Monday, September 4, 2017

CNN Silent After Host 'Incited Rage' at Antifa Rally in Berkeley


CNN Silent After Host 'Incited Rage' at Antifa Rally in Berkeley

 
BY DEBRA HEINE 
CNN host W. Kamau Bell speaks at Antifa rally in Berkeley.
CNN host W. Kamau Bell speaks at Antifa rally in Berkeley. (Screenshot)
A CNN host spoke to a cheering Antifa crowd at the violent “No Hate in the Bay” rally in Berkeley, California, over the weekend, and now CNN is dodging questions about it.
W. Kamau Bell, who fronts a show on CNN called the “United Shades of America,” grabbed a bullhorn at the rally and bellowed that "when the Nazis leave, as they have left…you have to stand up for the brown people, the black people, the LGBT people, the immigrants–everybody everyday!” The mob roared in approval.
Bell later took to Twitter to describe his experience speaking at the event:
The "No Hate" rally was organized in opposition to two conservative groups ("No Marxism in America" and “Patriot Prayer”) that were going to hold rallies that weekend but cancelled out of safety concerns.
The leaders of both groups have denounced neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Violent Antifa protesters chased, harassed, spat on, and viciously assaulted the few conservatives who were in attendance at the rally on Sunday. They attacked journalists as well.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson took CNN to task on his show Thursday night, pointing out that Bell offered encouragement to the black-clad Antifa mob that attacked innocent people for no other reason than that they "might have voted for Donald Trump."
He "calls himself a political provocateur but that doesn't quite capture it," Carlson said. "In fact, he is a supporter of Antifa."
Tucker recounted how the Antifa mob attacked “Patriot Prayer” founder Joey Gibson, a political moderate: "They knocked him off his feet, pepper-sprayed him, smashed him in the head with a pole," he said.
"Last night we talked to man called Keith Campbell. He's not a Nazi, either. He just happened to be standing at the event with a camera. Antifa thugs knocked him to the ground and began pummeling him. They might have killed him if a conscientious liberal hadn't shielded Campbell with his body."
Carlson argued that the reason the two men were attacked was because "they believe in American ideas like free speech and free association." He said antifa doesn't believe in those things and that's why they attacked. "They hate this country. They want to tear it down. They are totalitarian in their beliefs and in their aims," Carlson declared.
None of that mattered to Bell, Carlson said. "He's happy to stand up on stage and call his opponents Nazis. That's not a label you use on people you want to debate. It's a label you use to incite rage."
Carlson pointed out that his program would be cancelled immediately if he spoke at a right-wing version of Bell's rally -- "where right-wingers in masks tried to kill people they disagreed with -- Hillary voters maybe, and then afterward we  issued a statement saying we were just working on behalf of whites, Christians, gun owners, taxpayers, maybe even some black people -- especially those who voted Republican. How would that go over?  This show would be canceled quickly and it would deserve to be canceled."
"If you're not willing to say you want a world safe for all Americans equally, you are peddling hate, and Bell is," Carlson said, pointing to Bell's written statement after the rally which lauded the causes of "black" and "brown" people in his words.
Carlson said he contacted contacted CNN to see if they had a response to "one of their anchors stoking violent extremism as a side gig," and had gotten no response so far.
He also invited Bell to appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight "to see if he'd be willing to defend what he did. He wasn't."


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 3, 2017

A Simple Proof of the Insanity of Global Warming Hysteria

DA TECH GUY: A Simple Proof of the Insanity of Global Warming Hysteria.
When it comes to Hurricanes we have exact data that can be gleamed in real time of every aspect of a storm as it happens to add to the various computer models. Additionally we have live data dating back to the mid 19th century that has been studied by experts in the field for a century and a half to tell us how hurricanes have acted in the past including information made by first hand observation by the most advanced instruments available at the time.
Furthermore the computers now being used are leaps and bounds over machines of just a decade or two ago and unlike the mid 19th century we many venues all over the world that are a source of training in this information and an even larger pool of potential meteorologists available to allow those tasked with making these predictions to choose the very best.
Yet even with all of this, two weather services each with all the advantages listed, have 850 mile gap between where they think this storm will go over the next 72 hours.
Now as a person familiar with both mathematics and computer science, this variation is not odd, in fact it’s completely understandable. After all a computer model is based on the best possible guesses from the available data and hurricanes are “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” so there is nothing at all odd about there being a 850 mile variation as to where it will it. As we get closer to Sunday and we have true data to input the variation in the models will correspondingly decrease.
Now apply this to climate change models telling us we face disaster in 100 years.
Read the whole thing. A simpler explanation can be found in my old axiom: Hysteria is never whipped up for the benefit of the hysterical.
58 by Stephen Green
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/274418/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sorry, The 2016 Election Is Not Reversible

