Impeachment or Bust by Wm. McGurn (My new favorite columnist)

Democrats have a single goal when it comes to Donald Trump : impeachment. Their strategy is likewise clear: Resist! What no one seems to ask is whether resistance is really the best path to the House majority Democrats would need to pass articles of impeachment.

Democrats do have a few things going for them this year. On average, the party that holds the White House loses 30 seats or so in midterm elections—and the GOP has only a 24-seat majority. Moreover, 35 House Republicans are leaving their seats, more than twice the number of Democrats who are.

That’s not all. The intense dislike for Mr. Trump energizes the Democratic base the way Barack Obama energized the Republican one. Many swing districts will be in suburban areas where the vote margin may be decided by college-educated women, one of Mr. Trump’s weakest demographics.

But the idea that Mr. Trump’s unpopularity makes a blue wave inevitable overlooks some Republican advantages. Mr. Trump’s popularity is beginning to move upward with the growing economy, which points to a key weakness in the Resist! strategy:

Because the tax reform passed without a single Democratic vote, good news about the economy is bad news for Democratic candidates. It further means the Democratic message is rooted in enabling Washington dysfunction, because they cannot run as people willing to reach across the aisle to get things done.

It’s too early to know how last week’s failure to pass an immigration bill will play out politically. But if Mr. Trump goes around the country saying he offered to compromise but Democrats refused because they’d rather have a political issue, that could hurt them too. Especially because he will remind voters this is the same party willing to shut down the government for people here illegally.

There’s also the problem of candidates. Among this year’s crop of Democratic hopefuls are some military veterans. But it’s not a uniform message. A progressive Democrat backed by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is targeting seven-term Rep. Dan Lipinski in Chicago, a pro-life Democrat who voted against ObamaCare.

If the goal is a Democratic majority, purity campaigns are a distraction. When Rahm Emanuel was engineering the party’s retaking of the House in 2006, his strategy was to settle on a candidate who would be competitive in the district (even if not as liberal as the party would like) and then reduce the primary bloodshed.

It’s not clear Democrats are following that path today. In the California district where Republican Darrell Issa is retiring, for example, five Democrats are vying to replace him. Does anyone believe that in this competition a centrist Democrat will rise to the top?

In California, there’s an added problem: Under the state’s jungle-primary law, the two largest vote getters run in the general even if they are from the same party. So California Democrats are worried that their five candidates may split the vote and send two Republicans into November contention.

Finally there’s Mr. Trump. Even with his recent bump in the polls, he remains divisive. But he’s not the only divisive politician who will figure in this election. The most recent Politico/Morning Consult poll suggests that Nancy Pelosi has pulled off a largely unheralded achievement: In the Age of Trump, she is arguably the most unpopular politician in America.

What does that mean for impeachment? Well, in 69 House districts surveyed by the Congressional Leadership Fund (a super PAC devoted to maintaining the GOP majority), Mrs. Pelosi is underwater in every one. She is also toxic among independents.

Take California’s 10th District, held by Republican Jeff Denham. Hillary Clinton carried this district in 2016, and Mr. Trump’s approval rating is at minus four. But again, Democrats are split among eight primary contenders. And the CLF survey showed that voters in Mr. Denham’s district prefer Paul Ryan as speaker to Mrs. Pelosi by 13 points.

Come this fall, expect many GOP ads featuring Mrs. Pelosi calling tax cuts for workers “crumbs” and reminding voters that even if they find their Democratic candidate for the House reasonable, a vote for him will be a vote for Speaker Pelosi.

Of course it’s still early, and the polls remain volatile. The received orthodoxy may well turn out to be true, and the blue tsunami will wash over Congress in November, which will be followed by President Trump’s impeachment the following year.

Even so, the Resist! card remains a huge gamble. If Democrats cannot take back the House or Senate in an election year when they enjoy many advantages, they will wake up Nov. 7 in worse shape than when Mr. Trump beat Mrs. Clinton. And they will then enter the 2020 race without the White House, without either chamber of Congress and without a message.

Write to

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: – complete list of recent articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment

The PKK and Hamas: A Tale of Two Terror Camps

The PKK and Hamas: A Tale of Two Terror Camps

Redacted from excellent, more detailed article by Gerald A. Honigman

(PKK = The Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK is an organization based in Turkey and Iraq. Since 1984 the PKK has been involved in an armed conflict with the Turkish state, with the initial aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state, later changing it to a demand for equal rights  …)

Recently, the Turks complained about the January 31, 2018 Washington placement of Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, on a terror blacklist. Ankara has supported Hamas substantially for years now, especially since an increasingly dictatorial Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) gained ascendency in the second decade of this century.

