Comey releases prepared statement before Thursday’s Senate hearing

Fired FBI director Comey provided the most comprehensive account yet of his role in the Russia investigation Wednesday in a statement prepared for his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They offer new details about his role in the probe along with his relationship with the President.

The statements were released on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s webpage. In those seven pages, Comey outlined his communications with the President in different instances.

Unfortunately for the left, his statements amount to what is nothing more than a big fat NOTHING BURGER

“I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo,” Comey wrote regarding his Jan. 6 meeting with President Trump. “To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past.”

Comey detailed a conversation he had with Trump shortly after the Inauguration where the former FBI chief said Trump asked him if he wanted to remain FBI director.

“A few moments later, the President said, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,’” Comey wrote of his Jan. 27 dinner with Trump in the White House’s Green Room. “I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.”

On Feb. 14, the day after Michael Flynn resigned as national security adviser, Comey said Trump asked him about the investigation into Flynn’s ties with Russia, saying, “‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’”

And on March 30, Comey said Trump called him at the FBI and said the Russia investigation hindered the president’s ability to govern. In his remarks, Comey wrote that Trump “said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to ‘lift the cloud.’”

On April 11, Comey wrote, the president called him to ask that Comey “get out” the idea that Trump was under no personal investigation. In that phone call, his last conversation with Trump, Comey says the president reiterated that the “cloud” of the investigation interfered with his ability to lead.

On May 9, nearly a month later, Trump fired Comey.

Read the full statement below.

Statement for the Record

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

James B. Comey

June 8, 2017

Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.

January 6 Briefing

I first met then- President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counter-intelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.

January 27 Dinner

The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.

The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.

Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.” As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI.

February 14 Oval Office Meeting

On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counter-terrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs.

The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me.

When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.

The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one -on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role.

After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request.

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.

March 30 Phone Call

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week – at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)

The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia-related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later.

April 11 Phone Call

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.


Statistics About “Radical” Islam The Left DOES NOT Want To See

A religion of peace? Is there a difference between RADICAL Islam and just Islam itself?

Pew Research (2013):
  • Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda.
  • Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban.
  • 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.

Wenzel Strategies (2012):
  • 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
  • 45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
  • 12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
  • 43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
  • 32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.

ICM Poll:
  • 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK
  • 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers

Pew Research (2010):
  • 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
  • 70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
  • 42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
  • 82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
  • 56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

WZB Berlin Social Science Center:
  • 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Global (2006)
  • 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
  • 43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
  • 38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
  • 15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.

World Public Opinion (2009)
  • 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
  • 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
  • 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
  • 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
  • 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
  • 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)

NOP Research:
  • 62% percent of British Muslims say freedom of speech shouldn’t be protected 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
  • 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons

People Press Surveys
  • 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.

Belgian HLN:
  • 16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is “acceptable”.

ICM Poll:
  • 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.

Pew Research (2007):
  • 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
  • 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
  • 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
  • 22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
  • 29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).

Al-Jazeera (2006)
  • 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden

Populus Poll (2006):
  • 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
  • 37% believe Jews in Britain are a “legitimate target”.

  • 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state

NOP Research:
  • 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam;

MacDonald Laurier Institute:
  • 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)
  • 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate al-Qaeda

  • 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure

  • 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% “fully”, 6.5% “mostly”, 23.1% “partially”)

Policy Exchange:
  • 1 in 4 Muslims in the UK have never heard of the Holocaust
  • Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust ever happened.

al gore

After Stating How Grave The Danger Facing The California Coastline Is Al Gore Buys a Mansion On The California Coastline

You cannot overstate the hypocrisy folks. A tweet from MARK SIMONE‏ (originally seen on r/The_Donald) grabbed our attention:

The Twitter-verse proceeded to excoriate Gore and his continued hypocrisy:

twitter gore

From LA Times

In a move that critics may cite as his own inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a house in secluded Montecito to their real estate holdings.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.

Montecito has long been a haven for Southern California’s rich and famous, a spot where celebrity faces can blend into the crowd. Among the community’s notable residents have been talk show giant Oprah Winfrey, actors Michael Douglas and Christopher Lloyd, and golfer Fred Couples. The 93108 ZIP Code, which includes the coastal hamlet, was ranked as America’s seventh most expensive area last year by Forbes.

Word of the purchase was reported in late April in the Montecito Journal. Gore, 62, did not respond to The Times’ requests for comment.

An Inconvenient Sequel Trailer

cnn fake news

CNN eclipses AP as “Worst media outlet”

It is now official: Hell has frozen over.


On more than a half-dozen occasions, I have shared with you my outrage over the biased, anti-Trump slant of the Associated Press. No major newspaper or broadcast media outlet in America is immune to the AP’s tentacles reaching into the nation’s newsrooms with ever- more-hysterical examples of Yellow Journalism disguised as “news.” (Full disclosure: my Salem Radio Network’s 24/7 SRN News and News services are AP subscribers and—thus—must devote considerable staff time to ferreting out the actual news within AP’s unending distribution of anti-Trump screeds which apparently must meet fewer standards of objectivity than your average high school newspaper or free neighborhood PennySaver.)

Example: during President Trump’s comments at his Rose Garden speech withdrawing the United States from the so-called Paris Climate Accords, he correctly observed that he was elected “to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” AP’s Jill Colvin and Julie Pace then raced to file their “coverage” of the President’s speech, breathlessly offering this analysis: “Allegheny County was won by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the November election. In Pittsburgh, Clinton won 114,847 votes, while Trump won 31,805.”

Oddly, most of us were under the impression that a President is supposed to represent the interests of all Americans, not just those who supported him. But like their acolytes in what’s left of the Democratic Party, the AP never misses an opportunity to buy into the balkanization of America…stabbing its own credibility in its displays of naked bias against Donald Trump at every opportunity.

So AP long ago abandoned any semblance of journalistic ethics. In what they like to refer to as “the age of Trump,” anything goes if AP thinks it will somehow make the President look bad.

But incredibly, the AP has now been eclipsed in its shameful bias by the onetime pioneer of cable news, CNN. (Second full disclosure: my radio network partnered with CNN during the broadcast of four 2016 GOP Presidential debates; back then, I was impressed by CNN’s solid staff, its professionalism and the men and women we interacted with during each of our broadcasts.) Sometime after Donald Trump captured the Presidency, however, the wheels came off the “old” CNN and it has increasingly morphed into a 24-hour depressing, one-note rant against Donald Trump.

The network which Ted Turner once promised would be the gold standard of journalism has, sadly, devolved into what I call “Reverse Alchemy”: they have turned gold into lead.

don lemon fake news

Don Lemon—whom President Trump accurately describes as “perhaps the dumbest person in broadcasting”—presides over a nightly “news” program that is the linear equivalent of the old Jerry Springer show, minus the Klansmen and feuding landlords. Non-stop Trump-bashing with six-person panels all acting as myna birds parroting any absurd thing Lemon throws at the President.

CNN’s “New Day” anchor Chris Cuomo (always good to have the son and brother of Democratic governors of New York in the anchor chair of an objective “news” program) used his national platform last week in a juvenile, embarrassing segment wherein he and FOX turncoat Alisyn Camerota badgered young Scripps spelling bee champion Ananya Vinay into defining the word “covfefe” (a typo in one of Donald Trump’s recent Tweets.) Hilarious: dragooning a 12-year-old as an on-camera prop in CNN’s dopey quest to mock President Trump at every turn.

And then there was the capper: CNN’s New Year’s Eve star Kathy Griffin thinking it was “comedy” to appear—ISIS-like—on camera holding up what appeared to be the severed, bloody head of President Trump. This one was a no-brainer for the average viewer anywhere in the civilized world. But CNN instead engaged in prolonged, tortured, pants-wetting deliberations for hours before finally jettisoning Griffin from future broadcasts.

What must THOSE discussions have sounded like? (“Gee, holding up an image of the bloody head of the President of the United States IS an all-time low in bad taste….but we’re CNN and if we fire Kathy it might look as if we’re supporting Trump. What SHOULD we do, guys? We need to get past this so we can get back to hectoring 12-year-olds on NEW DAY to try and embarrass Trump. Yeah, let’s fire her and just move on…”)

Personally, I have nothing but pity for the people I know who still are employed at CNN. It must be tough dragging yourself to work at a place so obsessed with distorting the facts and presenting such one-sided on-air broadcasts where the #1 goal every day—week in and week out—is nothing less than to vilify the man who won 306 electoral votes and captured the Presidency with a concise, easy-to-understand message: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

But rather than suffering more agita by watching CNN’s hysterically biased Trump-bashing any longer, I’m adopting the outlook of Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather: “It makes no difference to me how a man makes his living, as long as his interests don’t conflict with mine.

OG Content


Kathy Griffin Attacks Elisabeth Hasselbeck for Criticism Toward President Obama

When it comes to President Trump, it’s obvious that Kathy Griffin lacks respect for the office. After all, she decapitated her career after holding up an effigy of the president’s severed head.

However, when President Obama was in office, Griffin’s tune was quite different. According to Mediaite, in 2012, she criticized Elisabeth Hasselbeck – once the token conservative on “The View” – for asking Obama during the campaign whether he would “move things forward any more than Mitt Romney” on gay marriage.

OG Post on ConTribune

On her Bravo show “Kathy,” Griffin opined that Hasselbeck’s “attitude to the president, who was a Harvard Law professor,” lacked the dialectical niceties that ought to be afforded America’s commander-in-chief.

Or, in the parlance of Ms. Griffin: “I’m, like, take it down a notch, bitch.”


“That body language,” Griffin continued, “I don’t like that. I don’t like Jan Brewer in Arizona going like this to the president on the tarmac (and wagging his finger). I don’t like that. When I was on ‘The View,’ Barbara Walters said you respect the office.”

That statement would seem awfully ironic less than five years later, but her rant on Hasselbeck continued in a similarly po-faced manner.

“I mean, I just love the first sentence, which is, ‘Actually, Elisabeth, that’s not true,’” Griffin said, talking about Obama’s response. “So, I like how he’s so patient with her.”

When they put up a photo of Hasselbeck, Griffin said, “No, don’t show that nice pretty picture of her. Do not, after all that … after all the names she’s called me, show the fucking crazy face, OK? But, anyway, so what do you think that moment was like? I mean, what do you think it was like for Elisabeth Hasselbeck, a runner-up from ‘Survivor,’ to be, like, stepping up like that to the president, and then, by the way, not being completely accurate.”

When someone pointed out Obama had tweeted that Hasselbeck was his “favorite Republican,” Griffin responded with typical tact: “I mean, look, he’s a gentlemanly guy, and he probably said it, but, you know, I’ll say she’s a cunt.” Respectful!

The full video is at Mediaite; we’re not going to embed it here due to its vulgarity. Suffice it to say it’s about as unhinged as you’d imagine from somebody who thought holding up the effigial severed head of the president was a solid career move.

Just to review: Any conservative who deigned to ask Obama a simple question is not showing respect to the office. Severed heads of Republican presidents, however, are perfectly fine for photo shoots.

I’d normally say that Griffin needs to take it down a notch. However, it seems like that bulk of that work has already done for her.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on Kathy Griffin’s attack on Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

What are your thoughts on what Kathy Griffin did? Scroll down to comment below!