ANGELO CODEVILLA: Sorry, The 2016 Election Is Not Reversible.
Today, the bipartisan ruling class, which the electorate was trying to shed by supporting anti-establishment candidates of both parties in 2016, feels as if it has dodged the proverbial bullet. The Trump administration has not managed to staff itself—certainly not with anti-establishment people—and may never do so. Because the prospect of that happening brought the ruling class’s several elements together and energized them as never before, today, prospects of more power with fewer limits than ever eclipse the establishment’s fears of November 2016.
But the Left’s celebrations are premature, at best. As I explained a year ago, by 2016 the ruling class’s dysfunctions and the rest of the country’s resentment had pushed America over the threshold of a revolution; one in which the only certainty is the near impossibility of returning to the republican self-government of the previous two centuries. The 2016 election is not reversible, because it was but the first stage of a process that no one can control and the end of which no one can foresee.
Ruling classes seldom go quietly. Plus:
To ordinary Americans, the winds that now blow downwind from society’s commanding heights make the country seem more alien than ever before. More than ever, academics, judges, the media, corporate executives, and politicians of all kinds, having arrogated moral legitimacy to their own socio-political identities, pour contempt upon the rest of America. Private as well as public life in our time is subject to their escalating insults, their unending new conditions on what one may or may not say, even on what one must say, to hold a job or otherwise to participate in society.
As I have argued at length elsewhere, the cultural division between privileged, government-connected elites and the rest of the country has turned twenty-first century politics in America into a cold civil war between hostile socio-political identities.
Sadly, yes.
43 by Glenn Reynolds
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/274431/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

JUSTICE SCALIA ON “THE VERY HUMAN REALITIES” IN ARPAIO’S ARIZONA

Whichever way one comes down regarding President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I think it’s important to recognize the context in which Arpaio took the over-zealous law enforcement actions that led to his conviction. That context was described by Justice Scalia in his opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) in Arizona v. U.S., a decision that struck down in large measure an Arizona immigration enforcement law called S.B. 1070.
Justice Scalia wrote:
Today’s opinion, ap­proving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. . . .
Scalia added:
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona citizens for employment.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
(Emphasis added)
Scalia concluded with a question:
Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?
Of course not.
Daniel Horowitz, whose recent article invokes these words by Scalia, writes:
There is something fundamentally wrong when people delegitimize the pardon of one sheriff — whether you agree or disagree with Trump’s decision — but unquestionably support the de facto judicial pardons of millions of illegal aliens, including some of the most violent ones, even though courts manifestly lack such power.
Moreover, Obama illegally “pardoned” (plus gave affirmative benefits to) 900,000 illegal aliens, including the likes of Salvador Diaz-Garcia, who allegedly raped a 19-year old American and broke almost every bone in her face.
Of course, some strong critics of the Arpaio pardon did not support the de facto pardons Horowitz describes. For me, the story here is less about hypocrisy than about realizing what can easily happen when the federal government abrogates its duty to enforce laws that are vital to the safety and well-being of certain communities.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, September 2, 2017

NEW YORK TIMES UNDERCUTS CLAIM THAT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE

NEW YORK TIMES UNDERCUTS CLAIM THAT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE

The New York Times reports that special counsel Robert Mueller has obtained an “early draft” of President Trump’s letter stating the reasons for firing James Comey. Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman inform us that “the circumstances and reasons for the firing are believed to be a significant element of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, which includes whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice by firing Mr. Comey.”
The Times would love it if Mueller’s dream team of anti-Trump lawyers were to present an obstruction of justice claim against President Trump. However, the Times’ story undercuts such a claim — inadvertently, I assume.
Before explaining why, let’s discuss Trump’s “early draft.” I can’t discuss it much because Schmidt and Haberman say they have not seen it. Instead, they have interviewed “a dozen administration officials and others briefed on the matter.” Nothing in their report suggests the draft contains material that would support an obstruction of justice claim.
Schmidt and Haberman suggest the draft shows that Trump was angry with Comey for not saying publicly what he had told Trump privately — namely, that the president was not under investigation in the FBI’s continuing Russia inquiry. This is no scoop. Trump has basically said as much publicly, although the letter that effectuated Comey’s firing used a far less plausible rationale — namely that Deputy Attorney Rosenstein was unhappy with Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton matter.
In any event, it’s difficult to see a valid obstruction of justice claim arising from the discharge of Comey for refusing to inform the public that, at present, the U.S. president was not under investigation.
The real scoop in the Times’ story appears towards the end. Schmidt and Haberman write that on May 8:
Mr. McGahn [the White Counsel] gave Mr. Miller [a top Trump adviser who worked on the “early draft” letter] a marked-up copy of the letter, highlighting several sections that he believed needed to be removed.
Mr. McGahn met again that same day with Mr. Trump and told him that if he fired Mr. Comey, the Russia investigation would not go away. Mr. Trump told him, according to senior administration officials, that he understood that firing the F.B.I. director might extend the Russia investigation, but that he wanted to do it anyway.
(Emphasis added)
If Trump said this, then we should conclude that the firing of Comey was not an attempt to halt the Russia investigation. To the contrary, Trump made the move understanding that it might “extend” the investigation.
I’m not saying that it’s beyond the capability of Mueller’s dream team of anti-Trump lawyers to weave an obstruction of justice case against the president. I am suggesting that such a case likely would not pass the straight-face test.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

WAS IT A HACK OR A LEAK? (4)

WAS IT A HACK OR A LEAK? (4)

We have followed the argument presented by Patrick Lawrence in the Nation asserting that the alleged Russian hack of the DNC email was rather an inside job. Lawrence explored the findings of the analysis supporting the thesis Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016, but rather suffered an insider leak. Lawrence’s article is here; the most recent report with the analysis summarized by Lawrence is here. The analysis has been promoted by dissident former intelligence officials gathered under the umbrella of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Lawrence’s long article in the Nation called for a response of some kind by proponents of the Russia hacking conspiracy theory, but it has been greeted mostly by silence. I am not aware of any analysis directly disputing VIPS.
Since the publication of Lawrence’s long article in the NationThe VIPS analysis has been taken up by Leonid Bershidsky at Bloomberg View and by Danielle Ryan at Salon. The DNC itself responded to Lawrence’s article:
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.
Ryan rightly commented that the statement “is so lackluster it is almost laughable[.]” Students of logical fallacy may recognize both the argument from authority and the ad hominem in the three-sentence DNC statement. That is pathetic.
Philadelphia attorney George Parry takes up the VIPS analysis in his Philly.com column “Will special counsel Mueller examine the DNC server, source of the great Russiagate caper?” Parry prefaces his account of the VIPS analysis with a useful reminder of the origin story:
Much to the embarrassment of Hillary Clinton, the released [DNC email] files showed that the DNC had secretly collaborated with her campaign to promote her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination over that of Bernie Sanders. Clearly, the Clinton campaign needed to lessen the political damage. Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s public relations chief, said in a Washington Post essay in March that she worked assiduously during the Democratic nominating convention to “get the press to focus on … the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary.”
Thus was laid the cornerstone of the Trump-Russia-collusion conspiracy theory.
Since then, the mainstream media have created a climate of hysteria in which this unsubstantiated theory has been conjured into accepted truth. This has resulted in investigations by Congress and a special counsel into President Trump, his family, and his campaign staff for supposed collusion with the Russians.
But in their frenzied coverage, the media have downplayed the very odd behavior of the DNC, the putative target of the alleged hack. For, when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI learned of the hacking claim, they asked to examine the server. The DNC refused. Without explanation, it continues to deny law enforcement access to its server.
Why would the purported victim of a crime refuse to cooperate with law enforcement in solving that crime? Is it hiding something? Is it afraid the server’s contents will discredit the Russia-hacking story?
Parry also provides a good summary of the VIPS analysis. A friend comments and concludes with one more good question: “This entire business with Comey setting in motion the steps to get a special counsel named has not been sufficiently investigated. And this story makes it clear that the FBI was lackluster when it came to investigating the DNC. What is Attorney General Sessions doing?”
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

