Great Brtish slap stick humor: https://biggeekdad.com/2012/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I knew he was very wealthy. I also knew he was liberal and suspected he bought WAPO because he wanted power. Now that seems confirmed. Maybe Bezos will run for president one day as Blumberg might have liked. "Atlas Shrugged" is playing out as I always knew it would as well. Does John Galt, live in the op ed room of WAPO? (See 1 below.)
And:
More shenanigans? (See 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course he did. After all he was a "Constitutional Genius."
Was the real Russian collusion actually between Russia and Obama in helping him first get elected and then re-elected
Russia knew he was weak, they knew he was inexperienced and they knew he had spurious philosophical leanings. Most important of all he was of color and they believe they could work the guilt angle. Did he not tell Putin's sidekick wait til I am re-elected, inferring he would be in a position to do more to seed discord in America?
Any open society, such as ours, is open to manipulation and because we are a melting pot and because we are hooked on and dependent upon social media technology we are even more vulnerable. We know our adversaries have been exploiting various inexpensive methods that involve new war methodologies. It is cheaper and less destructive to cause a society to implode from within by attacking sensitive and un-resolved fissures such as those pertaining to race, failure of capitalism, political aspirations by the rankest of politicians to regain power and the various divisions within a multi-gram society.
Obama's apologies, his choice of favoring The Muslim Brotherhood, his comments pertaining to police and post riot events, his fawning over Erdogan, the midnight cash deal supporting Iran, his many lies about Obamacare and his appointments of those who besmirched various agencies and his attitude toward military leadership are not the acts one associates with patriotism. And do not forget his opening our borders to large numbers of immigrants who were never properly vetted and now have taken over significant areas of Michigan and other sectors of our cities and whose views are not compatible with democracy.
Call me nuts, call me a racist except for the fact I would welcomed for Walter Sowell's candidacy for president had he chosen to opt in that direction.
As long as Obama hangs around, I believe he will continue to stir up problems in the role of our shadow president. (See 2 and 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The arrival of Corey and David was delayed so I had all day to do memos and that was not supposed to happen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The incredible hypocrisy of Jeff Bezos
By DANIEL GREENFIELD
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos did not pay $250 million for the Washington Post because it was a good deal. In his own words, “It is the newspaper in the capital city of the most important country in the world. The Washington Post has an incredibly important role to play in this democracy.”
Clear away the PR euphemisms and the world’s richest man was saying that he bought the Post because it sets the agenda in Washington D.C. and helps determine the outcome of elections.
Bezos isn’t the first tycoon to buy influence by buying an influential paper. The power he wields with the Washington Post is a pale shadow of the Hearst empire. Dot com billionaires keep buying up media white elephants. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is buying Time. The Atlantic is in the hands of Steve Jobs’ widow. The New Republic is being run into the ground by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.
But the media also changed. What used to be straightforward bias and agendas has become a shadowy underworld of fixers, brokers, leakers and hackers that has more in common with the spy world.
Bezos paid $250 million for the Post, but it may end up costing him as much as $68 billion.
At least if you listen to Bezos, who claimed, at first in a series of trial balloons through intermediaries, and then more openly in a Medium post, that his affair had been made public in retaliation for his ownership of the Washington Post. Bezos suggested that the Saudis and Trump might be at fault. Others of the billionaire’s intermediaries, including the Post, have blamed his mistress’ pro-Trump brother.
The two conspiracy theories, one involving Saudi hackers and the other his mistress’ brother, leaking intimate texts and photos, are contradictory. But conspiracy theories usually are. The insistence of the Amazon boss that a foreign government and Trump supporters are responsible for his private messages leaking online is really no different than the Clinton conspiracy theory about Russia and Trump.
Hillary Clinton tried to shift the blame to Trump and the Russians after wasting $1.2 billion on her failed campaign. A divorce may cost Bezos as much as $68 billion and undermine confidence in Amazon and his leadership. Blaming Trump, Russia and the Saudis redeems acts of otherwise unforgivable stupidity. It transforms abusers like Hillary Clinton and Bezos into victims by blaming their folly on a conspiracy.
But if the Saudis did hack Bezos, it would be because his ownership of the Washington Post had put him at the nexus of a shadowy underworld of information operations. The first shot was fired when the Post gave Qatari lobbyist, Jamal Khashoggi, a former terrorist propagandist and old friend of Osama bin Laden, column space. The Qataris, beyond backing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran, also sought regime change in Saudi Arabia by mobilizing an effort to overthrow its current monarch.
While Bezos had paid top dollar for the Post, the Qataris and other interests were also using the Post for their own agenda. And the Amazon CEO either did not understand what was going on or approved of it. The Washington Post is a clearinghouse for special interests looking to set the agenda in Washington D.C. Many of those interests, like the Qataris are foreign, malicious and extremely ruthless.