As the turmoil in adjacent Syria and Iraq continues, Turks appear to have visions of at least partially recreating the borders of the former Ottoman Turkish Empire.

Absent Washington and Moscow’s involvement, this might already have been a done deal, with the centuries old rivalry between Ottoman Sultans and Iran’s Safavid and Qajar Shahs at play. Russia’s involvement is nothing new—both in pre-and post-Soviet days. Moscow was non-discriminatory when expanding its own imperial borders at the others’ expense.

While the AKP claims it’s not really “Islamist,” Erdogan & Co. certainly have an affinity for militant, fundamentalist Islamist groups—including ISIS and Hamas. It’s no accident that the border has been fluid for ISIS fighters moving between Turkey and Syria.

Ankara’s support for a group dedicated to the slaughter of Jews and their sole, resurrected nation (thirty-eight Israels fit into Turkey; Israel’s population is about 1/11 its size with about the same 20% mix of Arabs to Jews as Turkey’s 23 % Kurds to Turks.

Turkey has wanted to have it both ways with Israel. And Jews have let them get away with it. It’s sought economic and military ties and expected Jerusalem to help in its own matters of “internal security.”

In turn, (possibly selling its soul) Israel obtained a powerful Muslim, but non-Arab, neighbor which was not looking to have it for dinner…another place for young Israelis to visit and such. Of course, Jerusalem was expected to allow Ankara to dictate terms. Recall the Turks’ support of the MV Mavi Mamara incident in 2010, for starters. The cost has been too high…

Jerusalem has engaged in shameful behavior to assist alleged friends in the subjugation of another truly (35-40 million) stateless people, who pre-date Arabs and Turks in the area by millennia, and who are still struggling for basic human and political rights–the Kurds. While Israel has assisted them in some ways as well, Israeli intelligence and weaponry have helped Ankara in their suppression. For or a number of reasons, this must finally come to a halt.

The assorted Arab enemies which Israel faces just among “Palestinian” Arabs (most who were newcomers into the original 1920 Mandate themselves)–Fatah, Hamas, and so forth–have two goals…destruction of Israel and its Jews.

Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah and latter-day Arafatians of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) play good cop “moderates” simply to milk dhimmi nations for $$$ billions while building up their own military, courtesy of Uncle Sam and others. Abbas’s dead boss’s Swiss bank accounts are legendary.

Bad cop Hamas folks are simply more honest. They get most of their gelt from Iranian mullahs and the new, would-be Turkish Sultan. Look at both cops’ websites and such in case you think there’s really a difference in their ultimate plans for Israel.

Recall  that on the overall balance sheet, an Arab state emerged after World War I on almost 80% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine. In 1922, most of the original territory–all land east of the Jordan River–was handed over to Arab nationalism by Great Britain. So, right from the getgo, contrary to Arab storytelling (like America, not Israel, destroyed all their planes in the June ’67 war, etc.), most of the land was given over to Arab nationalism–not to Jews.

Had Arabs accepted the next 1947 partition, they would have wound up with almost 90% of the total. They rejected it, because, in Arab eyes, no one except themselves had any rights in what they call “purely Arab patrimony” and the Dar ul-Islam.

Since then, Israel (1/2 of whose Jews who are from refugee families who fled the so-called “Arab” world) has made repeated attempts to reach peace via additional so-called land-for-peace measures. Palestinian Arabs (and most others) have rejected such efforts to reach a real modus vivendi with Jewish neighbors.

Fatah, Hamas, & Co. have been engaged in continuous efforts to eradicate Israel and its Jews, and civilian targets have been the most sought after for shock value.

So, how has Ankara dealt with its alleged Jerusalem “friend’s” attempt to deal with this violence? By blaming Israel itself and expecting Jews to simply put up with it…

While Israel has dropped leaflets; made phone calls to non-combatants; gone house to house when long distance artillery and bombing would reduce risk to its own 19-year-olds on the ground; and so forth in attempts to avoid civilian casualties, when Arabs use their own women and children as human shields, this is hard to do. And when they fire at Israeli civilians from behind Arab civilians, they are committing a double war crime according to Geneva Conventions–which no one seems to care about.

