The MSM disses the Trump-Putin meeting but Rush Limbaugh sees it in a much different light.

Trump-Putin Press Conference: Comedy Gold As American Journalists Beclown Themselves
". . . "I go through the anger. But I can’t stay angry very long because I can’t stop laughing at this. For example, some AP reporter stood up, he got the last question of Trump, and he (laughing) asked Trump, “Okay. U.S. intelligence says that Russia meddled.

“ 'Russia says they didn’t. Who do you believe?” And then the guy says to Putin, “Do you have any compromising material on President Trump and his family?” I about lost it at this point. It was a serious question. “Do you have any compromising material on President Trump and his family?” And Putin and Trump both just laughed, and Putin’s facial expression was priceless! Putin’s facial expression was over the top. You could tell that he thought this guy was an idiot.

. . . 

"You know what I was hoping? I was hoping that one of these dingbat reporters stood up, I was hoping one would say, “President Trump, President Trump, did you tell Putin to stop it? Did you tell Putin we are not gonna accept his cheating and collusion anymore and his interference?”

. . . 

"Now, lest you get the wrong idea, folks, I’m well aware that there are many people who think this was not Trump’s finest hour, that Putin got away with basically dominating this whole thing and whatever Putin said stood, that Trump didn’t push back on any of it. That is a developing bit of analysis that you’re gonna find even on what you would consider to be Trump-friendly media. That Trump didn’t push back, Putin got the run to say whatever he wanted to say. Trump didn’t push back.

"That may be. This all happened just mere moments ago, and I’m gonna have developing thoughts on this as I have a chance to learn about it in a nonpressurized circumstance. This is like cramming for an oral final exam with everything on the exam coming up in 15 minutes. So I’m sure by tomorrow’s show, later today, may even have a different take on this thing." . . .

With Zero Evidence To Back Him Up, Schumer Says Possible Putin Has Damaging Info On Trump

“We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion?” Putin asked a reporter who asked about collusion.

How not to negotiate  . . . "If, after all that has transpired over the past three years, you still cling bitterly to the notion that Donald John Trump is not in charge, then you are at a level of ignorance that overwhelms my imagination." . . .

Explosive Anthony Bourdain Interview Released After His Death: Unloads On Clintons, Obama

Daily Wire

Bill Clinton was "entitled, rapey, gropey, grabby, disgusting"; Hillary "destroyed" his accusers; Obama immediately started "f***ing with us."

"In an interview published in Popula magazine weeks after he tragically hung himself in a hotel room, celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain spoke frankly about a wide range of topics and people, including the "entitled, rapey, gropey, grabby, disgusting" Bill Clinton, his enabler wife Hillary, and the disappointing Barack Obama. He also described how he imagined the death of Harvey Weinstein, whom Bourdain's girlfriend has accused of sexually assaulting her.

"Though Bourdain's interview with journalist Maria Bustillos took place back in February, Bustillos finally published it on Sunday. Its content is not for the faint of heart, as Bourdain clearly felt free to be raw about some hot-button issues and famous people in his free-wheeling two-and-half-hour conversation with the journalist, a conversation that took place fittingly in one of his favorite Irish pubs.

"He talked about #MeToo and the powerful forces of evil arrayed against decent people, about Rose McGowan, about raising daughters, about the sexual mores of the 1970s," writes Bustillos. "He told me how he imagined the death of Harvey Weinstein, a hilarious, weirdly specific fantasy that I’ll share with you in a moment. We talked about luxury, too."

"Below are some of the quotes that are making headlines, first his opinion on his "disappointment" with Hillary over her Harvey Weinstein statement:

. . . 

The new hero of the left; Peter Strzok-Smirk

Strzok mounts the "Otter Defense"  "Watching disgraced G-Man Peter Strzok lecture us on politics and patriotism this week made my skin crawl. He is a repulsive character. Neo-neocon drew on her knowledge of art to find the comic antecedent to Strzok’s deep thoughts in Eric “Otter” Stratton’s defense of his fraternity in Animal House (video)."

The WaPo stands firmly behind Strzok.

https://legalinsurrection.com/

Republicans Praise 'Credible,' Less 'Smug' Lisa Page After Closed-Door Session

Meadows said the American people “would be happy” with the transcribed interviews, and that Page's cooperation spoke well of her.

“She’s been willing to help in the spirit of transparency. … We’ve certainly learned additional things today,” Meadows said, according to Fox News.