Bezos and the Washington Post had no objection when Qatari hackers passed on the emails of Elliott Broidy, a deputy finance chairman for the Republican National Committee, to reporters revealing his own private life. Instead the Post gleefully featured some of these hacked emails. When Bezos demands sympathy as the innocent victim of foreign hackers, he is guilty of the worst sort of entitled hypocrisy.
The Broidy hack was one of a series of Qatari operations targeting Americans seen as being allied with the Saudis and the UAE. The media mandarins cheering Bezos showed no sympathy for those victims.
If the Saudis had struck back at Bezos, it’s hard to see him as anything more than fair game. And the media outlets fulminating at the National Enquirer should be asked how it was any different when Qatari lobbyists were carefully feeding them the private emails of Broidy and their other victims.
The only answer is that it’s okay when Qatar hacks Republicans, but it’s out of line when the Saudis hack Democrats. There’s no comparing the New York Times or the Associated Press gleefully airing the prurient details of Broidy’s sex life with the Enquirer airing the prurient details of Bezos’ sex life.
That’s not journalism. It’s the calculated hypocrisy of political informational warfare.
The Washington Post weaponized allegations of sexual misconduct in political warfare. Bezos whines that his affair, which did happen, was wrongly made public. Meanwhile the Post falsely accused Justice Kavanaugh (among other Republicans) of sexual misconduct that never happened. And it did cover up rape allegations against Justin Fairfax, the Democrat Lt. Governor, which appear to have happened.
This was the “incredibly important role” that the Washington Post played “in this democracy.” And these were the rules by which it played it. Republicans were accused of sexual assault and child abuse, and Republican officials had their private affairs revealed and private emails published. Meanwhile Democrats had their rape accusations buried deep down in the Washington Post’s deepest basement
.
This was how the Washington Post played its political influence game. And Bezos had no problem with that because it helped him achieve his political goals, defeating Republicans and electing Democrats.
The media is singing the Amazon CEO’s tune and bemoaning his misfortune. But the only reason the Qataris, the Russians, the Saudis and the North Koreans began hacking and leaking emails is because of media collusion. When the son of a Democrat official hacked into Sarah Palin’s email, the media gleefully searched through her inbox for any damaging material without caring about the ethics of it.
When Sony was preparing to release The Interview, a comedy about the assassination of Kim Jong-un, North Korean hackers leaked the emails of Sony employees. Instead of boycotting the hackers, the media republished many of the stolen emails, and destroyed the career of studio head, Amy Pascal.
The media claims that foreign governments hacking into the emails of Americans and then leaking them to the media represents a “democratic emergency”. But there would be no “emergency” if the media just stopped reporting on and publishing stolen emails. Instead the media calls for all sorts of emergency measures, for a crisis it claims is worse than Pearl Harbor, but won’t stop running the stolen emails.
Bezos may just be collateral damage in the complete lack of ethics shown by his media investment.
The Democrats backed the Qatari Islamic terror state as part of their alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. The red-green alliance manifested as the Washington Post was allowing Qatar to use its pages to promote the overthrow of the Saudi regime. And the Post’s dirty deal may have backfired on Bezos as the shadowy underworld of internet information operations bit the biggest internet billionaire around.
This doesn’t make Bezos a victim.
Victims don’t own papers that gleefully publish other people’s hacked emails and affairs, but whine when it happens to them. Bezos didn’t just betray his wife, he betrayed every basic principle of ethics. His Medium post and his spin doctors claim the ultimate privilege, that of the abuser from retaliation.
Jeff Bezos thought that the Washington Post’s collusion with Qatar, that the hacks and smears of Republicans, served his economic interests. His greed and megalomania may have cost him $68 billion.
1a)
Was Kamala Harris part of the Jussie Smollett hoax?
After garnering a host of press attention for a supposed anti-black, anti-gay attack from supposed random supporters of President Trump, involving a noose, Hollywood actor Jussie Smollett looks pretty washed up now that a couple of Nigerians have been implicated by the Chicago cops in the perpetration of a hoax, supposedly to garner sympathy.
But another Hollywood guy, a film producer named Tariq Nasheed, who also goes by hip-hop rapper-like names of "K-Flex" and "King Flex," thinks this isn't the end of the story. He smells a political rat.
His series of tweets raises suspicions that the political response to the matter, led by Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris (and Cory Booker), is suspicious, real suspicious, and there might have been a staged setup in order to get a law passed and rack up voter points
Let me do a quick thread about this Jussie Smollett hoax. Because we need to ask questions about who else was involved in this hoax. I have always been critical of the deceptive tactics of the white LGBT community.
Now as we know, Jussie has campaigned with Kamala Harris
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) For the Record, Obama Made Mincemeat of the Constitution
Good constitutional arguments can be made for and against President Trump's evocation of emergency powers to address the crisis at our southern border. But the notion that such a declaration would encourage a future Democratic president to do something similar borders on the comic. Democrats don't need encouragement.
