even Barack Obama said he favored a reduction, but when you proposed it, Democrats just said “No.”  And not only the Democrats are against you.  The Republican leaders, those responsible for drafting the tax cut legislation, are now claiming that they don’t know how to implement the tax cuts proposed by the Administration.  We’re told we have to find a way to “pay for” the tax cuts, which is an odd way of looking at things.  How does one “pay for” an expense that was not incurred?  When it runs a deficit, the government never concerns itself with such mundane questions such as, “how are we going to pay for the $20 trillion debt?”  You next proposed spending $1 trillion on infrastructure projects.  Democrats love a good boondoggle, so you’d think that they’d be in favor of this.  But no.  You only want to spend $1 trillion we don’t have, so they demand that we spend $2 trillion that we don’t have.  Democrats have resolved to resist any proposal you make, no matter what it is, even if it is beneficial.  They are willing to put the nation at risk to resist you.  The truth is that you are regarded by establishment politicians in both parties as a foreign invader in the body politic.  Both sides want to have you excised.  The unhinged Left has reached the point where they believe that any attack on you, your staff, or your family, no matter how outrageous, is acceptable, because it’s all your fault anyway.  Follow the bouncing paranoia.  Hillary Clinton has warned that “President Donald Trump has unleashed a level of hate and vitriol that is incredibly dangerous.”  The notion that the hate and vitriol directed at you by the Left is acceptable because you provoked it is akin to suggesting that a rape victim was just asking for it.  The Left has no boundaries and no filter.  Enter Kathy Griffin, a nearly anonymous comedian, until for some reason, she decided that it would be a good idea to appear holding a likeness of your bloody, decapitated head.  Surprising no one except Ms. Griffin, you took offense.  CNN fired her.  What a comedian was doing on the staff of a supposed news network in the first place was not explained.  She was criticized by Keith Olberman no less (and there is no less).  Her sponsor fired her.  Clubs cancelled her shows.  Even Al Franken refused to appear with her.  Given that fallout, one might expect that Ms. Griffin would appreciate the error of her ways.  She didn’t.  Griffin called a press conference to make her “apology.”  She told reporters that her career is over because the Trump family systematically “mobilized their armies” against her.  She may have given the impression that she welcomed your death, but she called you a bully who is trying to ruin her life.  Your crime – being elected.  Some say you invite a lot of controversy with your tweets and other impolitic comments.  There is something to that.  Mr. President, please hire and listen to some good political pros who could regulate the optics of your Administration.  The special counsel on the Russia investigation is the perfect opportunity for you to stop mentioning the probe till Mr. Mueller completes his investigation.  Concentrate on your policies.  Keep the Congressional feet to the fire, and get them working.  Stop tweeting that the media is unfair to you.  You’re right, of course, but painting yourself as a victim is unseemly.  Above all, forget the bickering and take your case to the American people.  By frustrating your initiatives, the media is treating all of us unfairly.  Don’t let them get away with it.

The movie Absence of Malice always has been one of my favorites.  In the movie, Paul Newman plays a man unfairly subjected to a federal investigation, who uses leaked and planted information to embarrass the investigators.  The picture culminates with a Justice Department official, played by Wilford Brimley, showing up to demand answers.  The local prosecutor tells him, “We had a leak.”  Brimley responds, “You had a leak?  The last time there was a leak like this, Noah built himself a boat!”  Given the the current state of affairs in Washington with regard to leaks and leaking, Brimley would have to tell Noah “your gonna need a bigger boat.”  Since Donald Trump was elected President, government agencies whose job it is to safeguard confidential and classified information have been leaking like  proverbial sieves.  It is clear that, long before Trump won the election and took the oath, the Obama administration had intelligence agencies conduct domestic surveillances for political purposes.  Once Trump became President, the leaks intensified.  One would expect that the substance of a President’s telephone calls to other heads of State would remain confidential, yet the contents of Trump’s conversations with world leaders, such as the Prime Minister of Australia, were leaked.  There have been constant leaks coming from intelligence agencies.  