CNN: Framers Never Envisioned Justices Living Past Their 50s

Photosnark by Rich Terrell

The Federalist Papers  "If you want proof that liberals will say just about anything that pops into their brains, read on.
"Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN – who once called Justice Clarence Thomas a “nut” – tried to poke some holes in President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nomination by declaring that gee … the Founding Fathers never thought people would live past 50, so these 30-year careers on the court are just too much, or something.
"He was speaking on Anderson Cooper’s show with former US Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal. After named some of the expansive rulings from retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, Toobin said the current norm defies how the Founding Fathers envisioned Court nominations.

“ 'When the Constitution was written in the late 18th century, people were expected to die in their 50s,” Toobin said. “The Framers never contemplated that these terms would regularly go to 30-plus years as they do now.”

"So, let’s unpack this." . . .  Read more...

Strzok by a Farce

The question is not whether the investigator is biased, but whether bias leads the investigator to do illegal or abusive things. . . . whether, with respect to Trump in particular, they pursued a counterintelligence probe in the stretch-run of an election, premised on the belief that he was a traitor, based on information that was flimsy and unverified.

Andrew C. McCarthy  "An investigation is one of two things: a search for the truth, or a farce. The House is conducting a farce. That fact was on full display during ten hours of testimony by Peter Strzok, the logorrheic lawman who steered the FBI’s Clinton-emails and Trump–Russia probes.

"The principal question before the joint investigation of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees is whether the Democratic administration’s law-enforcement and intelligence arms strained to manufacture an espionage case against the Republican candidate, having buried an eminently prosecutable criminal case against the Democratic presidential nominee.

"It should be straightforward to answer this question, provided that the investigative process has the one attribute central to any credible probe: the capacity to compel the production of evidence and testimony, with the corollary power to hold witnesses in contempt for defiance.

"The House investigation has devolved into farce because it lacks this feature." . . .

The Trump–Putin Summit: The U.S. President Must Be Strong, Clear, and Consistent

Tony Branco

Russia’s actions today have their roots in the failure of the Obama Administration’s “reset,” combined with Putin’s imperial ambitions. Russia has been able to exploit the situation to its own benefit, calculating that the West will not respond in any significant way. Putin cannot be a partner to the U.S. under current conditions. The sooner President Trump understands this, the safer America and her allies will be.

Heritage  "On July 16, President Donald Trump will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland. President Trump should go into this summit with his eyes wide open. Since coming to power in 1999, Putin has never shown that he can be a trusted partner of the United States. At almost every opportunity, he has pursued policies that undermine America’s national interests and those of its closest partners. President Trump should use this meeting as an opportunity to press Putin on issues like aggression against Ukraine and Georgia, Moscow’s support for Syria and Iran, and meddling in the election campaigns of Western democracies.

Key Takeaways:

• "Putin has not been good for Russia. To distract his people from their many woes, he has pursued a dangerously aggressive and expansionist foreign policy.
• "Since coming to power in 1999, Putin has pursued policies that undermine America’s national interests and those of its closest partners.
• "At the summit in Helsinki, President Trump should reiterate U.S. commitment to Europe, and be clear about which behaviors are unacceptable.

. . .

Same liberal media called Reagan ‘war-monger’ and Trump ‘accommodationist’ on Russia  . . . "The only way it makes sense is to look at what is good for liberals. Liberals had a not-so-secret crush on the Soviet Union because it was a communist country. Liberals loved, and still love, communism, even as they rebrand it KFC and IHOP-style with names like "progressivism" and "socialism".

"But liberals hate Russia because Russia tried to interfere in our elections against Hillary. Liberals feel that a bunch of Twitter and Facebook bots tossed the election to Donald Trump. They really believe this. Perhaps they felt that all the Russian-originated Facebook posts somehow counteracted the legions of illegal aliens who voted for Hillary. So liberals hate Russia because they think that Russia tried to stop Hillary from winning the election." . . .

Never forget this:

FLASHBACK: Media Gushed Over Obama’s Euro Trip

MRC  (cartoons added by TD)

"An overseas trip has done nothing to quell the liberal media’s war of words with President Donald Trump, but when Barack Obama went on his first Euro-trip as president, he and First Lady Michelle Obama were lavished with bouquets from the press.
"On the March 31, 2009 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews gushed over the scenes from London: “He is the new us! That’s right, President Obama is in London tonight as the new emblem of the American people. He is us, just as - to the consternation of our allies and the often cringey-ness of his countrymen - George W. Bush was us for eight years....I thought about that scene for months, the first time they get to come as our American couple - to represent us, really in a new way, a kind of a sophisticated new leadership.”
"An overly impressed Chuck Todd, on the April 1, 2009 NBC Nightly News, was amazed by Obama’s pace: “In just a few short hours, the President was able to do a diplomatic decathlon, packing in a week’s worth of international diplomacy into 12 hours.”

