From An Angry Reader:

Sir, Your piece on political scandals is totally skewed of facts. The only so-called FISA-gate has been created by Trump’s lacky Nunes. Your writing of lies and inaccuracies only fuels the clueless base of this president. I don’t need to tell you what the real information about the Carter Page investigation reveals. The vomit you write is just total fantasy building up an immoral and totally unfit president. Hopefully you’ll come to your senses when all of these scumbags are thrown out of our White House. Kelly is on his way out along with two staffers. Forty plus other staffers still have no security clearances after more than a year. Nunes will be brought forth for obstruction of justice, not following his charge to investigate Russian interference, but trying to set up the Justice Department to eventually get rid of Dept. Attorney General Rosenstein. Your column was disgusting at best and a total disgrace to factual journalism. Jack Sweeney

_____________________________________________

Dear Quite Angry Reader Jack Sweeney,

Please calm down. I don’t think in my article I let emotions run wild as did you. Why so angry?

Let me address your outrages in the order you rant:

1) If you believe my analysis is devoid of facts, then by all means present factual refutation of the article. I am always eager to hear more information and will stand corrected.

2) FISA-gate was not created by Rep. Devin Nunes, who years ago warned the Obama Administration about the dangers of Russian hacking and cyber-warfare. Do you seriously believe that Nunes paid Fusion/GPS to collect fantasies about Donald Trump during the campaign, or he peddled such information to the FBI, or used it without full acknowledgment of its nature to spy on an American citizen with permission from a FISA court, or requested surveillance transcripts, unmasked the names, and leaked them to the press? Did he fire top FBI people or force them to retire or be reassigned, or force the same among Obama-holdovers at the DOJ?

3) Again, what is your purpose to allege “lies” and “inaccuracies” without citing facts and details?

4) An argument does not need hyped adjectives and nouns such as lackey, lies, clueless, vomit, scumbags, etc. They are poor substitutions for analysis.

5) There certainly have been departures of Trump political appointees from the White House reflecting the lack of prior political experience and a general amateurishness, but what is the excuse for the string of similar resignations, firings, and reassignments at the FBI and DOJ of permanent and professional lawyers and analysts?

6) Nunes was referred to the House Ethics Committees by leftwing groups for political purposes and to delay the investigation into Obama Administration wrongdoing. He was cleared of all charges by a bipartisan membership. Do you dispute that? He will likely be seen as one of the few who was willing to challenge the FBI, CIA, and DOJ. And without his efforts to subpoena and obtain repressed documents, we likely would never have known who paid for the Steele dossier or that it was used to spy on citizens and leak their names to the press, in efforts to thwart a campaign for president.

7) Nunes has expressed no animosity toward Rosenstein—and no desire, even if it were in his power, to see him removed. But that said, we still wish to know why Rosenstein signed a DOJ FISA request using a document whose origins and authorship were never fully disclosed to the court, and which was not used to demonstrate collusion but to leak supposedly incriminating details to the press to affect an election and presidential transition.

8) When I read invective like yours (disgusting, disgrace, etc.) in lieu of a rational argument, I conclude my analysis hit home and required adolescent slurs rather than reasoned analysis. Try to calm down a bit, look at things in perspective, imagine counter-arguments, and don’t work yourself into a self-induced mania. Time will tell, and eventually all the facts will emerge and we will separate the guilty chaff from the innocent wheat. If it turns out that Mueller finds indictable evidence that President Trump made deals with the Russians, quid pro quo style, to defeat Hillary Clinton in exchange for concession, and Trump is convicted by a jury of his peers, and that there is nothing to Clinton/GPS Fusion/Steel collusion with Russian sources to derail the Trump campaign, as well as improper communications and actions by the Obama White House, then I will be the first to offer a correction.

Victor Hanson