Then there’s the FBI.  That’s right, the FBI, the agency responsible for investigating people who leak classified information is itself one of the leakiest outfits these days.  Former FBI Director Comey was in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton’s myriad leaks of classified information.  He confirmed a number of such leaks, but in July of 2016, Comey signaled that he’s in favor of leaking classified information when he announced that “no prosecutor would prosecute” Hillary’s crimes.  That led to Comey’s firing by President Trump.  The firing prompted a torrent of leaks from inside the FBI, leaks attributed to Comey “loyalists” inside the Bureau.  The FBI leaked that Comey had an internal Memo of a meeting he had with the President in February, during which Comey claims Trump voiced his support of General Flynn, and supposedly said, according to leaked information published by the New York Times, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”  A leaker reported that Comey considered this an improper attempt by Trump to influence his investigation.  Comey is to testify about this next week.  Of course, Comey never mentioned any of this in his testimony before he was fired, and he never reported it to the Justice Department.  Maybe when Comey testifies, he can explain why he held back on this information until after he was fired.  Comey has said he he did not consider anyone in the Trump White House to be “honorable.”  He didn’t want to go to the inaugural, and when he did go, he tried to hide in the drapes to avoid seeing or speaking to Trump.  If Trump needed a good reason for firing Comey (and he didn’t) then a person who had concluded that his boss and his boss’s staff was dishonorable, before Trump even became President, had such an obvious bias that he had no business being involved in any investigation of the Trump administration, or as FBI Director.  The FBI even has leaked about leaks.  An FBI leaker has told reporters that the Comey Memo (which, as yet, has not been produced) also details a meeting in which Trump complained about leaks, and suggested to Comey that journalists who publish leaked information should be prosecuted.  Stunning, isn’t it?  Well, not really.  The Obama administration prosecuted and investigated more people, including reporters, for leaking, than all other Presidents combined.  Before the Obama administration itself began leaking confidential information for political purposes, it took a hard line on leaks.  Obama prosecuted:  Thomas Drake, an NSA whistleblower who revealed waste at the agency.  Initially charged with espionage, he was sentenced to probation; Shamai Leibowitz, an FBI translator, revealed U.S. spying against Israeli diplomats to a blogger.  He was sentenced to 20 months in prison; Chelsea Manning leaked information to Wikileaks.  His/her sentence was 35 years; John Kiriakou, an CIA analyst was the whistleblower who revealed the secret CIA torture program.  His sentence was 30 months; Donald Sachtleben was an FBI agent and contractor who disclosed to the Associated Press details of a disrupted Yemen-based bomb plot.  His sentence was 43 months; Stephen Kim was a State Department advisor who disclosed information about North Korea’s plans to test a nuclear bomb to a Fox News reporter.  The reporter was investigated by the FBI as a possible “co-conspirator” for the mere act of newsgathering.  Kim’s sentence was 13 months; Edward Snowden’s leaking case is pending.  He revealed the wholesale, covert surveillance of innocent people by the NSA.  He faces decades in prison; CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling leaked information about plans to hinder the Iranian nuclear program to New York Times reporter James Risen.  Obama’s Justice Department investigated Risen, and tried to compel him to testify.  Sterling got 42 months in prison, prompting Risen to call the Obama administration “The greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation,” and to pledge, “I plan to spend the rest of my life fighting to undo damage done to press freedom in the United States by Barack Obama and Eric Holder.”  The leaking in the Trump administration is so pervasive that it now threatens to damage our relations with our allies.  Photos were leaked on the bomb used in the Manchester terrorist attack.  An angry British P.M., Theresa May, has threatened to stop sharing intelligence information with the U.S., if the information cannot be kept confidential.  This is a serious matter that may put American lives in danger.  The leakers responsible for the current leaking are all holdovers from the Obama administration, who consider their leaking their resistance to Trump.  These leakers are not noble individuals who are performing a public service.  They are criminals, and some of them need to go to prison.

