polecat news and views: April 2019

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Victor Davis Hanson: “It was a coup attempt to destroy the presidency…”

Posted by Mike LaChance

Hanson on Trump, Mueller, Democrats, the media, and the deep state

Last week as the Mueller Report was about to drop, Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution and the National Review Institute was interviewed by The Epoch Times as part of their American Thought Leaders series. He offered his thoughts on the Mueller investigation, the Trump presidency, and much more.

Hanson takes us back to the earliest whispers of Russia and walks us through the maddening series of attempts to prevent Trump from becoming president, even after he won the election. You may have forgotten some of the crazier details, such as the effort to get copies of the Steele dossier to members of the Electoral College.

Hanson has forgotten nothing, and his analysis cuts like a knife despite his cool demeanor.

Hanson begins by summarizing how things got started.

The Epoch Times provides a transcript:

I think we’re gonna get the Mueller report today or tomorrow. But if you were to summarize the Mueller investigation, there’s a lot of ways to look at it, but I think the best is that there were people within the United States government–the director of the FBI, James Comey; the director of the CIA, John Brennan; the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper; the deputy director; and an array of others; and then NSC and the DOJ who felt A: that Hillary Clinton was going to win. They had followed the analytics and the polls–90 percent surety.

But they felt as an insurance policy that Donald Trump for a variety of reasons–culturally, politically, socially–was unacceptable as president. And the very thought that he could be president was so foreign and disruptive that they felt they had a higher duty, a higher loyalty to stop that. So what did they do? They started to surveil his campaign, and they put informants we know into his campaign.

Hanson suggests that when Trump won, actors in this conspiracy decided their only way out was to go deeper:

Then when Trump did the unthinkable, he won both in anger at that fact but also as a preemptive defense of their behavior. You see, because you’ve got to remember the dialectic would have been “President Clinton, look at all I did for you. I should be rewarded. I went beyond the call of duty.” And now the mentality went “My gosh, I’ve got legal exposure. So we’ve got to press further.”

So then it was a methodology of getting more FISA requests and disrupting the transition. And then finally the act that resulted in the Mueller commission, and then to dethrone. And then finally the larger context of this was when he was elected there was an effort to sue three states for the voting machines and nullify the election. There was a sustained effort to give the Steele dossier to the electors and to persuade the electors not to vote according to their constitutional mandates.

He eventually calls this what it was. An attempted coup:

This is in addition to the Stormy Daniels psychodrama, the Michael Cohen, the tax returns–so there’s been a sustained effort not to wait until 2020, but to remove the president of the United States under the idea that we are so moral and anointed unelected officials, we have a duty to somebody higher than the American people. And boil that down and it was a coup attempt to destroy the presidency before its tenure had expired.

And that’s just the first ten minutes. The full interview lasts 49 minutes, and I highly recommend watching the whole thing. If you prefer, you can read the entire transcript here.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/victor-davis-hanson-it-was-a-coup-attempt-to-destroy-the-presidency/

Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 4/30/2019

Trump’s actions, policies: Russia

With the rodeo behind us, attention now turns to the Tehama District Fair, opening this Thursday, May 2. It’s the first early May schedule; attendees, vendors and all involved will weigh in. I’ll see it from the perspective of the Republican Party and Republican Women Federated of Tehama County booth.

Look for our canopy and signs in an outdoor spot rather than the commercial building. Local Republican volunteers are looking forward to shaking hands, exchanging views and offering Trump and Republican items. No election means we can focus on camaraderie and joy over what has been a wild but fulfilling ride with our President; however, California Republicans have little to brag about. Cheers for Tehama County and its 65 percent Trump vote.

Can we be frank about actual policy vis-à-vis Russia, after the so-called “Russia collusion” hoax fades from most Democrats’ narrative? Talk is cheap, as they say, but actions matter; while President Trump’s verbiage is not Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly”, he certainly wields a Teddy-like “big stick”.

What, or rather whose, policies on Russia have effectively countered Putin’s goals? Walter Russell Mead wrote in 2017: “If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing: 1) Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could, 2) Blocking oil and gas pipelines, 3) Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions, 4) Cutting U.S. military spending and 5) Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran.

“That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice.

“Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman. Trump does none of these things and has embarked on a course that will inexorably weaken Russia’s position in the world, and the media, suddenly flushing eight years of Russia dovishness down the memory hole, now sounds the false warning that Trump’s Russia policy is treasonously soft.”

Congressman Mark Green (R-TN) wrote a pointed Wall Street Journal piece, “Democrats, Join Trump Against Russian Aggression—His administration has been tough on Moscow’s meddling, both in U.S. elections and abroad” (March 24): “Democrats talk tough about getting to the bottom of election meddling and standing up to Russia as a threat, while we—including the president—have acted to counter its aggression.”

Yes, Mueller indicted 13 Russians over election meddling; ineffectual, as they will never be in a U.S. courtroom. Russian-sponsored Facebook ads and social media efforts amounted to a rounding error—and changed no votes—in the vast, billion-dollar election campaigns. Those are facts, puffed up descriptions in Mueller’s report aside. Russia’s intentions: create dissension and division targeting both sides (pro-/anti-Trump), including appeals based on race and the environment.

It's embarrassing and shameful that the political, cultural and media left hurl calumny and accusations at their political enemies based on the fallacious “Steele Dossier” and lies from Comey, Clapper and Brennan et al. Is there any hope that these people, including some letter writers, will accept blame and strive for reconciliation? I doubt it; the virtual civil war between right and left transcends Trump.

Trump has engaged in actions, not words, that are “designed to weaken Mr. Putin on the world’s stage…sanctions for violating nonproliferation laws by supporting weapons programs in Iran, Syria and North Korea…and more sanctions in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its continuing occupation of Crimea…In 2017, he expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers and ordered consulates to close after Russia used a military-grade chemical weapon in the U.K. Mr. Trump even blocked Mr. Putin’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline [worth hundreds of millions of dollars for Russia].”

In the first half of 2018, the Russian ruble declined 9 percent against the dollar; Russia’s economy is expected to grow an anemic 1.3 percent in 2019. Obama did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014; under Trump, America’s military killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria (and) gave weapons to Ukraine to protect against Russian attacks. Compare that to the silly cries that Trump is Putin’s stooge.

Back to W.R. Mead’s article: “Trump Isn’t Sounding Like a Russian Mole—Trump’s core global strategy is intended to destroy any illusions in Moscow that Russia is a peer competitor of Washington’s.”

“The liberal media hate Trump more than they have hated any American politician in a generation, and they do not understand his supporters or the sources of his appeal.” The political and media leftists don’t comprehend that they are, by their blind hatred and anathema for Trump and his supporters, setting future liberals and progressives up for wide ridicule, not unlike the proverbial “boy who cried wolf.”

Their credibility has been married to a narrative that turns out to be laughably untrue. By hiding facts from Americans that 1) make Democrats look bad, and 2) make the media themselves uncomfortable, they will never regain the trust of wide swaths of conservative, even moderate, Americans.

With Democrats, it appears to be lies, first, last and throughout. Joe Biden launched his candidacy recycling the dastardly lie that Trump had kind words for white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Lie #2: Obama’s term was devoid of scandal or corruption. Disagree? I’ll prove it.

Which brings us to “Democrats in 2020: Unelectable Nonentities,” by Conrad Black. He disposes of each current candidate with ruthless sarcasm and ridicule. It’s worth looking up for sheer entertainment.

I leave you with “Four Reasons Why the Dems Will Lose in 2020,” by Dennis Lund. 1) Overplaying Their Hand; 2) A Radical Agenda; 3) Anti-American Perception; and 4) The Economy is Humming.

Why Obama and Clinton Tweeted About ‘Easter Worshippers,’ Not Christians

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager @DennisPrager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU.

Sometimes, a few sentences tell you more about a person—and, more importantly, an ideology—than a learned thesis.

That is the case with tweets from Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama two days ago in response to the mass murder of more than 300 Christians and others in Sri Lanka.

Their tweets are worth serious analysis because they reveal a great deal about the left. Of course, they reveal a great deal about Clinton and Obama, too, but that doesn’t interest me.

And that, too, is important. Many Americans—especially conservatives and “independents”—are more interested in individual politicians than in political ideologies.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Many conservatives have long been fixated on Clinton—so much so that probably any other Democrat would have defeated Donald Trump, as conservative anger specifically toward her propelled many people to the polls.

Similarly, Republican Never-Trumpers are fixated on Trump rather than policy. They care more about Trump’s personal flaws than about the mortal dangers the left poses to America and the West or about the uniquely successful conservative policies Trump promulgates.

And independents all claim to vote “for the person, not the party.”

Only leftists understand that one must vote left no matter who the Democrat is, no matter who the Republican opponent is. Leftists are completely interchangeable: There is no ideological difference among the 20 or so Democrats running for president. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not one degree to the right of Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.

That is why it is important to understand Clinton and Obama’s tweets: to understand the left, not to understand her or him.

Here are the tweets:

Obama: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”

Three hours later, Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”

As they both spelled “worshipers” the same idiosyncratic way and used the term “Easter worshippers,” it is likely they either had the same writers or Clinton copied Obama.

Here’s what’s critical: Neither used the word “Christians.” And in order to avoid doing so, they went so far as to make up a new term—”Easter worshippers”—heretofore unknown to any Christian.

When Jews were murdered at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Clinton mentioned the synagogue in a tweet. But in her post-Sri Lanka tweet, despite the bombing of three churches filled with Christians, Clinton made no mention of church or churches.

In a tweet after the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, she wrote that her heart broke for “the global Muslim community.” But in her latest tweet, not a word about Christians or the global Christian community.

Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his tweet about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.

The reason neither of them mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa, and anywhere else.

This is part of the same phenomenon—that I and others have documented—of British police and politicians covering up six years of rape of 1,400 English girls by Muslim “grooming gangs” in Rotherham and elsewhere in England.

Essentially, the left’s rule is that nothing bad—no matter how true—may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing good—no matter how true—may be said of Christians or Christianity.

Clinton’s post-New Zealand tweet also included these words: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”

She made sure to condemn “Islamophobia,” but she wrote not a word about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the Muslim world, seen in Muslims’ virtual elimination of the Christian communities in the Middle East, the regular murder and kidnappings of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and the murder of Christians in Nigeria.

She calls on “leaders everywhere” to condemn “white supremacist terrorists,” one of the smallest hate groups on Earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists, the largest hate group on Earth.

These two tweets tell you a lot about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But far more importantly, they tell you a lot about the left.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/23/why-obama-and-clinton-tweeted-about-easter-worshippers-not-christians

Monday, April 29, 2019

Did Mueller jump or was he pushed?

By Jay Latimer

Dedicated armchair observers of insider Washington political maneuvers make a hobby of reading the tea leaves. Like the lethal version in "Game of Thrones," nothing happens by chance; there is always an underlying strategy to every decision.
Which begs the question: Why did Mueller decide to bring his investigation to a close now? Some observers thought it could go on for years — why end it before Trump's term ends? Why end it at all?

My initial reaction, like others, was that Mueller completed his report because he was finished. There were no more leads to follow, and so Mueller decided on his own to voluntarily end it. But on further consideration this seems very naïve.
Mueller and his team of rabid anti-Trumpers had every incentive to keep going indefinitely. The very existence of the Mueller investigation cast a cloud over the Trump presidency. Like every other effort from the #NeverTrump Swamp, they were seeking to hamstring Trump at every turn. Having an ongoing investigation was a valuable weapon in the anti-Trump arsenal. Why give it up?

The idea that Mueller somehow ran out of things to investigate doesn't hold water.  Mueller and his team knew over a year ago (if not on day one) that there was no Trump/Russia connection.  Mueller could have continued to chum the water by looking into Trump's finances or picked a few other minor players on the Trump team to harass and torture with nighttime SWAT team raids and long stints in solitary confinement.  They spent the last year doing just that.
And crucially, keeping the Mueller Investigation open gave the Swamp denizens in the FBI and CIA a legal rationale to deny access to documents that would uncover their spying on the Trump campaign.  As long as Mueller was working, all those pesky requests from congressional investigators like Devin Nunes could be stonewalled.  The Mueller investigation was the best defense that Swampgate had.
And now, with the Mueller investigation closed, the Swamp is exposed — they no longer have an excuse to avoid revealing documents that could incriminate them.  From that perspective, ending the investigation looks like legal suicide.  Why do it?
It may be that William Barr's arrival signaled an adult in the room.  Finally, an attorney general willing to hold Mueller's feet to the fire.  But I doubt this, as Mueller could have fought back against Barr, or at least held out for another year.  With less than two years left in Trump's term, Mueller's team could hope to run out the clock, thus hiding their own culpability in Swampgate forever.
No, there was some other reason.  My guess is the Horowitz Report.  This may be wishful thinking, but there are whispers that the Horowitz Report will be a very damning document, finally revealing the details of Swampgate — how the Obama administration weaponized the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign and undermine the Trump Presidency with a made-up Russia narrative.
If so, the Horowitz Report would destroy Mueller's credibility and that of the Russia investigation once and for all.  And knowing it was about to drop would give Mueller every incentive to finish up his own report and get it out fast before the proverbial s--- hit the fan.  Realizing his time is now limited, Mueller raced to publish his report now, while still unsullied by other charges.
Wishful thinking?  Or reading too much into mere tea leaves?  Only time will tell, once we see what's in the Horowitz Report.
Jay Latimer is an international businessman, writer, and investor who has worked in investment banking in New York, Hong Kong, and Beijing.