"ABC anchor David Muir, on the April 4 World News, boasted that other world leaders were mere nerds compared to Obama: “As we wrap up the week we wanted to take note of these images we’ve been looking at, particularly this one where other heads of state are seemingly trying to get close to the head of the class, or the cool kid in the class, if you will, President Obama.”
"And of course Michelle Obama received the celebrity-like coverage that, so far, First Lady Melania Trump has yet to garner from the liberal press. On April 1, 2009 CNN’s Alino Cho offered this glowing review: “There’s no denying that Michelle Obama is a rock star in America, but how is her style and personality playing abroad? Well, the early reviews are very good. The apparent love affair with the U.S. First Lady is flourishing in Europe.” Over on the April 1, 2009 Today show, NBC’s Keith Miller cooed: “What the Obamas bring to Buckingham Palace is a charisma not seen since the Kennedys, when the First Lady, Jacqueline, dazzled the royal court.”
"The following are just a few examples of over-the-top gushing the Obamas received from the liberal media from their 2009 European trip, as culled from the MRC archives: " . . .  Keep reading...

2014: MSNBC Gushes Over Obama’s Press Conference ‘Swagger’

You remember MSNBC, don't you? It was the network of choice playing in many scenes from "Law & Order" in the 2000s.

From The Depths Of Hell, Hillary Clinton 2020 Could Be Brewing; Until Then The Whining Will Continue

Trump won more electoral votes and in this case, more states than Hillary. She’s a loser.

Update: But first, did you hear what Hillary said about Brett Kavanaugh? Clinton said that Brett Kavanaugh Will Bring Back Slavery

 Matt Vespa  "Whether Democrats realize it or not, the names being tossed as potential 2020 challengers to President Trump are weak. It’s milquetoast. All far too left for the American voter, and all with rigid regional appeal. Who knows who Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is outside of New Jersey? The same could be said for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) doesn’t resonate outside of the Boston suburbs. And Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), well, she’s working hard to boost her profile, but she’s running aground with the Bernie crowd. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) could run again, but his age—and the fact that the DNC will only allow Democrats to run for their nomination, could put Feel The Bern 2.0 in limbo. So, what else can Democrats do, but accept the third presidential run of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why is she still around? Why doesn’t she shut up? Can we move on? Nope. There are some rumblings that the former first lady and two-time presidential loser could be staging another go for the White House. Michael Goodwin had an op-ed that outlined the case, along with the many eye rolls from Democrats had when he mentioned the idea of a rematch (via NY Post): 

Not long ago, I told a group of friends, all liberal Dems, that I believed she was keeping open the possibility of a rematch against Trump, and might already have decided to run. It was unanimous — they were horrified. “I would not give her a single cent,” one man, formerly a big donor to Clinton, said emphatically. Their reasons are no surprise: Her moment has passed, she was a terrible candidate and her endless claims of victimhood are tiring rather than inspiring. It’s time to find new blood. […] Here’s how I believe she sees the playing field, and why she can’t be ignored. . . .

Does Hillary Clinton ever get 'tard' of whining?

"Ever wondered why you can't stand Hillary Clinton?

"It's not just her leftwing ideas.

"It's because she manages, always, without fail, in her speeches to be hackneyed, grating and whining, too. And cripes, she's still a liar. A good demagogue will take grains of truth and then twist them - Hillary is different: A purveyor of straight up 100-proof lies, painting an alternative reality." . . .

This guy will wish he had picked Starbucks instead

A  California court would side with the crook, you know?

Thomas Lifson  . . . "So, when I saw this video from Tulsa (Hat tip, Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, who calls it “heartwarming”), I took a perhaps inappropriate level of personal satisfaction, given that I am thousands of miles away, and have never myself confronted a thief. And, according to the accompanying article, one of the brave workers required 16 stitches from a box cutter wound.

"Many large chains forbid their employees from resisting robbery attempts, probably fearful of liability for injuries to both perps and employees.  I certainly hope that this is not the response(sic) of the unnamed restaurant in Tulsa. These guys are heroes in my book."