Here are my observations and opinions on my selected news of the day.

GOOD NEWS – An establishment figure of “Old Washington,” DNI Director Dan Coats, 76, is stepping down amid rumors that he and the president have been at odds over Russia and North Korea.

It has also been said that Coats was disappointed in the president’s attacks on the intelligence community. However, with a virtual coup by a number of individuals within intelligence, supported by some with Obama Deep State links, what would Coats expect?

“When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.” – Winston S. Churchill

President Trump plans to nominate Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas as the next DNI. A former U.S. attorney and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, his questioning of Robert Mueller at last week’s hearing was memorable.

THOSE TWEETS KNOCKING MUELLER – In Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.’s Wall Street Journal column Saturday, he related an interesting exchange between Trump Lawyer John Dowd and Byron York of the Washington Examiner.

How did those tweets set/sit with Mueller? “Bob (Mueller) was a big boy about the political side of it,” said Dowd, “He understood the president had to address the politics of the (collusion investigation). People were pounding him (Trump about this thing every day, both privately and publicly, and he had to take (Mueller) on.”

“(Trump survived) the most concerted delegitimization campaign any president has ever faced,” writes Jenkins. “He was under attack from day one from partisan and media enemies who promoted the Russia collusion theory without especially caring whether it was true.

“He had every reason to wonder (and still does) whether he was getting a fair shake from the FBI and intelligence agencies.

“Don’t kid yourself: Obama veterans played and continue to play key roles in the Trump delegitimization campaign, including as members of the Mueller team.”

CAN WE PUT THE COLLUSION CHARGE TO BED? Except for the investigating maniacs on the left, here are some views to consider.

“Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton.” – Lauren Carroll, PolitiFact, December 1, 2016

“We were frankly more concerned with the run up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of, and we’re confident we can guard against.” – President Obama, December 13, 2016

“They (Russians) did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.” – James Clapper, January 5, 2017

Knowing that, why was Robert Mueller appointed special counsel on May 17, 2017 to conduct a “full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?”

After repeated questioning, Mueller refused to say when he realized that there was no collusion. I believe it was to give his leftist team time to assemble the smear campaign contained in Volume Two of the report.

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.” – Attorney General William P. Barr, March 24, 2019

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Mueller Report, March 24, 2019

BEWARE BALLOT HARVESTING – While having lunch with one of my readers last week, she gave me a newsletter from the American Civil Rights Union Action Fund that she thought I might find of interest.

Normally, anything with “civil rights” in the title turns me off because it tends to be more nonsense from the leftist social justice crowd, but as a true conservative, I knew she wouldn’t insult my intelligence.

The ACRU Action letter was a warning about ballot harvesting. I was only vaguely familiar with it before reading about the left’s absentee ballot scheme hatched in California.

Prior to the 2018 midterms, seven Republicans had the lead in California congressional districts, only to lose their races weeks later after the absentee ballots were counted. I was familiar with Republican Young Kim, who was poised to become the first Korean-American woman elected to Congress.

She was ahead by four points the day after the election and most of the major news outlets declared her the winner. She even flew to Washington DC to attend orientation classes for new members of Congress.

However, three weeks later, after the absentee ballots were counted, the race had flipped, and Kim’s four-point victory turned to a three-point loss.

This wasn’t an ordinary absentee ballot issue. Before the midterms, California Democrats passed a law that would permit a practice known as ballot harvesting.

Here’s how it works. First, the state sent mail-in ballots to every registered voter, whether they asked for it or not. Then, campaign operatives, union activists, and community organizers are permitted to go door-to-door to collect (or harvest) the mail-in-ballots on behalf of voters.

Anyone can walk into an elections office and hand over truckloads of mail-in ballots, no questions asked. They don’t need to provide documentation or proof that the votes they are turning in are legitimate.

What’s to stop the campaign official from collecting blank ballots from voters and filling them out himself? Or, what’s to stop a community organizer from collecting thousands of ballots and then throwing out the votes for Republicans?

Clearly, this is an open invitation to commit voter fraud.

And Democrats accuse Republicans of voter suppression.

                         May God continue to bless the United States of America.