DEMOCRATS, “DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!”…

As I am not someone who makes his living as a political advisor, please excuse my confusion regarding how it is that the Democrats can obtain “information” from foreign nationals with it being nothing more than normal everyday ‘opposition research’, but if the Republicans even speak to a foreigner it’s collusion.  And how is it that no one at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or among those in charge of Hitlery's campaign, or even the candidate herself, didn't know anything about this “Russian dossier?”  Do they really expect anyone, other than their kooky voter base, to believe that they would spend $8 to $12 Million and not have a clue what it was being used for?  I can understand their idiotic voter base falling for that line of BS, but I would hope that enough of us regular folks still have this thing called commonsense.

Which brings me to this past Sunday’s rather bizarre episode of MSNBC’s “Kasie DC,” during which host Kasie Hunt asked deputy chairman of the DNC, and well-known supporter of the Moslem Brotherhood, Keith Ellison if he thought it was a mistake for the DNC to pay for the so-called Russia dossier manufactured by Fusion GPS about Donald Trump.  Ellison dismissed it as part of the political process in a “modern American election.”  But it is also rather apparent that Ellison is of the opinion that the ONLY candidates that should be permitted to conduct such research are those running for office under the Democrat Party banner.  And what I found as being most remarkable about this entire exchange was the fact that Ellison was able to keep a straight face during the entire thing.  That makes very clear what a skillful liar he is.

And it is a partial transcript of that rather nonsensical exchange that follows:

Ms. Hunt: So, I want to start with the news that we’ve all been focused on this weekend, and that is, of course, the Russia investigation, and what has been unfolding there. And one issue … that Republicans have zeroed in on is the Steele dossier and what we learned from The Washington Post about who paid for that. Now, this happened before you were elected to your position at the DNC but do you think paying for that dossier was a mistake for the party to make?

Jihadi Ellison: You know, opposition research is commonly done by both parties. The real question is, are the statements in the dossier true or are they false? I mean, that’s the real issue. At the end of the day, the findings in that research are things that Trump ought to either deny or and there should be investigations about. That’s the real question. But asking me whether a political party did some background research on a political candidate is like saying, ‘Did you buy lawn signs? Did you buy flyers and literature?’ It’s just part of how campaigns are run in a modern American election.

Now to my way of thinking, manufactured content purchased with the specific intent of smearing one’s political adversary doesn’t exactly fall under the heading of ‘opposition research.’  I see that as being nothing more than a hit job to get someone out of the political picture.  The left doesn’t seem to think that accountability and responsibility apply to them, and they definitely operate under a different set of standards that also seem to be reserve strictly for themselves.  You see, you're not supposed to simply create it out of thin air and you're not supposed to lie, pay for ‘research’ you did not disclose, or pass it on to be used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on your political opponent.  And this boob, Ellison KNOWS this, and yet he’s out there lying to the American people in an attempt to obfuscate and deceive.

I mean how it is that Donald Trump Jr. going to listen to some Russian who had ‘information’ about Hitlery can be defined as Treason, and yet when Hitlery uses the Russians who supplied a fake dossier in order to sway the American voters to vote for her it was defined as being nothing more than your average, run-of-the-mill ‘opposition research.’  Opposition research is legal. Paying a foreign agent that is working with the Russians to produce ‘fake documents’ to be used as a basis for FISA court warrants on the opposing candidate, not so much.  Ellison is just another liberal hypocrite who simply can’t bring himself to admit what went on here, by the Democrats.  And don't forget, the FBI then went on to use that bogus dossier as their reason to FULLY investigate then president-elect Trump, his family, and campaign staff.

And while I may be wrong about this, though recent events seem to confirm it, I thought elections originally had something to do with having positive reasons to vote for a candidate, not reasons to destroy the other candidate.  Elections used to be about choosing the best candidate, not the mud-spattered survivor of what was nothing more than a political food fight.  And I know that slander, in one form or another, has played a part in virtually every presidential rate since Thomas Jefferson, including Jackson, Lincoln, Goldwater and many others.  But in recent years, that's all it's been about.  I'm trying to recall anything positive in Hitlery’s campaign and I keep coming up empty.  Might that have been the real reason, or at least one of them, why she lost a contest to someone who was a complete outsider?

And finally, are John Podesta, Fusion GPS and other political attack dogs really how we want to go about choosing our national leaders?  And let’s not forget that for 12 months, George Stephanopoulos, Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd, and the other ‘Globalist Media’ whores at CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have paralyzed America, demanding the impeachment of Trump for imaginary collusion with Russia.  We now know Hitlery, the DNC and Comey's FBI colluded with Russia, paying $12M for Russian spies to produce lies about Trump for the sole purpose of effecting the election, and since, to paralyze Trump's agenda, and to overthrow democracy with their 12 month campaign to impeach Trump.  Now the same bunch at CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC insist Russian interference in America's elections is standard ‘opposition research?’