Trump haters insist on comparing supposed Trump “scandals” to Nixon and the Watergate scandal.  Giving the critics the benefit of the doubt, i.e. that they are neither ignorant nor stupid, then they must know they are misrepresenting the facts to one purpose, to destroy the Trump presidency.  We are bombarded with Watergate comparisons every day – without facts.  That’s for a good reason.  The facts are not comparable.  For those who aren’t old enough to have experienced Watergate, this may help.  1972 was a presidential election year.  Nixon was seeking reelection.  In June, people connected with the Committee to Reelect the President committed their first crimes.  Follow this.  People who worked in and for the White House and the Committee, many of them lawyers, arranged for men to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee, twice.  They planted listening devices in the office.  So, within two days after the second break-in on June 17, 1972, people connected to the Nixon campaign and White House were under arrest for burglary, illegal wiretapping and conspiracy.  Serious crimes.  Adding to this mess, a number of the burglars were connected to the CIA.  That would have been bad enough, but it got worse.  When the burglars were caught, people in the White House, many of them lawyers who knew better, undertook to raise and pay hush money to the burglars, and to prevent Administration employees from telling the truth when questioned.  On August 1, 1972, the public learned that a $25,000 cashier’s check earmarked for President Nixon’s re-election campaign was deposited in a bank account of one of the five men arrested in the break-in.  Richard Nixon, a brilliant lawyer who knew precisely what he was doing, participated in conversations when plans to pay hush money and to prevent defendants from telling the truth were discussed.  Nixon then ordered the CIA Director to call the FBI and tell them to call off their investigation for national security reasons.  To their credit, the FBI said “No.”  If one reads Nixon’s memoirs, he would have us believe that he spent the months after the break-in simply trying to find out which members of his administration, people at the highest level of the government, were involved in the conspiracy.  That’s simply not credible.  Nixon was no innocent bystander, and even if he started out uninvolved, his actions in condoning financial support of the burglars, and his failure to put a stop to the criminal activity he learned about, made him culpable.  So, in Watergate, we have obstruction of justice, perjury, false swearing, suborning perjury, and a larger conspiracy.  These are all serious crimes.  Within six months of the Watergate break-ins, G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord, two high-ranking members of Nixon’s campaign committee, the men who had planned the burglaries, had been convicted of burglary, conspiracy and illegal wiretapping.  Five others had already pleaded guilty to these charges.  The final toll of the Watergate scandal found at least 40 government officials indicted or imprisoned.  Nixon’s two closest advisors, H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman went to jail.  White House counsel John Dean went to jail.  Former Attorney-General and Chairman of Nixon’s campaign committee, John Mitchell, went to jail.  Special counsel to the President, Charles Colson went to jail.  Televised Congressional hearings went on for months.  During the hearings, it was revealed that Nixon, like his predecessors in the White House, recorded nearly all his meetings.  The Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes, and the tapes exposed the coverup.  Archibald Cox was appointed as a Special Prosecutor.  One Saturday night in 1973, Nixon fired Cox, prompting the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to resign.  Finally, facing imminent impeachment, in August of 1974, Nixon resigned.  That was Watergate.  Now we have the Trump witch hunt.  The Obama administration began investigating the Trump campaign for colluding with the Russians almost a year ago.  We know that Obama’s Justice Department got FISA Court warrants, intercepted conversations that involved Americans, and then unmasked the names of Americans, one being General Flynn.  The FBI has been investigating almost a year.   Five Congressional committees have been investigating alleged collusion at least since January of this year.  They have uncovered no evidence of collusion.  Before he was fired, James Comey testified that the FBI had no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russians.  About two weeks ago, even Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein admitted there is no evidence of collusion.  Now, we have the appointment of a special counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller.  His appointment was motivated by Comey’s post-firing revelation of a personal memo he wrote, in which he claims, in February, Trump told him he thought General Flynn was a “good guy” and that he hoped Comey could “let the investigation of Flynn go.”  In February, Trump actually said publicly that Flynn was a good guy, who had done nothing wrong.  Democrats screamed for impeachment, claiming obstruction of justice, that is, obstruction of an investigation which has produced no evidence of wrongdoing, much less a crime, committed by anybody.  Of course, Comey never mentioned this exchange before he was fired, never reported it to the Justice Department, and never claimed his investigation was being interfered with when he testified.  Morons like the Democrat hack Tim Kaine and senile Republican John McCain made comparisons to Watergate.  You now know why they are nuts. (See above).  Liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz took a different view of the new special counsel, stating that Mueller’s appointment is good for Trump because he will find no crime.  But it’s just like Watergate?  One person who was intimately involved in uncovering the Watergate scandal disagrees.  His name is Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter whose reports told the story of Watergate to the world.  Woodward says there is no evidence supporting a Watergate comparison.  However, there is one coincidental comparison.  Bob Woodward’s principal source of inside information about Watergate was an FBI leaker, Deputy Director Mark Felt, whom a Post official named “Deep Throat.”  Funny that the Trump investigation, the one without any evidence of wrongdoing, has been prolonged and expanded by FBI leaker James Comey and the leaking cohorts that he left behind at the FBI.  Some things never change.