Given the above and much more, it’s now time to examine problems Ankara has with another people–those whom it renamed “Mountain Turks” (guess why?), aka the Kurds.

As we’ve already seen, they predate the Turks’ arrival from central Asia by thousands of years, similar to when Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula from the 7th century C.E. onwards and slaughtered, conquered, and Arabized lands and scores of millions of native peoples in all directions.

Like Jews in Israel, Kurds were there long before an Arab or Turk ever conquered their lands. Just ask the ancient Roman historians and those who came before them if you doubt this read:

Recall that roughly forty million Kurds live in the Middle East and are about 20-25% of Turkey’s population, about the same mix of Arabs to Jews in Israel. The first Kurdish nationalist revolts in the area dated from the 19th century. Others would come as well…especially after London’s betrayal.

The emergence of powerful Turkish and Iranian rulers after World War I (Ataturk and Reza Shah Pahlavi) left tens of millions of Kurds stateless in the new age of nationalism in the region. Other peoples were gaining states of their own after the collapse of empires in the Middle East and Europe, but not Kurds–a recipe for explosion, for sure.

After Great Britain won a favorable decision from the League of Nations in 1925 tying the oil of Mesopotamia’s predominately Kurdish north to the British Mandate of the same name and subsequently to the new Arab state of Iraq, promises earlier made in support of Kurdish independence were aborted, and the Brits militarily aided Arabs in squashing Kurdish dreams.

Kurds were shafted via a collusion of imperial British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. Think of the British-led, Arab fighting force which attacked a re-born Israel in 1948, Transjordan’s Arab Legion, led by Sir John Bagot Glub, Glubb Pasha, and then see if you need to ask why Arabs refer to the birth of an independent Kurdistan as “another Israel.” After Iraq’s Arab Shi’a army, with Iran’s help, chased Kurds out of Kirkuk with American tanks and such, guess who begin pumping oil again from there? British Petroleum, BP.

Kurds have been used and abused by many players ever since—again, including  America and Israel. Turks, at times, also used them to do their own dirty work vis-à-vis Christian Armenians and Assyrians. A good place to start for some review of this might be the late, great William Safire of The New York Times’s “The Sellout of the Kurds” op-eds in the 1970s… .

As World War I came to a close, being a mere remnant of the former extensive Ottoman Empire, Ataturk’s Turkey was determined to see no further geographical losses. So, in the age of nationalism, what was there to do with millions of non-Turkic people who predated you on the land?

Well, in Turkish eyes, you could just rename and erase Kurds as a people, outlaw their culture and language, intimidate, murder, and subjugate–and so forth (note: Arabic is the second national language of Israel, Arabs have their own schools, are members of the Knesset, are free to curse Israel, side with other Arabs who wish it dead, etc.).

Kurds have frequently been “Mountain Turks” ever since. Arabs have used these same tactics towards them as well. The Kurdish scholar, Ismet Cherif Vanly’s book, The Syrian ‘Mein Kampf’ Against the Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968) speaks volumes about this.

The militant (sadly sometimes resorting to terror) Socialist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was born amid this subjugation of the Kurdish people–again, 18 to 24 million just in Turkey alone.

Unlike Arabs, with almost two dozen states (carved out largely from non-Arab peoples’ lands), Kurds remain a truly stateless people. They have suffered horrendously because of this–long before Saddam Hussein’s Arab Anfal Campaign slaughtered some two hundred thousand of them in Iraq in the 1980s. And here’s another thought…

At a time when Ankara is growing more hostile to America, threatening the closure of the American air base at Incirlik and such, think about what American bases set up in a friendly Iraqi Kurdistan (and supplying/training Kurdish tank battalions, air squadrons, etc.) might be able to do to counter not only Turkish ambitions but those of Iran’s as well.

Compare the quest of subjugated, stateless Kurds to the 22nd state Arabs are demanding at the sole state of the Jews’ expense, which would be, as we have seen, the Arabs’ second one in Palestine, not their first. Today’s Jordan has that honor.

Palaestina was the name the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, bestowed upon Judaea after the Jews’ second revolt for freedom in 135 C.E. to rub salt into the wound. It meant the land of the Philistines, the earlier non-Semitic/non-Arab invading “Sea People” from Crete.

While Erdogan’s folks support Hamas and rant against Washington placing its chief honcho on a terror watch list, it must again be asked…what compromises did Turks make with their own national competitors, such as and especially Kurds? The answer, of course, is a glaring “none”!