FBI fights public release of Trump dossier info

Byron York: FBI fights public release of Trump dossier info

by  

Senate investigators have had problems getting the FBI to reveal information about the Trump dossier. They're not the only ones. Outside groups filing Freedom of Information Act requests are running up against a stone wall when it comes to the dossier.
On March 8, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents regarding the bureau's contacts with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who dug for dirt in Russia on candidate Donald Trump in the months before the 2016 presidential election. Steele's effort was commissioned by the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, which at the time was being paid by still-unidentified Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton. Just weeks before the election, the FBI reportedly agreed to support Steele's oppo project — an extraordinary action in the midst of a campaign which Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said raised "questions about the FBI's independence from politics. So Judicial Watch asked the Justice Department for:
Any and all records of communications between any official, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer and the owner of the private firm Orbis Business Intelligence.
Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the proposed, planned, or actual payment of any funds to Mr. Steele and/or Orbis Business Intelligence. 

Any and all records produced in preparation for, during, or pursuant to any meetings or telephonic conversations between any official, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Christopher Steele and/or any employee or representative of Orbis Business Intelligence.
The idea was that the records would shed light on the basic questions regarding the dossier. Just what did the FBI do? Why? And — this is very important to Grassley — did the FBI ever use the "salacious and unverified" (the words of former FBI Director James Comey) information in the dossier as a basis for applying for warrants to put Americans under surveillance?
The Justice Department's response to Judicial Watch was simple: No. And not just no: The Department would not even confirm or deny whether any such documents or communications even existed.
So on May 16, Judicial Watch filed suit, seeking to force release of the information. In response, the department told Judicial Watch to forget about it. "Plaintiff's claims are moot," Justice lawyers wrote, "because Defendant has notified Plaintiff of its decision to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any responsive records, and the reasons for that decision."
The reasons the department referred to were contained in nearly identical letters sent to Judicial Watch on March 29 and May 16. "The nature of your request implicates records the FBI may or may not compile pursuant to its national security and foreign intelligence functions," a Justice Department FOIA official wrote. "Accordingly the FBI cannot confirm or deny the existence of any records about your subject as the mere acknowledgment of such records existence or nonexistence would in and of itself trigger harm to national security interests." The letter cited legal exemptions to FOIA based on national security.
"Moreover, as a federal law enforcement agency," the letter continued, "a confirmation by the FBI that it has or does not have responsive records would be tantamount to acknowledging the existence or nonexistence of a pending investigation it has not previously acknowledged."
The problem, of course, is that the FBI has already acknowledged the existence of a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump-Russia affair. Comey himself did it in Hill testimony on March 20, noting that it is not the Justice Department's usual practice to confirm such things, but the Trump-Russia matter was of such great public importance that Comey decided to go ahead:
As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize. This is one of those circumstances.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
As for the dossier itself, in public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, Comey specifically discussed briefing President-elect Trump on its contents in January.
And of course, the dossier, in all its "salacious and unverified" glory, was published in full by Buzzfeed.
Finally, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel in the case. The department announced the appointment publicly and released the document outlining Mueller's responsibilities.
These were not low-key, hush-hush actions. But apparently no one told the Justice Department's FOIA bureaucracy that the department and the FBI had, in a very big way, confirmed the existence of the Trump-Russia investigation.
In addition, there are indications that Mueller himself does not object to the public release of information regarding the dossier. The Senate Judiciary Committee has held so-called "deconfliction" meetings with Mueller's office in which officials discussed whether this or that aspect of the committee's investigation might interfere with Mueller's probe. (Such discussions are mostly a matter of courtesy, since the Senate can ultimately do what it wants.) It appears Mueller's office did not object to the Senate interviewing Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson, with the full knowledge that all or part of that interview might be publicly released. While it's not clear what Simpson told the committee — the public should hope it is released in full — given the committee chairman's concerns, it's guaranteed that Simpson was asked about Steele's interactions with the FBI.
But when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI is resisting the release of even the most basic information. "They're fighting us on everything," Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton told me recently. "They're fighting us tooth and nail."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, September 1, 2017

Scandal Erupts over the Promotion of ‘Bourgeois’ Behavior

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, ACADEMIA-KEEPS-DIGGING EDITION: Scandal Erupts over the Promotion of ‘Bourgeois’ Behavior.

