Free Republic

After President Trump commented on the idea of receiving “foreign dirt” on an opponent on Thursday, cable news pundits fully dedicated themselves to moving the goal posts for what constitutes colluding with a foreign adversary. On “At This Hour With Kate Bolduan,” CNN reporter Evan Perez simultaneously downplayed the significance of the Steele dossier and failed to explain which 2016 campaign had actually paid a foreign adversary for opposition research (spoiler: it was the Hillary Clinton campaign). Perez seemed to conclude that Trump’s hypothetical comments are much worse than the actual effect the Steele dossier had on the 2016 election...

It's very troubling so little critical analysis exists on this latest flap. We'd expect Democrats, aided by the media, to seize on any "issue" whether manufactured or real. But I watched Romney, Collins, Graham all run to microphones to criticize the president's "mistake". Romney's statement was the most extreme and the most empty headed. He said something along the lines that accepting foreign information about a political opponent "undercuts the very basis of our democracy". Zero explanation of why "listening" to a foreigner is in any way illegal (it isn't), or unethical, much less somehow damaging "our democracy". A corollary...

Digging up foreign dirt and paying for it—knowing it’s not true—is an Hillary Clinton and DNC speciality The big media and Democrat meltdown about President Donald Trump telling ABC vulture George Stephanopoulos that he would be open to accepting opposition research from foreign countries—with no obligation to tip off the FBI—is a classic case of the ridiculous meeting the sublime 101. “A defiant President Trump pushed back Thursday against the outrage over his comments that he would be open to accepting opposition research from individuals from foreign countries, arguing he should have no obligation to call the FBI in certain...