Unlike Hamas, the PKK was born not only out of this denial of Kurdish rights, but the attempted eradication of the Kurds’ own identity. And again, Arabs have done this to their own perceived nationalist competitors as well. Besides Kurds, how they’ve dealt with some forty million, native, pre-Arab, Kabyle people–the Imazighen/”Berbers” –comes to mind.

Whatever its bloody sins are, the PKK (and its Syrian and Iranian affiliates) has never sought destruction of Turkey nor of its people. It has merely sought rights for Kurds–not “Mountain Turks”–which Turks refuse to grant…ironically, those very same rights Ankara expects Israel to cede to those who would indeed destroy it if given half a chance.

(Hopefully, Israel will not continue to try and ingratiate its sworn enemies, and the United States, under Donald Trump and absent the American State Department, will finally know to separate its supposed friends from its real enemies.) jsk

Gerald Honigman is an educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many anti-Israel spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in hundreds of newspapers, magazines …

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: – complete list of recent articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment



Michigan Muslim Candidate for Governor has the chutzpa to declare he plans to make Michigan a Sanctuary State!

(And, many totally uninformed people drenched in their blind brain washed “Liberalism” will vote for him. It is really hard to comprehend.) 

(Please get out the vote in November against this lethal menace to our Judean/Christian ethic and Western democracy) jsk

From: Abdul’s El-Sayed’s advertising literature and social media:

“Be Like Muhammad”   (Huh!)

Michigan Civilization Jihad: Abdul’s Webinar Reaches Michigan Homes Tonight While “Be Like Muhammad” Weekend Retreat

(Linda Sarsour, (world champion anti-Semite and US hater) is to join Abdul El-Sayed in a Webinar that reaches out to homes anywhere in Michigan and beyond.

She is an outspoken opponent of Israel and Zionism.

Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, has also been a harsh critic of Israel. Sarsour backs the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, known as BDS. She told NY that she supports a one-state solution that would create a shared country for Jews and Palestinians — a solution that many Jews consider a formula for the demise of Israel. And in 2012, she tweeted “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.”) jsk

8th Annual “Be Like Muhammad” (Huh!)
Three-Day Retreat for Youth


To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: – complete list of recent articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment

In the face of Poland’s recent pathetic attempt to absolve itself of culpability in their gleeful slaughter of Jews during WW II:

Anatomy of a Genocide 

By Professor Omer Bartov

Book review by Michael S. Roth

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 20-21, 2018

(Italicized comments – Jerome S Kaufman)

In hyper polarized environments, many take comfort in the idea that our conflicts with other people arise mainly from misunderstandings, that if we just took the time to get to know those people as human beings, we might all get along. It will be harder to take such comfort after reading Omer Bartov’s “Anatomy of a Genocide.”




Mr. Bartov, a professor of European history at Brown University, has spent his professional life trying to understand the efforts to exterminate the Jews of Europe during World War II. He has written on Nazi ideology and the German military; on total war’s relation to genocide; and on questions of representation and memory in regard to traumatic historical events.




For several years, he has been interested in the role of Eastern European interethnic relations in the Holocaust and its aftermath. “Anatomy of a Genocide”—a detailed examination of deadly events in the town of Buczacz, in present-day Ukraine, during World War II—is the product of his decades of research into the ways in which ideology, ethnic tension and war become a recipe for mass murder.




It is also a powerfully personal project. Mr. Bartov’s mother immigrated from Buczacz to what is now Israel in the mid-1930s.Family members who didn’t emigrate were murdered in the “cruel and intimate” events of the following decade.



If you google Buczacz, you will probably be redirected to Buchach, the currently acceptable spelling for the Ukrainian version of the city’s name. There are also Yiddish, Hebrew and Turkish versions, because today’s western Ukraine, part of what is sometimes called Galicia, has been home to a variety of ethnic groups for centuries.
In the late 1700s, the province contained about 200,000 Jews and an even greater number of Christians who identified as either Polish or Ukrainian (Ruthenians).



Throughout the 19th century, the region was controlled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which in 1867 “emancipated” the Jews: As citizens, they could now engage in commerce and own land. As more and more Jews took advantage of these freedoms, tensions arose with other groups. (Oh! They took advantage. Those damn Jews succeeded and were too much competition, as usual) jsk
Mr. Bartov notes that the “rules of the game” changed completely after World War I and the Russian Revolution. Intensified religious and ethnic identification, along with violent swings in political control, led to increased violence.



