John Podesta, troll hunter, uses The Washington Post to exorcise his demons.


John “Don’t Call Me A Molesta” Podesta went on a tiresome rant at this Democratic cubbyhole, The Washington Post, yesterday.


His spiel, titled “Trump wants to upend 230 years of constitutional principle,” is a rote litany of DNC/Hillary-endorsed talking points that circularly reinforce their “credibility” by citing presumptions that assuage the leftist agenda.  It’s a very recursive argumentative tool.


Podesta apparently saw fit to emerge from the malevolent depths of his coffined slumber in order to address this long-overdue action against his Democratic *co-whore-ts*.


The peering spotlight has swung a little too brazenly in his direction for comfort, so now he feels impelled to take to his custom-made pulpit ensconced at the great purveyor of liberal pablum, his overt MSM mouthpiece, The Washington Post.


And on and on he goes.



I have been one of the favorite targets of the latter. Whenever Trump gets close to Putin, as he did in Vietnam this weekend, and is asked about Russian efforts to help elect him and damage Hillary Clinton by, among other things, criminally hacking my personal email account, he responds by asking: What about the Clintons? What about John Podesta? The Justice Department should look into them.


“Whataboutism” is reliably useful for triggering breathless speculation by the president’s allies on Fox News, in the alt-right media and among Russian trolls.


But what appeared to be a typically Trumpian media damage-control strategy has taken a more lawless and sinister turn. This week, it was reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions — in an apparent effort to appease Trump — is considering appointing a special counsel to investigate Clinton’s role in approving the purchase of Uranium One, a company that owned uranium mines in the United States, by Russia’s nuclear energy agency. This matter was thoroughly and exhaustively examined by the mainstream media during the 2016 campaign, leading to the definitive conclusion that Clinton played no role.



Mr. Podesta should keep in mind that this smirky “whataboutism” he goes on about is simply a resentful description of the course of formal, and informal, investigatory action that is triggered when a “non-friendly” political force seeks to circumvent normal avenues of establishment power, and its voices in the MSM, to address the blatant abuse of power and morals by a shady group of political hacks (the same ones who have hid behind the establishment’s insulated information channels in order to perpetuate their illicit stranglehold on political “legitimacy”).  In other words, Podesta’s and Clinton’s chickens are coming home to roost.   Except the chickens in this case are those nebulous “Russian trolls” which is a catchall term the Left defaults to whenever it seeks to escape blame or accountability.


It was the Russians is their tired mantra when trying to slither out of trouble.


If Podesta insists on bemoaning this alleged upending of 230 years of tradition, why doesn’t he tell us a little about the Left’s fixation with old statues, monuments and gender pronouns (going back a little further than 230 years!), as well as its shameless historical revisionism.