President Trump & the Democrat Saga of Incoherence

Photo credit: Voice of America

The Democrats and anti-Trump forces seem to be so blinded by their hatred of the president that they have lost their ability to think coherently.  What else can one think when reviewing what has been transpiring?  It is so obvious.  Well, obvious to those of us who are not blinded by either hatred or the wish to destroy Donald Trump simply because he is Trump and perhaps a Republican.

Hillary Clinton was quite excited when she believed a Trump Tower server was communicating with Russia & she let the world know.  The question is – how did she know this was being checked into?

There was a transcript of Flynn’s discussion with the Russian ambassador.  The question is – how did we find out?

For all the accusations some Democrats have been & continue making, an important factor has gone unnoticed in their little thought processors of incoherence.  If there wasn’t any surveillance, how did surveillance gather the above information?  (i.e.  If one can only get to town by driving and they are in town – it’s a pretty sure bet they drove to town.)

Comey testified that there was no wiretap on Trump.  Why didn’t he add that while there was technically no “wiretap” – Trump and/or his team had been included in “incidental collection”, unmasked and the information shared among many?  He knew about it, didn’t he?  He knew it was shared, didn’t he?  So, why did he answer in such a way as to make it look as though Trump was lying or simply ignorant?

Attorney General Sessions was asked a long, rambling question by Sen. Franken.  The short of the story – or question – was if Sessions had any contact with the Russians with regard to the campaign.  He said he didn’t.  However, thereafter, the Democrats accused him of lying because he had two meetings with the Russian ambassador, unrelated to the campaign, that he had failed to mention.  Didn’t seem to matter that many in Congress have met with this very same ambassador.  Didn’t seem to matter that some even met with Putin.  Didn’t seem to matter that the question was in relationship to the campaign – Sessions should have, by their opinion, thought to say, “No, but I did meet with the ambassador in the course of my duties as senator.”

Woodrow Wilcox


Then Senator Sessions was being questioned about the campaign – not his duties and meetings as a senator.  He answered the question asked.  His meetings with the ambassador were irrelevant to the issues at hand because they were not related to the campaign.  Comey, on the other hand, was being questioned about Trump and/or his team being under surveillance and he knew it.  He took advantage of “technical wordage”.  He took advantage of Trump using the term “wiretap”, though knowing exactly what was meant and that it was relevant and specific to the question presented.  In short, he intentionally misled the committee and the public.  This should be of grave concern to each and every one of us.  It is to me.

Additionally, why would it take so long to establish there was collusion (or not) between the Trump campaign & Russia, but so quickly be able to establish there was no surveillance on Trump & team?  Why haven’t they been able to identify the person responsible for leaking material, but able to say no person was involved in Trump surveillance?  Seems the only fast investigations they are able to perform is if it is an attempt to discredit the president and his team.  Amazing!


After Senator Nunes gave the press conference and notified the White House of what he had learned, Schiff was upset because Nunes hadn’t shared the info with the committee first.  And, now that the White House has been notified, Schiff feels there cannot be a fair hearing?  Why?  How does Nunes sharing the information affect the hearings?  After all, the Democrats have been insisting all along that Trump, as president, could pick up the phone and obtain all this information first hand.  What does it matter then that Nunes provided Trump what Trump could freely get on his own?

My personal opinion is that Trump didn’t wish to pick up the phone and ask for the information because, if he did, the Democrats and media would claim it was tainted, manipulated and completely false.  Instead, I believe he simply waited for the truth to come out, as he knew it would once people started paying attention to the evidence that was readily available all along.

By whatever term is utilized – Trump and his team were obviously under surveillance.  Information was gathered by some means and shared.  It really doesn’t matter if it was a physical wiretap such as they had in the 1960’s or information grabbed from the sky.  Somebody captured it.  Somebody gathered it.  Somebody shared it.  Somebody leaked it.  The latter of which, without question, is illegal.

Schiff & Pals try to make it all important that Trump used the word “wiretap”.  When Trump clarifies he was referring to surveillance – they try to say he is walking back his allegation because he has no proof.

Schiff is upset because Senator Nunes was provided info, which he discussed at a Press Conference and then shared with the White House.  If it is so important for Nunes to have shared with the committee first, why hasn’t Schiff provided the committee with the absolute proof he claims to have?  And if he has absolute proof, why are they wasting time and money on an unnecessary hearing to establish what is in his possession?  Might it be because he doesn’t have the proof he claims?

The Democrats seem to want one set of rules for themselves and a set of rules for people that aren’t them.  And in recent years, it seems that is exactly how things have played out.  Perhaps they have gotten too used to successfully bullying and are unable to comprehend that those days are over.  They are making fools of themselves and doing it for all of us to see.

But I digress.  (It’s easy to do, when trying to make sense out of the Democrat & media nonsense.)

The Democrats know that Jeff Sessions was asked if there was any Russian involvement in the campaign and that he answered truthfully.  They know but it didn’t stop them from trying to create an illusion of dishonesty to bring him down.

Comey intentionally provided a dishonest answer to the committee and to the public.  There is no way the Democrats aren’t aware of this fact, yet they are using that dishonest answer to claim Trump is the one being dishonest.

The out-of-control Democrats and media shower us every day with their little saga of incoherence.  They speculate and deem it facts.  They twist, spin and manipulate information and call it evidence.  They tell us there was no surveillance, but surveillance may have picked up Trump & Associates in “incidental collection”.  There were leaks of gathered information, but there was no surveillance, so I suppose we are to assume it poofed into someone’s possession as they happened to walk by the poof-receipt desk.

One day of fair reporting only and honest investigation would be a welcomed respite from the saga of incoherence and lock-step mindset of the out-of-control libs, their media buds & the brainwashed that blindly follow them.  It might also be the shock moment that opens minds and lets the truth and rational thought back in.  The day some Democrats fear most – a day President Trump keeps still another promise and the swamp gets a little less occupied!

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Carrie K. Hutchens

Comments are closed.