Russia occupied Buczacz for more than a year near the end of the war, and fighting among Poles and Ukrainians left legacies of resentment and a “competition of atrocities in which there could only be losers.”



The Poles and Ukrainians seemed to agree on one thing: that the Jews were the friends of their enemies. This meant that whenever conflicts arose, the Jewish population was vulnerable. (and of course, to blame.)


And in Buczacz conflicts did arise, not least in the late 1930s and early 1940s—from the Soviet occupation of the city as World War II began, to the fierce fighting between Poles and Ukrainians, to the coordinated effort to murder or expel Jews from the region.



Families that had managed to live together peacefully turned on one another with startling ferocity. “The intimacy of friendships that served as a barrier to stereotypes,” Mr. Bartov writes, “was now transformed into an intimacy of violence.”



Although there had been sporadic violence in the region for a long time, even the shrewdest observer “could not anticipate the scale of the horror that was about to envelope Galicia.” There is by now an enormous body of literature on the depravity of those who organized, implemented, or just stood by and watched the mass killings of Eastern European Jews in 1942-43.



But even readers familiar with this literature and the gruesome events it describes will be shaken by Mr. Bartov’s story of this single town. It is brutal. Killers knew their victims personally, and most of the time such familiarity only added to the sadistic glee with which they slaughtered children or buried entire families in mass graves.




Many of the perpetrators were known as decent folk before the killings began, not displaying any particular tendencies toward violence or ideologically fueled hatred. And afterward they were able to return to their normal lives without a trace of their capacities for cruelty or any indication of remorse or shame. The bloodshed seemingly left no stain. (on them – the dirty bastards! What about on the Jews?)
German overseers were brought in to Buczacz to ensure that the extermination of the Jews would be efficient. Mr. Bartov draws our attention to the gratuitous nastiness of many of the killers—this wasn’t just a military operation or a case of merely following orders. Murderers and their lovers, families and friends “appear to have enjoyed their brief murderous sojourn in the region,” Mr. Bartov writes.




After all, they were powerful for a while; they held life and death in their hands, and they had access to all the food, booze and sex they could possible want. “For many of them,” Mr. Bartov says, “this was clearly the best time of their lives.”
This is not a story of industrialized murder of the sort that occurred at centers like Auschwitz. This is a story of close-up killing—of shooting a young girl in the face, of smashing a toddler’s skull against a rock or a wall. There was little effort at secrecy. The mass graves on Fedor Hill, a popular recreation site, were easily visible, and in a small place like Buczacz, everyone knew the final destinations of Jews who were marched away.




Recruiting townsmen to be shooters was never a problem, Mr. Bartov notes, and participation in the murders of neighbors “nourished a grotesquely merry intimacy.”




Mr. Bartov does devote some pages to accounts of people in the region who spared the lives of Jews on the run, often at risk to themselves. These rare acts of goodness, he concludes, demonstrate that “there always was a choice”—in many cases the decision to help was a mercenary calculation, in precious few was it motivated by “altruism and grace.”
The defeat of the Nazis did not bring respite to the region. As the Soviet armies approached, Polish and Ukrainian nationalists intensified their attacks on each other. Scores of thousands were killed before the Ukrainians succeeded in 1944 in driving Polish citizens from the region.
By then the Jews were gone.



When the Soviets seized control, they decided that there could be no return to normal after such massive trauma. They moved hundreds of thousands of people in order to separate the competing nationalist groups. By the end of the 1940s, the once multiethnic region had become homogeneously Ukrainian. Today, Buczacz’s citizens memorialize the martyred Ukrainian nationalists who fought for their cause.




The Polish population has all but disappeared, and there is just the occasional Jewish visitor to a Holocaust monument buried deep in a dense forest.




Mr. Bartov’s anatomy of genocidal destruction is a monument of a different sort. It is an act of filial piety recollecting the blood-soaked homeland of his parents; it is a substantive contribution to the history of ethnic strife and extreme violence; it is a harrowing reminder that brutality and intimacy can combine to destroy individual lives and reshape the destiny of a region and its peoples: history as recollection and as warning.