Were you planning to instruct your child about the value of hard work and civility? Not so fast! According to a current uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, advocacy of such bourgeois virtues is “hate speech.” The controversy, sparked by an op-ed written by two law professors, illustrates the rapidly shrinking boundaries of acceptable thought on college campuses and the use of racial victimology to police those boundaries.
On August 9, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the bourgeois values that characterized mid-century American life, including child-rearing within marriage, hard work, self-discipline on and off the job, and respect for authority. The late 1960s took aim at the bourgeois ethic, they say, encouraging an “antiauthoritarian, adolescent, wish-fulfillment ideal [of] sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll that was unworthy of, and unworkable for, a mature, prosperous adult society.”
Today, the consequences of that cultural revolution are all around us: lagging education levels, the lowest male work-force participation rate since the Great Depression, opioid abuse, and high illegitimacy rates. Wax and Alexander catalogue the self-defeating behaviors that leave too many Americans idle, addicted, or in prison: “the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.”

Well, of course the squares of academia are shocked. Bourgeois is the new transgressive.
43by Glenn Reynolds
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/274260/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Why People Still Support Trump

CLIVE CROOK: Why People Still Support Trump:
There are two main theories of Trump’s support. One is that a large minority of Americans — 40 percent, give or take — are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they’ll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he’s on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them — and that’s good enough.
It’s disappointing that Charlottesville hasn’t changed their minds — but then it hasn’t changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct. . . .
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country’s cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn’t been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn’t deserve the vote.
The second theory — the correct theory — is a terrible indictment of the Democratic Party and much of the media. Why aren’t the intelligible and legitimate opinions of that large minority given a hearing? Why must their views be bundled reflexively into packages labelled “bigotry” and “stupidity”? Why can’t this large minority of the American people be accorded something other than pity or scorn?
Because Democrats still can’t deal with losing, and a large part of belonging to the left is the satisfaction of feeling superior to ordinary Americans.
245 by Glenn Reynolds
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/274205/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

DEMOCRATS’ RUSSIA STORY HITS ANOTHER DEAD END

DEMOCRATS’ RUSSIA STORY HITS ANOTHER DEAD END

The New York Times headlines: “Felix Sater, Trump Associate, Boasted That Moscow Business Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected.’” Sounds exciting, right? But the story fizzles rapidly.
Felix Sater was a real estate broker who didn’t work for the Trump organization. (Hence the weaselly “Trump associate” headline.) He has, to say the least, a colorful history. But what is the story? Sater sent a couple of emails to Michael Cohen, who did work for the Trump organization as a lawyer. Sater, a Russian immigrant, enthusiastically promoted the idea of a Trump property in Moscow, which he claimed he could deliver. The Times likes this portion of a Sater email, dated November 3, 2015:
Micheal we can own this story. Donald doesn’t stare down, he negotiates and understands the economic issues and Putin only want to deal with a pragmatic leader, and a successful business man is a good candidate for someone who knows how to negotiate. “Business, politics, whatever it is all the same for someone who knows how to deal”
And this:
Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.
The Times says there is no indication that Cohen even replied to Sater’s emails. In any event, the Moscow project was investigated briefly and, the Times says, dropped. The Trump organization has properties in 11 countries, and Russia isn’t one of them. So the story is what? A Russian immigrant who didn’t work for Trump had a vision of making Donald Trump look good (and making himself a lot of money) via a business deal with the Russians, which Trump’s people never followed up on. It’s like a joke with no punch line.
The Times tries to make something out of nothing:
The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage.
Oh, please. Sater was hoping to make a lot of money as a broker, but the Trump organization didn’t pursue the deal. Has Sater even met Donald Trump? Not as far as the emails disclose.
You can hear the gnashing of teeth as the Times recites the story that it wishes had been true:
The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign or the hacking of Democrats’ emails. Mr. Trump has said there was no collusion with Russian officials. Previously released emails, however, revealed that his campaign was willing to receive damaging information about Mrs. Clinton from Russian sources.
“Willing to receive damaging information” about a political opponent? That is pathetic. I have never heard of a campaign that wasn’t willing to receive damaging information about an opponent. At least the Trump campaign didn’t manufacture lies about Hillary Clinton, as the Clinton campaign or the DNC apparently did via the fake “dossier” in which the FBI, under Barack Obama’s corrupt Department of Justice, seems to have collaborated. If you are looking for a scandal, you need look no farther. But of course, the New York Times, as a Democratic Party newspaper, has no interest in looking into that story.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)