Dezinformatsiya is the Russian word for disinformation.  Disinformation is and has been a staple of the foreign policy of of Russia/the Soviet Union for decades.  We hear a lot of talk these days about fake news.  While the Russians may like to take credit for things they really didn’t create, and while they may not have invented disinformation as a tool of statecraft, it is fair to say that they perfected it.  The purpose of dezinformatsiya to instill fear and confuse audiences, blurring the lines between truth, falsehood and reality.  It’s nothing new.  When the Cold War ended, Russians spread stories about Russian nuclear weapons that either were missing or couldn’t be secured in the post-Soviet world.  It wasn’t true, but it prompted Congressional hearings which led to the U.S. government paying Russia millions of dollars over a 15 year period to ensure weapons security.  Around that same time, a Soviet GRU colonel, Stanislav Lunev, showed up in Washington as a defector.  Lunev warned that a hundred suitcase-sized nuclear bombs were missing from Soviet inventories, and suggested that some of them had been hidden in the U.S.  There is no evidence that Lunev’s information was true, but it led to Congressional hearings, and forced the U.S. to expend limited resources looking for bombs that weren’t there.  And the Russians don’t limit their disinformation program to us.  They have used disinformation in their annexation of Crimea and in their war in Ukraine, they launched cyberattacks on Finland and the Baltic States, and they planted hoax stories in Germany.  Fast forward to 2016.  The Russians recognized the nomination of Donald Trump as an opportunity to destabilize the U.S. with disinformation.  It was tailor-made, because they started out with a polarized American electorate, and Democrats so consumed with hatred of Trump, that they were willing to believe anything.  The Democrats already had adopted the Russian election hacking story as an excuse for Hillary’s failure.  Hence, two days after election day, the Russian state-controlled media announced that Russian government officials had met with representatives of the Trump campaign throughout the campaign.  More dezinformatsiya, designed to keep Americans opposing one another instead of opposing Russian adventurism.  But we know how the Russians play, so we won’t take the bait, right?  Wrong!  This disinformation prompted Democrat hysteria and Congressional hearings on collusion.  Sound familiar? The Media (a/k/a Democrats) swallowed it hook, line and sinker.  Yeah, but the Media just didn’t know any better, and bought this Russian crap because it bolstered their election failure excuse, right?  Wrong!  There was no misunderstanding.  The left-wing Media is fully aware of Russian disinformation tactics.  The Washington Post, 5/6/2016, “Russia does not seek to promote itself, but rather to undermine the institutions of the West, often using discordant messages.”  The Russians pump out scare stories about migrants, and also portrays the West as racist and xenophobic.  Russian-backed websites promote conspiracy theories.”  The New York Times, 8/5/2016, For Putin Disinformation is Power –  “So the apparent hacking by Russian security services of the Democratic National Committee emails, followed by their publication by WikiLeaks, should come as no great surprise to Americans.  It is only the latest example of how Mr. Putin uses information as a weapon.  And the Kremlin has cultivated ties with WikiLeaks for years.”  The New York Times, 8/28/2016, “Now, though, disinformation is regarded as an important aspect of Russian military doctrine, and it is being directed at political debates in target countries with far greater sophistication and volume than in the past.  The flow of misleading and inaccurate stories is so strong that both NATO and the European Union have established special offices to identify and refute disinformation.” And not to be outdone, NPR, 1/6/2017,  “While many Americans have just awoken to the world of disinformation — sometimes known as “fake news” — in the recent presidential election, Moscow’s efforts date back decades and have become increasingly prominent over the past decade as techniques have been updated for the digital age.  The spread of disinformation through active measures was a central tactic of Soviet information operations as a way to influence foreign governments and their populations, undermine relations between nations, and weaken those who opposed communism.”  Since we, including the liberal left, are fully aware that the Russians have a habit of spreading lies to advance their interests, and since we have acknowledged that the stories of Russian election hacking are part of their dastardly scheme, then aren’t we giving aid and comfort to the enemy by lending any credence to such blatant Russian chicanery?  Well, of course we are, but as it turns out, that doesn’t matter, for you see, it’s all Donald Trump’s fault anyway.  The Huffington Post, 4/6/2017, tells us that Russian disinformation is Trump’s fault, because he said the election was rigged, and that prompted Putin to interfere.  So there it is.  Doing their best to impersonate Groucho Marx, singing, What Ever It Is, I’m Against It, the Democrats have adopted the motto, whatever it is, Donald Trump is to blame for it.  This Democrat dezinformatsiya has but one purpose, to drive Trump from office.  They admit it.  Democrats wanted James Comey fired, but when Trump fired him, they claimed that was criminal.  Imbecile Maxine Waters explained that she always said Trump “would lead us to impeachment.”  Now, Trump just became President the day before yesterday, but no matter, Maxine wanted him impeached before January 20.  The latest?  The Washington Post claims Trump improperly gave the Russians classified information about terrorism at a White House meeting.  The Post claims it knows the classified information, and that’s alright, but the Russians shouldn’t be told.  Huh?  Of course, nobody, The Post included, complained when President Truman told Stalin about the atomic bomb, but then, Truman was a Democrat, and we must go to any lengths to cast Trump as a dangerous buffoon.  So yes, the Russians practice, disinformation, yes, the Russian election collusion story is an example of it, and yes, the Democrats are completely comfortable using dezinformatsiya for their own purposes.