(Never mind the nuances and dubious “lessons” of history. I would rather a contingent of single-minded Mossad  search out any surviving killers and hang them up in the town square by the usual parts  and the women in whatever manner equivalent.  And, since there are not many killers left for justice to prevail, maybe we can take a lesson from biblical history and have the Mossad search out their First Born?)  jsk


Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher ISRAEL COMMENTARY


—Mr. Roth is the president of Wesleyan University. Among his books is “Memory, Trauma and History: Essays on Living With the Past.”
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: = Complete web page of prior articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment


This week’s Torah portion: G-d sets Israel’s borders and warns them against the existential mistakes they are making to this very day.

From: The Second Book of the Hebrew Bible

Parsha Mishpatim – The Torah Portion of the Week   23:27-32

27  I will send my terror ahead of you, and throw all the people against whom you will come,  into confusion. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and flee from you.

28 I will send the hornet swarms before you (that will strike them in the eyes and inject venom into them and they will drive out the Hiuites, the Canaanites, and the Hitites from before your eyes

29 I will not drive them away from you in one year lest the land become depopulated and the beasts of the field become too many for you (to contend with).

30 Little by little I will drive them away from you until you have increased and can occupy the land.

31 I will set your borders from the Reed Sea to the Philistine Sea, and from the desert to River (Euphrates) for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hands, and you will drive them away from you.

32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods.

33 Do not let them live in your land, since they may cause you to sin against Me, in that you will worship their gods, which will be a trap for you.

Map of G-d’s land given to the Jewish people encompassed all the land on both sides of the Jordan River extending well into present day Iraq all the way to the River Euphrates on the East and south to the Reed Sea crossed by the Hebrews upon their escape from Egyptian bondage with Hashem’s indispensable help.


To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: = Complete web page of prior articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment
Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman


The House Memo, the FBI and FISA.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill Jan. 30, 2018
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill Jan. 30, 2018 PHOTO: MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES
The House Intelligence Committee voted Monday night to release a Republican memo that by most accounts reveals how the FBI handled, or mishandled, federal wiretap requests during the 2016 presidential campaign. The White House should now approve its public disclosure as the first of several to help the country understand what really happened.

Democrats are objecting to the release, claiming partisanship and violations of national security. None of this is persuasive. Republican Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has followed a long and deliberative process that follows House protocol.

When the FBI finally agreed after months of resisting to answer a committee subpoena for documents, Mr. Nunes deputized former prosecutor and South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy to investigate.


The subsequent memo was vetted for security concerns, provided to the entire House committee, then made available to the entire House, then shown to the director of the FBI, and is now undergoing White House review. This is hardly a Chelsea Manning-to-WikiLeaks-to-New York Times leak.

Another false claim is that Republicans are “censoring” a rival Democratic memo. The same Democrats howling about national security wanted the committee on Monday instantly to approve the public disclosure of their counter-memo that hasn’t gone through the equivalent reviews that the majority memo has. Committee Republicans voted to start that process by making the Democratic memo available to the full House, and by all means let’s see that memo too.

The House memo is not about “attacking the FBI” or “our law enforcement professionals,” as Democrat Adam Schiff insists. This is about restoring confidence in a law enforcement agency that played an unprecedented role in a U.S. presidential election regarding both the Trump and Clinton campaigns.

Americans deserve to know whether accusations that the Kremlin infiltrated the Trump campaign have any basis, and prosecutors and Congressional committees are investigating. The FBI might well have had cause to believe Russians were targeting the Trump campaign when they sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant. But Washington also should be able to investigate if and how law enforcement agencies exceeded their remit in seeking wiretaps.

The memo also concerns the integrity of the FISA process. Democrats created FISA in the 1970s to protect against wiretap abuses during the Cold War. We opposed it on grounds that it would dilute political accountability, and what do you know here we are. FISA is supposed to provide a measure of legal assurance against abuse, and FBI and Justice officials appear ex parte before the FISA judges with no competing claimants.

The public should know if as part of its warrant application the FBI used the Christopher Steele dossier that we now know was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The House intelligence memo may answer that question, as well as whether the FBI made other misrepresentations or omissions in its FISA application. In June 2017 former FBI director Jim Comey referred in Senate testimony to the dossier as containing “salacious and unverified” material. Is that what the FBI told the FISA court in 2016?

If the FISA judges weren’t told about the partisan provenance and doubts about the veracity of the memo in the middle of a presidential election campaign, then what is FISA for? To serve as a potted plant so the FBI can get whatever warrants it wants? Are they genuine Article III judges with an independent writ or merely another arm of the executive branch that can be rolled like some deputy assistant secretary of State?

