McGahn & Mueller
 
One of the main media narratives is that President Trump has tried to cover up all the alleged wrongdoing that stemmed from his supposed collusion with Russia.  That is the basis for the obstruction of justice charge that now animates the Mueller investigation.    But that narrative took a big hit this weekend.
 
The New York Times broke a surprising report alleging that White House Counsel Don McGahn has "cooperated extensively" with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  In three interviews, McGahn provided a total of 30 hours of testimony to Mueller's team. 
 
Is this a case of another attorney turning on the president?  Not exactly.  You have to read deep into the report before you stumble on a couple of central points. 
 
According to the Times, "Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities."  In other words, he did not witness any obstruction.
 
In addition, McGahn's lawyer, William A. Burck, tells the Times, "President Trump . . . declined to assert any privilege over Mr. McGahn's testimony." 
 
In other words, the president did not claim attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.  He has fully cooperated with the investigation.  That does not sound like the action of someone who is desperately trying to hide something.
 
The president reiterated these points in a tweet Saturday evening:
 
"I allowed White House Counsel Don McGahn, and all other requested members of the White House Staff, to fully cooperate with the Special Counsel.  In addition we readily gave over one million pages of documents.  Most transparent in history.  No Collusion, No Obstruction.  Witch Hunt!"
 
 
 
Clapper Slaps Brennan
 
As you know, President Trump revoked former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance last week due to Brennan's repeated vitriolic attacks against the administration.  Given Brennan's repeated difficulty telling the truth (here and here), there are many people who believe his clearance should have been revoked a long time ago.
 
Predictably, the liberal media took up Brennan's cause and attempted to portray him as a martyr.  But there are some former intelligence officials who think Brennan has crossed the line and damaged the reputation of the intelligence community in the process.
 
For example, James Clapper, President Obama's director of national intelligence, said this when asked about Brennan's remarks:
 
"I think John is subtle like a freight train. . .  But John and his rhetoric have become, I think, an issue in and of itself."
 
Admiral Mike Mullen, who served as Obama's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this: 
 
"I think [Brennan] has been incredibly critical of the president, and I think that has put him in a political place which actually does more damage for the intelligence community -- which is apolitical." 
 
 
 
Trump Fights Censorship
 
President Trump took to Twitter Saturday to again castigate the big social media firms for censoring conservative views.  The president tweeted:
 
"Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others. . ."
 
While I don't know for sure, I suspect what prompted the president's tweet was the news Friday afternoon that respected conservative commentator Dennis Prager, who is already fighting censorship on YouTube, was suddenly being blocked on Facebook too.  None of his most recent posts were visible to his fans and two videos were taken down.
 
As I have written before, this is an extremely serious issue, and we shouldn't be distracted by Alex Jones.  Big Tech claims to be policing its platforms, purging "fake news" and fringe conspiracy theories. 
 
But there is no justification for the social media assault on Dennis Prager.  And the point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that is not favored speech. 
 
The social media censorship is part of the left's all-out war to control the public debate.  It's no coincidence that all of these social media platforms are owned by leftists. 
 
Normal conservative ideas are increasingly labeled "fascist" and "hate speech."  They are being made inexpressible.  But it is hard to win a debate if your voice can't even be heard.
 
These companies claim they are not media, but just platforms for folks to express their views.  They are the technological equivalent of a public park where people can enter and speak. 
 
But then they turn around and censor the views of half the country that shares conservative values.  They are trying to have it both ways.
 
Diamond and Silk, two pro-Trump black women, were labeled "unsafe to the community" and banned from Facebook. 
 
Twitter does absolutely nothing about Sarah Jeong's anti-white, anti-police bigotry.  But it quickly shut down a conservative black woman who edited and reposted Jeong's disgusting tweets.
 
There is still radical Islamic material all over social media platforms.  But if you dare to criticize radical Islam, you'll get banned.
 
Years ago, progressives were deeply concerned about the influence of William Randolph Hearst and his media empire that once reached 20 million people.  The social media collective of Google, Facebook and Twitter has far more power than Hearst could have ever dreamed of.