Obstruction? Ask Democrats about 'obstruction'

Every day, the media attack President Trump, in their collusion with the Democrats.

This week, they are claiming that Trump is obstructing justice because he tweeted that he wishes Attorney General Jeff Sessions would end the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation.

Yet if we want to talk about obstruction of justice, there's no better place to go than the Democrats themselves.  One of the big Democrats, President Obama, said publicly that there was "not a smidgen" of evidence that Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization chief Lois Lerner, or other IRS employees, did anything wrong when they clearly targeted political opponents of Obama.  In the aftermath, Obama's Justice Department dutifully didn't charge anyone.

Obama said he didn't think his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton, did anything real bad when she violated the nation's security laws.  Obama's Justice Department dutifully did everything not to charge Hillary, her aides, or Obama himself, who all clearly violated these laws.

Obama obviously made sure that people who were guilty were not charged, yet where were the media in calling him out on obstruction?

It is absolutely clear that Mueller has no evidence on Trump that would be a violation of the law, so shouldn't the fishing expedition end?  There is no obstruction if there is no underlying crime.

We are also hearing on a daily basis how Russia is trying to mislead the public on the upcoming election through social media and elsewhere.  Isn't that what most of the media do every day?  They intentionally are colluding with Democrats by pushing Democratic Party talking points in a misleading way to trash Trump and try to get other Democrats elected.

There are many such examples.

For two years, they pushed the fake Russian collusion story with no actual evidence.  They intentionally downplayed the fake dossier, where the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the Obama White House, the Justice Department, and the intelligence agencies all colluded and conspired to let Hillary off and to throw the book at Trump.  They obviously knew there was no collusion, or they would have also monitored Hillary and her people.  And if they had better information than scurrilous opposition research motivated by partisan politics, you can bet they would have used that instead.

They called Trump a traitor simply because he talked to Russia's President Vladimir Putin, yet they never gave a damn when Obama said he would be flexible with Russia or when he authorized $1.8 billion in unmarked bills in the middle of the night to be shipped to Iran, which still pledges death to America and death to Israel.

Today's good economic news is glossed over with future predictions of doom, and with some even claiming that Obama is the one who deserves credit.  That is intentionally misleading and stupid.

Trump is labeled a racist for seeking to enforce laws Congress passed and for having more screening from just six countries that Obama labeled as being major sources of terrorism.

Children of people who cross the U.S. border illegally have been separated from their lawbreaking hosts for years, including by Obama, but not once do I remember Hollywood or the media calling Obama a racist who hates children.

Obama illegally surveilled journalists Sharyl Attkisson and James Rosen, as well as Fox News and the Associated Press frequently, so where was the outrage?

The media, in conjunction with Democrats, ginned up racial hate after an incident in Ferguson, Missouri with the clearly fake "hands up, don't shoot" narrative and ginned up more hate when Trump said there were good people on both sides of the issue in Charlottesville, Virginia.  It was clear he was talking about the issue of taking down Confederate statues and not defending Nazis or the KKK.  Democrats always pretend they want to unite the country, but their actions are always to divide.  Antifa is a radical dangerous far-left organization, and the media rarely condemn them.

Why didn't we see the protests about statues during Obama's eight years?  Doesn't it show that the outrage is fake when protests all of a sudden happen after a century of standing, with things changing only after Trump got elected?  Does that look like spontaneous protests or planned activism by groups to gin up hate against Trump?

The protesters are seeking to take down statues of generals and of founding fathers, but we hear nothing about taking down references or statues of KKK leader Robert Byrd and racist Margaret Sanger.  It seems as though the outrage is selective, which means it is mostly fake.

Margaret Sanger supported eugenics and abortion in order to build a cleaner race.  She wanted to dispose of inferior races and those who were mentally and physically disabled, which is why Planned Parenthood was founded.  Not only don't we see protests against Sanger, but we actually see someone from the New York Times suggesting that more statues should go up to honor her.  That is disgusting.

Today the media are highlighting that Ivanka Trump disagrees with her father on a couple of things.  I was shocked, because all children agree with everything their parents do, right?  The media probably don't understand because everyone Obama surrounded himself with, including the media, agreed with everything he did and said exactly what he wanted them to say.  No wonder there was so little success in Obama's eight years: everyone was a yes man.

This brings us back to Mueller.  Why is this useless, hypocritical operation, cheered by Democrats, still around?

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/obstruction_ask_democrats_about_obstruction.html