The same progressives who demanded accountability for FISA courts after Edward Snowden exposed federal snooping now want President Trump to shut down the House’s limited attempt at transparency. Don’t buy it, Mr. President. Let it all out—the two House Intelligence memos, Senator Chuck Grassley’s referral letter for a criminal investigation of Mr. Steele, and all other relevant FBI or Justice documents that won’t undermine U.S. security. Our democracy can take the transparency, and after the 2016 fiasco it deserves it.


To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: = Complete web page of prior articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment

For those confused with Special Council Mueller’s investigation of “collusion” please read background below

Article: Liberal Media spin Deep State Trickery against Trump
and support Special Counsel Mueller’s Witch Hunt

By L. Brent Bozell III

Media Watch, January 2018

In the real world, when a crime is committed a prosecutor is appointed to gather the evidence and prosecute the person who committed the crime. In surreal Washington, with the Trump- Russia “collusion” case, no specific crime was observed but a special prosecutor was appointed anyway to go look for one.

It’s like saying, “We’re investigating President Trump for murder.”
Who did he kill? “We don’t know of anyone yet … but give us time.”

The liberal media never explain exactly what Trump-Russia “collusion” is but they claim Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign somehow acted with Russia to tip the election and rob Hillary Clinton of the presidency. That has been the liberal media drumbeat, and it has only intensified (to absurd degrees) with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Along with not really explaining what “collusion” is or what crime Trump allegedly committed, the leftist press also downplay the machinations of the Deep State, which despises Trump, and the shenanigans of Mueller, who has “investigated” far and wide and indicted several people for actions that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.

Mueller is a prosecutor in search of a crime; he is on a witch hunt. The Media Research Center is documenting and exposing the leftist media’s shameful promotion of that witch hunt and related news developments. In so doing, the MRC is uncovering countless facts the leftist press doesn’t report and raising many questions liberal journalists should be asking but won’t because they, like the Deep State, want Trump removed from office.

We can’t present all the points the press should be pursuing but here are some of the more important ones that reveal the press’ bias by omission:

Former FBI Director James Comey said he wrote a memo to himself about Trump asking him to drop the Michael Flynn investigation. Why hasn’t that memo been released to the public? Was Comey’s removal of that memo from the DOJ to his home a crime.

Comey was appointed by President Obama in 2013 to succeed then-FBI Director Robert Mueller. Comey and Mueller are good friends, described by the Washington Post as “brothers in arms.” Isn’t this a conflict of interest for Mueller, now the special counsel working with the FBI to investigate Trump, who fired Comey in May 2017?

Both Comey and Mueller oversaw a bribery and money laundering case that involved Russian penetration of the U.S. uranium market, at a time (2010) when the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale of the Uranium One company to Russia, giving Vladimir Putin control over 20% of U.S. uranium. Is this Clinton-Obama collusion with Russia?
Investors in Uranium One donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 by a Russian bank with investments in Uranium One. Is this Clinton-Russia collusion? Why are the liberal media ignoring the two congressional investigations into Uranium One?

FBI informant William Campbell was threatened with imprisonment by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2015 if he spoke with Congress about the uranium case, the bribery he witnessed, and information that “involves the Clintons.” What information does he have about the Clintons and why are the liberal media ignoring this story?

The prosecutor in the uranium case was Rod Rosenstein, who is now the deputy U.S. attorney general who appointed Mueller to investigate Trump-Russia collusion; the lead FBI agent in the uranium case was Andrew McCabe, who just recently escaped by resigning, the deputy FBI director; the FBI director at the time overseeing the uranium case was Robert Mueller.

In 2015, shortly after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s illicit use of a private server was reported, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe urged Andrew McCabe’s wife, liberal Democrat Jill McCabe, to run for state senate. In summer/fall 2015, a McAuliffe PAC and another Democratic PAC paid Jill McCabe $675,288. In early spring 2016, Andrew McCabe, under FBI Director Comey, was assigned to oversee the investigation of Clinton’s server.

Why did Comey select McCabe and didn’t the Democratic payments to McCabe’s wife present a conflict of interest? Why did McCabe not recuse himself from the Clinton case until one week before the 2016 election?

One of Andrew McCabe’s lead investigators in the Clinton case was FBI counterintelligence expert Peter Strzok who, as texts between him and his mistress Lisa Page reveal, is pro-Clinton and vehemently anti-Trump. Strzok interviewed Clinton — no recording, no transcript — for the server case.