Under President Barack Obama, the Constitution was violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party, and the faithful cheered every violation. In early 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama groupie David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west-coast fundraising tour.
At one stop, when Obama walked out on stage, "It happened again: another heckler broke into Obama's speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, 'Executive order!' demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions."
Obama confirmed to the audience that, yes, people did want him to sign more executive orders and "basically nullify Congress." At that point, wrote Remnick, "Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it!" These were not wild-eyed tent-dwellers on Wall or some lesser street. These were potential donors.
By 2014, Obama had successfully nullified any number of laws with negligible media objection. In February 2011, for instance, Obama and "wing man" Attorney General Eric Holder came willy-nilly to the conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not "constitutional." President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with overwhelming support from Democrats in Congress and nearly unanimous support from Republicans.
No matter. Going forward, Obama decided that the Justice Department would no longer enforce DOMA. That simple. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley had a hard time making legal sense out of Obama's left-field decision to ignore DOMA. For one, Turley found the timing curious. The Obama administration had been defending the law for the previous two years, and the president, publicly, at least, had not changed his personal stance on redefining marriage.
For another, Obama was basing this policy change on an interpretation "that had thus far remained unsupported by direct precedent." By refusing to enforce DOMA, Obama was setting a precedent and not a good one — namely, that a president could refuse to defend a law based on a legal interpretation that no court had ever accepted.
On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama did not bother deeming existing laws unconstitutional. He chose not to enforce them because they did not poll well among Hispanic voters. It would get no deeper than that.
Since year one of the Bush administration, Congress had been trying to pass the awkwardly titled Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act. In a nutshell, this bill would have provided permanent residency to those illegal aliens who had arrived in the United States as minors and behaved themselves well enough not to get their mug shots plastered on the Post Office wall.
Although President Bush supported immigration reform, as did President Obama, neither the DREAM Act nor any major immigration bill made it to their desks. The reason was simple enough: no variation of such a bill could muster adequate congressional support.
In his 2006 book, Audacity of Hope, Obama praised the system of checks and balances in that it "encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument." Once Obama ascended to the presidency, all those checks and balances just made it harder for him to transform America.
Obama's constituencies, especially labor and the Hispanic lobby, wanted action, not gathering and arguing. They started leaning on him to ignore Congress and act unilaterally. One minor obstacle stood in the way, and that was Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. For the previous 220 years, that article had informed Congress in some detail on how to turn an idea into a law.
Obama could not enforce the DREAM Act, said constitutional scholar Nicholas Rosenkrantz, "by pretending that it passed when it did not." As late as March 2011, legal scholar Obama seemed to agree. "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law," he told a Univision audience. "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."
By June 2012, what Obama said in March 2011 seemed as stale as a morning-after bowl of tortilla chips. The president had lost his taste for all that legislative analysis and argument, given that the result was "an absence of any immigration action from Congress."
Five months before the presidential election, he knew that the media would give him a pass, and he hoped Latinos would give him their vote. So he decided to dispense with debate and fix immigration policy by his own lights, confident he could make that policy "more fair, more efficient, and more just."
This fix started with presidentially guaranteed relief from deportation for the so-called "Dreamers." On top of that came the right to apply for work authorization, both guarantees in full defiance of existing federal law. "There has long been a general consensus that a president cannot refuse to enforce a law that is considered constitutionally sound," said Jonathan Turley. That chapter was apparently missing from Obama's law books.
On August 23, 2013, in a move that the major media barely noticed, the Obama administration subtly expanded the list of those who would be excluded from deportation. Deep in a nine-page memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters to its field offices was an order that "prosecutorial discretion" be shown to parents or guardians of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, AKA "Dreamers."
The news scarcely troubled the media, let alone the citizenry, but at least a few Republicans noticed. "President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws," said House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte. Jonathan Turley agreed. "In ordering this blanket exception," said Turley, "President Obama was nullifying part of a law that he simply disagreed with. There is no claim of unconstitutionality." Said Rosenkrantz, "Exempting as many as 1.76 million people from the immigration laws goes far beyond any traditional conception of prosecutorial discretion."
Encouraged by the media to keep drafting laws of his own choosing, Obama made nullification a central part of his governing philosophy. "I'm eager to work with all of you," he said to Congress of the 2014 State of the Union speech. "But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
Said veteran civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, "Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution."
2a)
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).
2a)
Autopsy of a Dead Coup By Victor Davis Hanson *****
The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.
So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.
Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.
The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.
In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.
All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.
Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.
Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”
I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.
The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.
So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.
CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.
Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.
Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.
At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.
Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.
About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.
The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.
John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.
The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.
The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.
Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.
Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.
The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.
The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.
The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.
Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.
The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).
In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.
The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.
At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.
McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.
The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:
One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;
Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;
Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.
In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.
Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.
Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment