As we reported Tuesday night, the national security adviser [Gen. Michael Flynn] has resigned because the Trump administration says it lost confidence in him.
The story is a bit complicated but it boils down to this:
Flynn had phone contact with the Russian ambassador in late December while Barack Obama was still president.
According to leaks from the intelligence agencies, Flynn discussed Mr. Obama's sanctions against Russia.
Then General Flynn denied that to Vice President Mike Pence.
The FBI also interviewed General Flynn and, if he lied to them, that would be a crime.
However, that's a big IF.
It is not a crime for Mr. Flynn to informally talk with the Russian Ambassador before Donald Trump took office, but it is highly inappropriate if policy was discussed.
So at this point, Flynn is out and it looks like retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward will take his place.
Admiral Harward is 60-years-old, has extensive military experience and served in Afghanistan.
Looks like a solid choice, but you never know.
By the way, the FBI is still investigating the whole Russian situation but that's all we know at this point.
But lack of facts doesn't stop the anti-Trump press from whipping up hysteria.
There are two things in play.
First, the Trump-haters are fervently hoping that they can link the Trump campaign to the Russian hackers who disrupted the Clinton campaign.
That's the ultimate goal for the haters.
If they cannot achieve that, they would like to have General Flynn tell the world that Donald Trump ordered him to call the Russian ambassador.
So that's the media game plan.
Now on Tuesday the bombast on our cable competition was actually humorous.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman compared the Russian hacking to war:
“We have never taken seriously from the very beginning, Russia hacked our election. That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.”
Here's how crazy that statement is. Say President Trump declared war on Russia, as we did after Pearl Harbor, would Thomas Friedman support that?
Of course not.
So this is just madness.
However, the anti-Trump media loves this kinda stuff.
Let me give you another very simple example, and it has to do with speculation.
Here's what Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor asked a guest, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) “Do you think Flynn acted alone when he made that phone call to the Russian ambassador in Washington?”
“I don't think that anything in Washington happens alone.”
Now that man, Congressman Seth Moulton, is a Trump hater.
Also, he has no blanking idea whether General Flynn acted alone. He couldn't possibly know.
Wolf Blitzer, who is generally responsible, asked a speculative question based on nothing.
There could not have been any credible answer that shed light on the Flynn situation.
So why bother with this nutty speculation?
The answer is there are millions of Trump haters who will sit there hour after hour after hour and watch this kind of bilge.
And that's why they do it.
Summing up, there is no credible evidence at this point that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russians in the hacking of the Clinton campaign. None.
There is no credible evidence that General Flynn was directed to do anything.
Yet the anti-Trump media spends hours talking trash.
One footnote, hard news reporters should be looking into all the Russian intrusions including the Flynn situation.
And if those reporters uncover evidence of wrongdoing, it should be presented.
But speculation by the media is garbage.
Adapted from Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo on February 15.