After FBI Director James Comey wrote a statement describing Clinton’s server use and mishandling of classified documents as “grossly negligent,” Strzok changed those words to “extremely careless.” Did Strzok change the words to protect Clinton?

FBI Director Comey drafted an exoneration of Clinton in April 2016 before she and 16 other key witnesses had even been interviewed. How can you exonerate people before you even talk to them?

Special Counsel Mueller selected Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page to work on the Trump investigation; Page, an FBI lawyer, previously worked for Andrew McCabe. Strzok’s wife, the pro-Clinton Melissa Hodgman, was promoted to Associate Director of Enforcement at the SEC by Obama in late 2016, after the FBI found Clinton emails on convicted felon Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

Was Hodgman’s promotion designed to influence Strzok’s investigation of Clinton? Why did Hodgmann scrub her social media accounts after Strzok’s pro-Clinton sympathies were exposed?

Strzok texted Lisa Page on Aug. 15, 2016, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [McCabe] case, there’s no way he [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.” What is Strzok’s anti-Trump “insurance policy”?
In an April 2, 2016 text to Strzok, Page wrote, “So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary [Clinton] because it can’t be traced….” Where is “that phone” now and what information is on it? Why were they trying to hide their conversations about Clinton?

What communications did FBI Deputy Director McCabe have with Strzok and Page about Clinton or Trump?

Was either Strzok or Page subject to blackmail (and by whom) because of their extramarital affair?

In the texts, Page refers to Trump as an “enormous douche,” a “loathsome human” who “should go F himself.” Strzok says “F TRUMP,” he is a “f***ing idiot,” and his supporters are “PATHETIC” and “DOUCHEBAGS.” Page also says to Strzok, maybe “you’re meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump],” and he replies, “we’re both very fortunate” and “I can protect our country at many levels.” Why were such Trump-haters selected by Special Counsel Mueller? Did their hatred of Trump taint the Russia collusion case or the Clinton server investigation?

Former Trump campaign official Paul Manafort was indicted by Mueller for alleged illegal lobbying he did for Ukraine between 2005 and 2015, years before Trump announced his campaign or hired Manafort. Why is Mueller investigating and charging people for actions that have nothing to do with supposed Trump-Russia collusion?

Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was indicted by Mueller — based on a Strzok interview of Flynn — for lying to the FBI about aDecember 26 conversation with a Russian official about sanctions. Why is Mueller charging Flynn for post-election actions that have nothing to do with election collusion?

As part of the Mueller investigation, Democrat and top Clinton bundler Tony Podesta resigned from and dissolved his $24 million lobbying firm, The Podesta Group, which he had founded with his brother John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager. Why would he give up such a lucrative and influential business so quickly and why have the leftist press ignored this story?

The Russian “dossier” on Trump, which helped spark the collusion investigation and appointment of a special counsel, was created by Fusion GPS and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Did the FBI, under Obama, use the dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump and Trump campaign officials? Why isn’t a special counsel investigating this?

Manafort was wiretapped both before and after the 2016 election by U.S. investigators under President Obama. Who ordered these wiretaps and why? Strzok reportedly offered dossier-writer Peter Steele, a former British spy, $50,000 to verify his sources. When asked by Congress about this, FBI Director Christopher Wray declined to answer. Did the FBI pay Steele and what is Strzok’s relationship with Steele?

Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr met with Fusion GPS personnel, and his wife, Nellie Ohr, “worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election.” That’s a conflict of interest. What did Ohr discuss with Fusion GPS and why did Ohr try to conceal these meetings from Congress?

Mueller reportedly is seeking a potential obstruction of justice charge against Trump because Trump fired Comey. If that is true, then doesn’t Deputy AG Rosenstein have to recuse himself because he wrote the memo to terminate Comey?

This is an “investigation” that deserves criminal investigation.

These and many other questions need to be answered and reported to the public. Fox News, the MRC’s, MRCTV and NewsBusters, and a few other outlets are covering some of these stories. But the liberal media are ignoring these matters or dismissing them as conservative deflection. CNN’s JimAcosta, for instance, rejects questions about Mueller and the Deep State as a “right-wing narrative” fueled by the “conservative media.”

The leftist media do not want the American public to know the truth. But we do. The MRC is holding the liberal press accountable.

L. Brent Bozell III
Media Watch, Founder and President

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: = Complete web page of prior articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment