Advertisements
Open post

Chris Wallace and Chuck Todd Shame Themselves Protecting the DC Swamp

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

It’s like clockwork, folks, it really is.  – Here is the headline of the September 30 Campaign Update: “Winter is Coming, and More Fake Whistleblowers are Coming With it.”

Fast forward six days to Sunday, and guess what? A second fake whistleblower from the Intelligence Community has “come forward,” i.e., coordinated with Lawfare Alliance attorneys, the staff of the House Intelligence Committee and its Chairman, Bug-eyed Adam Schiff, to file another false complaint against the President of the United States. Just as we saw in last October’s lynching of Brett Kavanaugh, whenever one accusation has begun to lose its utility in moving public opinion, another comes forward.

If you think this is the last fake whistleblower Schiff and Lawfare have coached up on this dreadfully stupid coup d’etat effort, you are sadly mistaken. If anything, the pace of the complaint filings will speed up over time as their usefulness in brainwashing the public fades with each successive filing. That’s how it happened with Kavanaugh and that’s how it will happen in this latest coup attempt.

The first complaint had a useful life of roughly ten days before the coup plotters decided they needed another one out there to generate more blaring headlines and obnoxious talking head panels on CNN and MSNBC. This one will probably have a useful life of 5-7 days, the next one less than that. There is no real mystery here – the only real question left is whether the Creepy Porn Lawyer will try to bring forward a “witness” of his own in another failed attempt to cash in on the fake controversy, as he did in the Kavanaugh fiasco.

Lindsey Graham summed it all perfectly in a tweet:

Chuck Todd, Chris Wallace and the other useful idiots who host the Sunday morning fake news shows all did their parts to keep the sham going. Todd and Wallace and were especially animated and repugnant in rolling out the talking points of the Deep State coup plotters, which basically amount to ‘corruption of public office is ok if you’re a Democrat,’ and ‘if you declare yourself a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, you are immune from investigation.’

Expect the Pantsuit Princess and John Kerry to jump into the race soonest.

Here are clips of both Todd and Wallace going about their jobs as Democrat toadies, if you can stand to watch them:

The President himself responded to the TV networks’ DC Swamp protection racket as he usually does, on Twitter:

Everything the President says in those tweets is absolutely true. The problem, of course is that the truth conflicts with the longstanding traditions of corruption in the DC Swamp. The selling of high office is a tradition as old as Washington, DC itself, and the reason why many people seek to win those offices in the first place. Look at how fabulously wealthy the Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, Pelosis, Gores and so many others in both parties have become while supposedly holding jobs that pay $150k – $400k per year.

If you think those payoffs stop with the officeholders and don’t filter into our national news media as well, you obviously haven’t been watching the Sunday morning #fakenews shows recently. The whole town is your basic mob racket.

Once you understand how the DC Swamp works, everything the corruptors of our nation do makes perfect sense.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements
Open post

Chuck Todd is Right: The Basic Rules of our Democracy are Under Attack

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

“I don’t say this lightly, but let’s be frank: A national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the President.” – In making that soap-opera-style hyperbolic remark on MSNBC on Friday, Democrat toady Chuck Todd is half right: The basic rules of our democracy are indeed under attack, and have been since 1992, when Bill and Hillary Clinton became the Democrat Party’s co-nominees for the presidency.

One of the “basic rules of our democracies,” one of the beliefs upon which our nation was founded, was that elected officials would by and large be people of good faith, and people who sought public service did so in the spirit of serving the nation they love. The founders knew that there would always be scoundrels among the political class, but they structured the Constitution and thus our society on the foundational belief that, in the end, most members of congress, presidents and senior executive branch officials would place the best interests of the country over and above their own personal ambitions for power.

The Clintons changed all of that. The Clintons turned the White House into a confidence game, an influence racket in which the Lincoln Bedroom was rented out to the highest bidder. They leveraged agencies like the IRS and the FBI into tools to track and attack their political enemies. At the end of their eight years at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they then parlayed their ongoing influence in Democrat Party politics into an even larger racket with the creation of their fake Foundation, leveraging it to its fullest capacity when Barack Obama paid them off by appointing the Pantsuit Princess as Secretary of State.

1992 was also the year when the Clintons began to transform the Democrat Party from a collection of politicians and staffers who sought to debate policy issues and win them on the merits to a collection of Saul Alinsky disciples who eschew any pretense at debate in favor of demonizing the opposition. Another basic rule that was foundational to our democracy was thus lost forever.

Another “basic rule of our democracy” used to be that the federal government was required to operate on a budget. But the Democrats have disposed of that one, too. In 2006, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and San Fran Nan decided that the best way to continue bankrupting future generations of Americans and to keep federal spending rising was to refuse to engage in the process of passing actual budgetary authorization bills. Since that time, the federal government has operated on a neverending series of continuing resolutions (CRs). These CRs allow no real debate over spending. Instead, they simply take the previous year’s spending level and layer a predetermined percentage increase over the top of it.

In this way, the Democrats freed up all sorts of congressional time to allow their members to focus on what they love to do: Raise money and demonize the opposition.

Another “basic rule of our democracy” used to be that the Justice Department, FBI and other law enforcement agencies were to maintain an independence from the White House. Janet Reno destroyed all pretense to that principle on behalf of the Clintons, and it’s been downhill ever since. Barack Obama completed the utter and complete corruption of the FBI, which remains a raging dumpster fire of corruption and incompetence today with no relief in sight under the feckless Christopher Wray.

Democrats have also utterly corrupted the press. The founders considered what they called the fourth estate of our society so crucial that they enshrined freedom of the press in the very first amendment contained in the Bill of Rights. The role of the press as a “basic rule of our democracy” was to serve as the watchdog for the public interest, a tool of transparency that would speak truth to power and hold public officials of all parties accountable.

That’s all gone now. Toadies like Chuck Todd are nothing more than Democrat Party activists with $200 haircuts (Chuck obviously overpaid). Today’s national media establishment not only no longer speaks truth to power, it doesn’t speak truth to anyone, including itself. Every day is a new narrative, coordinated in advance with the Democrat Party, repeated ad nauseum by talking heads across all the broadcast networks and cable channels.

Opinion pieces that used to appear the Op/Ed sections of major newspapers have now migrated to the front pages under the guise of being “news” stories. Editors at the New York Times and Washington Post now openly brag about their publications’ efforts to brainwash the public with major themed propaganda campaigns. Journalistic standards once held sacrosanct, like having at least two or even three named sources for any news story, have been utterly abandoned as outlets rush to get thinly-sourced or fictitiously-sourced pieces up on their web pages to raise their click counts.

The very same Democrat Party and media establishment who spent three years obsessing over a “Steele Dossier” funded by the DNC and Clinton Campaign and compiled by foreign agents from the UK, Ukraine, Russia, Italy and Australia now screams that seeking information about corruption by a former vice president from any foreign country amounts to an impeachable offense.

Chuck Todd is one of the head cheerleaders in that effort to ignore and destroy the “basic rules of our democracy.” Those rules have been under attack for a long time, and whenever their efforts to destroy those rules fails, the Democrats and their corrupt media toadies simply double down on the destruction.

This second civil war that has been mounted over the last three years by the Democrats and the corrupt media is not a shooting war, but it is just as dangerous to our national survival. Sadly, the utter and complete corruption on the left is so consolidated and unshakable now that it is hard to imagine how we can possibly reach anything other than a disastrous conclusion.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

America’s History Teacher Provides A 12-Minute Master’s Course on Impeachment

Today’s Campaign Update – Guest Piece by Larry Schweikart
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

[Note: I have followed Larry Schweikart, American historian and retired professor of history at the University of Dayton, on social media for several years. After reading several threads he posted on his Twitter account (@LarrySchweikart) regarding the history of impeachment in the U.S. and as it related to our current situation, I reached out to him. He agreed to contribute this piece to help inform the loyal readers of Today’s Campaign Update. Larry is the co-author andauthor of several great books, including A Patriot’s History of the United States and his latest, REAGAN: The American President.

Trust me, after you read this, you will know more about impeachment than 99% of the U.S. population.]

 

The Essentials of Impeachment. (It’s more than you think!)

There is a lot of talk about “impeachment” out there, most of it uninformed. Impeachment can (and in most cases historically, did) involve judges as well as a president. Indeed, since 1803, there have been 63 impeachment proceedings, and only two involved presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

The Constitution provides for the removal of judges (who generally have lifetime appointments) and U.S. presidents for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What are those? Well, realistically, it is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. The House alone is charged by the Constitution with defining behavior that rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And it can be anything. Literally, anything that a majority of the House votes for can be a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Spitting on the sidewalk. Using “he” when talking to a “she” transgenderist. You get the picture. The Constitution did not define the terms. In the case of the 61 judges impeached, all had actually committed real crimes ranging form bribery to jury tampering to conflict of interest violations.

Under the Constitution, the House must pass articles of impeachment, which are the charges against said judges or presidents. Once articles of impeachment pass the House, they are sent to the U.S. Senate for a trial. A notice must be sent to the person charged, and there are a few other formal steps that must be taken, but shortly the Senate receives the articles of impeachment. Following a trial—more on that later—the Senate acquits or convicts but conviction must be by a 2/3rds vote (in today’s case, 67 votes to convict, or a very high bar). The past two impeachments have lasted three and four months respectively from passage of the articles to acquittals.

Let’s first look at some judicial impeachments. The following judges were impeached:

*John Pickering (1803)

**West Humphreys (1862)

*Robert Archbald (1912)

*Halsted Ritter (1933)

*Harry Claiborne (1983)

*Alcee Hastings (1989)

*Walter Nixon (1989) Nixon was removed, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal as a non-justicable political question.

*Thomas Porteous, Jr. (2010)

In addition to those convicted by the senate and removed, 16 judges who were being investigated resigned, and 2 died in the process of the proceedings. One (Agilar) had his conviction overturned.

Moving to the impeachments of U.S. presidents, the first, in March 1868, was by a Republican House (dominated by the so-called “Radicals”) contended with Lincoln’s vice president, Andrew Johnson . . . who was a Democrat. Lincoln thought he would not win reelection, and brought in Johnson to draw Democrat votes. After Lincoln’s assassination, the hated Johnson became president. He completely opposed the Radicals’ Reconstruction plans, and used his legal, Constitutional authority to obstruct them. The Republican Congress overrode two Johnson vetoes on the Reconstruction Acts.

Rather than trying to accommodate the Republican Congress, the belligerent Johnson fought it. He was looking for a confrontation, and got it. The issue involved the Reconstruction Acts, which placed Union generals in charge of five Southern districts. Johnson sought to replace Radical generals governing the South with more pliable or friendly men. Congress countermoved by passing the Tenure of Office Act requiring the president to get the approval of the Senate before removing a general. Johnson flagrantly fired Edwin Stanton, a Radical favorite, to bring about a constitutional test. (In fact, he should have filed a court challenge and let the Supreme Court decide it).

Wild World of History Logo

[Note: Email Larry Schweikart at larry@wildworldofhistory.com and he will provide you with a free Reagan webinar and an Excellence in Business webinar.]

The House filed 11 articles of impeachment. The only serious article of the 11 (which included several “conspiracy” claims) was the final article, 11, which literally accused Johnson of “bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency.” (One could suggest at least one recent president had done that, repeatedly!). Keep in mind it is the House’s duty—and only the House’s duty—to define the “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate is charged by the Constitution only in determining guilt or innocence, not again weighing in on whether the actions rise to the level of “impeachability.” Still, as we will see, in both U.S. presidential impeachments, the Senate ran well outside its Constitutional authority.

In the Johnson trial, the Senate failed to convict by a single vote of reaching the necessary 2/3rds (35-19) with one of the key senators later being praised in John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage. That would be the junior senator from KS, Edmund Ross. Ross and others determined that the charges did not rise to the level of impeachment. Well, in this case they did—Johnson had clearly violated the law—but the Senators did not think it was good for the Republic to convict Johnson. Thus the Senate defied the Constitution, but probably did the “right” thing.

When Richard Nixon was under investigation in 1974, he almost certainly was facing impeachment (for the right reasons) but he resigned before an impeachment vote was held.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was accused by a special counsel of committing perjury, coaching a witness, submitting a false statement, and obstruction of justice. Eventually, the House passed two articles of impeachment (perjury, 228-2016) and obstruction (221-212). The Senate then took up the trial. Two weeks into the Senate trial, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia introduced a motion to dismiss. This motion only failed by seven votes—despite overwhelming evidence of Clinton’s guilt. Once again, the Senate did not do its Constitutional duty, again wading into issues of questioning whether the charges rose to the level of impeachability. Clinton was acquitted. As one Democratic staffer told the Republican “prosecutors” from the House, “there wouldn’t be 67 votes to convict if they had found a dead body in the Oval Office.”

So where does this put us today? First, there is a question of whether or not Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the votes. I submit she doesn’t or she would file for an impeachment vote right away, not an “investigation.” That makes news, but it is not an impeachment vote.

But say she does find the votes and the House impeaches President Donald Trump. Next up is a Senate trial. As in 1999, the Senate “could” entertain a motion to dismiss without a trial. I do not think this is out of the realm of possibility. Such a motion needs only 50 votes, and Mike Pence can break a tie.

My current math—based on no inside info whatsoever—suggests Trump has 34 hard acquittal votes already (meaning he is already out of the woods), with another 10 “squishy” Republicans who will see which way the wind blows before voting. That brings us to 44, or just six short of dismissal. Out of the remaining GOP senators, while I could see some balking at an outright dismissal, I only see perhaps two defecting to convict—Mitt Romney and maybe Mike Lee. Many of the Senators are in tight races in 2020, and they simply cannot risk having the whole GOP base stay home, which is exactly what would happen if they voted to convict.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I think stories that “30 GOP Senators would convict Trump” are true if you take the voters out of it. Of course these toads want to get Trump out. He has overturned the entire apple cart. But in a public vote? No. Trump will come close to 50 acquittals and needs only 37. If the charges, though, are extremely frivolous, the Senate may indeed dismiss outright.

Finally, there is a wild card: Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Democrats want to argue that if RBG dies during impeachment proceedings, that “no president under impeachment should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice.”

This is a massive problem in timing for the Democrats. After all, Ginsburg isn’t cooperating by giving them a date for her demise! If they rush ahead with impeachment and it’s over in four months ending in an acquittal—and Ginsburg is still alive!—then they have lost their “can’t replace” card. But if they wait until Ginsburg cooperates, which might not be in 2020 at all, they stand a chance of losing their impeachment card. Decisions, decisions!

You can find this and lots of other ongoing political and historical analysis, as well as just fun historical columns on music, culture and other topics, at the Wild World of History.com. Some is free, but my new “1620 Default” series—arguing that American Exceptionalism dates from 1620 and the arrival of the Pilgrims, not from the Virginia colony in 1607. Look for the “VIP section.”

Larry Schweikart, Ph.D.

Author, Reagan: The American President and co-author, A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen.

That is all.

 

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

New Poll: Just 1 in 3 Americans Believe the Official Story about Jeffrey Epstein’s Death

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

When the top line of a new poll is not the real story.–  I laughed out loud when I saw the topline numbers of the new Emerson College poll that was released this morning. My laughter was totally at the expense of Irish Bob O’Rourke, who has now dropped below the likes of Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang in the pecking order of this particular poll. 

Mere words cannot express the amount of pleasure it gives this 7th-generation Texan to see this fraudulent circus clown falling down into 4th-tier status, relegated to competing with the likes of Amy Klobuchar and Julian Castro for the crumbs that fall from the vote-filled cookies being consumed by Crazy Uncle Joe and The Commie.

For purposes of illustrating that joy, here is what I looked like at about 11:00 CT this morning:

Hey, don’t judge me! I had to sit through interminable hours of ads for this guy’s failed senate campaign last year – I’m entitled to a minute or two of heavy gloating. So is Senator Ted Cruz, come to think of it.

Anyway, I initially thought this was the big story out of this otherwise unsurprising poll, and figured that I’d focus on that, along with Yang’s fairly surprising 4% and Mayor Pete’s continuing fade from relevance for this afternoon’s Update.

But then I browsed through news reports about the poll, and came across this one at Business Insider:

  • Only 33% of Americans agree with an autopsy report that says Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, according to a new poll.
  • The Emerson College poll also found that 34% of respondents said they believe he was murdered, falling in line with numerous conspiracy theories that have flourished since the disgraced financier’s death.

So, three weeks of fake news media reports assuring us that Epstein’s extremely convenient death was a simple suicide, after the autopsy came back in support of that finding, and after what we are supposed to believe was a full and complete investigation by the stalwart “rank and file” of the FBI, only one in three Americans are actually buying the official narrative here.

Business Insider, as an arm of Yahoo News, naturally blames it all on “conspiracy theories” being promoted by those nasty people on social media, and to be honest, there have been a lot of alternative theories thrown into the public mix about Epstein’s demise. Still this 33% belief in the official narrative represents an extraordinary failure by those who have invested so much time and effort in its promotion.

The reasons for that have little to do with the promotion of “conspiracy theories,” though. In fact, the biggest problem that the FBI and its fake media toadies have here comes in the form of the actual facts about the case that have been made public.

There are just too many odd coincidences that took place related to the security measures for the government’s most high-profile prisoner to be believed by anyone capable of critical thought processes. This is, after all, the same federal law enforcement complex who the fake news media has been assuring us is pretty much infallible since it became publicly known that they attempted to fix the 2016 elections.

But now, that same fake news media expects you all to believe that, in a case involving a life-long pedophile billionaire who happened to be running buddies with all manner of prominent leftist political figures and celebrities, why, that infallible federal law enforcement complex was just as bumbling and clownishly-incompetent as can be! Just your ordinary, everyday confluence of incompetence and bad luck, folks! Nothing to see here! Go on about your business! um, please?

As is pretty much always the case, Americans are not as stupid as the fake media believes them to be. After all, if they were that stupid, Irish Bob O’Rourke would be a U.S. Senator now, Stacey Abrams would be Governor of Georgia, and Al Gore would be a former President instead of the second incarnation of P.T. Barnum.

What we are seeing here is sort of a 56 years-later replay of the aftermath of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Because there was no Internet or social media back in 1963, it took a lot longer to happen, but once all the disturbing facts surrounding that killing of a U.S. president slowly made their way into the public domain, public belief in the official narrative, which had been initially fairly high, plummeted.

That skepticism about the official findings that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin lingers into modern times. In a poll published in October, 2017, FiveThirtyEight found that just 33% of Americans buy into the Oswald-as-lone-nut theory.

The reality is that the 1 in 3 Americans who still buy into the official stories related to Epstein and Oswald believe them mainly because they, like Fox Mulder, want to believe. Many Americans just cannot accept the reality that their government would intentionally lie to them, yet there is no longer any doubt at all that the Warren Commission’s report was filled with hundreds if not thousands of outright lies about what happened in Dallas when JFK was killed. The government withheld all sorts of evidence in that case and lied about so much more.

So, if most of the public is skeptical about what we are being told happened to Jeffrey Epstein, they have very valid reasons for feeling that way, and our fake news media has played an enormous role in creating that lingering lack of trust.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Well, of Course Jeffrey Epstein Had a Portrait of Bill Clinton in a Dress on his Wall

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II

(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

What, you expected anything else after all this time? Courtesy of the UK Daily Mail:

The color of the dress seemed to be a pointed reference to Clinton's former intern Monica Lewinsky who a blue dress during their infamous sexual encounter in the White House. The painting seemed to show Clinton in the Oval Office, with the presidential seal on display

You just cannot make this stuff up, folks. From the article linked above:

Jeffrey Epstein had a bizarre portrait which appears to be of Bill Clinton hanging in his Manhattan mansion, depicting the former president lounging on a chair in the Oval Office wearing red heels and a telling blue dress, a source exclusively told DailyMailTV

The color of the dress seemed to be a pointed reference to Clinton’s former intern Monica Lewinsky who a blue dress during their infamous sexual encounter in the White House. The painting seemed to show Clinton in the Oval Office, with the presidential seal on display

That’s some sick, sick stuff right there.

Have you also noticed that literally no one in our mainstream news media is putting any pressure at all on the Justice Department and FBI to get to the bottom of the Epstein “suicide?” Notice that their focus instead is on demonizing anyone who points out all of Epstein’s connections with notable liberal politicians and celebrities for being “conspiracy theorists?” Do you find it ironic that that particular line of demonization is coming from the very same media outlets who have spent the last three years obsessing over the debunked “Russia Collusion” conspiracy theory?

Do you think they’re projecting much?

And how about today’s non-crisis crisis diversion over the short-lived yield curve inversion? Wasn’t that a convenient way for the media to collectively avoid reporting anything about the Epstein case?

Can’t wait to see what the non-crisis crisis is tomorrow.

*sigh*

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

 

Open post

No Sympathy for the Devil, er, Robert Mueller

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Reminder: Arkancide can strike at anytime, anywhere. – Convicted and newly-accused pedophile and longtime friend of the Clintons Jeffrey Epstein was found “injured and in a fetal position inside his cell at a New York city jail” yesterday, according to officials involved in his current legal proceedings.

NBC Channel 4 in New York City reports that jail officials initially claimed the incident was the result of an attempted “suicide”, but Channel 4 says another source claims that “an assault has not been ruled out, and that another inmate was questioned.” Oh, you don’t say.

The story continues: “The inmate who investigators have talked to in Lower Manhattan facility has been identified as Nicholas Tartaglione, according to two sources. Tartaglione is a former police officer in Westchester County who was arrested in December 2016 and accused of killing four men in an alleged cocaine distribution conspiracy, then burying their bodies in his yard in Otisville in Orange County, according to court records.”

Sounds like a prince of a man. Hey, wonder if he’s ever been to Arkansas?

Sympathy for Robert Mueller? Sorry, I’m all out. – I was criticized yesterday for not showing proper “sympathy” for Robert Mueller, given his obviously diminished state. I received several notes pointing out that Mueller is after all an ex-Marine (we should all be grateful for that service) and that our real ire should be directed at the evil Andrew Weissman and the other Mueller bad hires who actually ran the two-year Witch Hunt and actually wrote the despicable final Mueller Report.

Well, sorry, folks, I’m not buying that nonsense. While Mueller is, as noted above, in an obviously diminished mental state and at this point appears to barely have his wits about him, let’s all review how he ended up in that witness chair yesterday:

  • It is well-documented that Mueller is in fact a very close friend of James Comey – despite his hemming and hawing on that yesterday – whose highly-justified firing was used by Rod Rosenstein as the pretense to create the Special Counsel investigation. That conflict of interest alone would have led an actual ethical person to refuse the appointment. Mueller didn’t care.
  • It is also well-documented that, in the week leading up to the appointment, Mueller held a series of meetings with Rosenstein – another close friend, another blatant conflict of interest – in which they discussed the prospect of his becoming Special Counsel.
  • Even worse, it is well-documented – despite Mueller’s half-hearted denial – that the day before he was appointed to become Special Counsel by his good friend Rosenstein, Mueller actually met with President Donald Trump himself, to discuss the open FBI Director’s position.
  • Mueller didn’t take this job on the spur of the moment, as so many in our fake news media have falsely claimed, he plotted to get this job.

Ask yourself: Are these the behaviors of an admirable man, a man for whom we should now have sympathy because he is obviously aging badly? But there is more, much, much more:

  • We are supposed to now be angered at Weissman, the “real” bad guy here (and he is a very, very bad guy), but who hired Weissman? Robert Mueller hired Weissman, knowing fully his sordid history of abusing his power and ignoring the law, and knowing fully his support of Hillary Clinton and personal animus towards President Trump.
  • Even worse than that, Mueller took the job knowing from Day 1 that, in the famous words of Super Duper ex-FBI Agent and aspiring Latin Lover Peter Strzok, there was no ‘there there.’ Mueller and everyone he hired knew from the first day on the job that “Russia Collusion” was a fantasy play invented by the DNC, the Clinton Campaign and Christopher Steele with cooperation from agents from a variety of foreign governments including – gasp! – RUSSIA.
  • Mueller took the job knowing that the job was in fact an attempt at a coup d’etat on American soil, an effort to remove a sitting, duly-elected President of the United States of America by whatever means he and his evil minions could concoct.
  • Regardless of who actually did the work, Mueller lent his name and reputation to this heinous enterprise, an act of mendacity of unprecedented scope and goal in American history.
  • Mueller’s name sat atop the Special Counsel’s offices, no one else’s. All the Gestapo tactics, all the despicable abuses of civil rights, all the early morning raids, all the torture-like imprisonments, all the bully tactics designed to force witnesses to lie to save their own skins – all of those things were conducted under the name of Robert Mueller, no one else.
  • The final report that was issued, the report that threw all semblance of legal ethics and due process so vital to our personal freedoms to the wind, is called “The Mueller Report,” not the Weissman Report. Regardless of who actually wrote the words in that report – words that continuously shocked and visibly surprised Mueller himself when read back to him yesterday – those words were written and published under the name of Robert Mueller, and Robert Mueller personally placed his signature on that report.

So, if y’all want to express your sympathy for Robert Mueller in his obviously-diminished state, you go right ahead. Do it and enjoy it and even signal your virtue about it on social media.

Me? I’ll reserve my sympathies for General Mike Flynn and Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone and George Papadopoulous and all the myriad other American citizens whose constitutional rights were abused and personal lives were destroyed under Mueller’s name. And I will remain angry about the evil fantasy play Mueller put our nation through for the last two solid years.

Damn him for doing it.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

All that Post-Election Panic in 2016 Begins to Make Sense

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

[Editor’s Note: The Campaign Update will be silent from July 11 through July 23 because Dave needs some down time.]

Is it all starting to make sense to you now? – Are you starting to understand why the election of Donald J. Trump – a non-swamp creature with no ties to the Deep State – put the Democrats and establishment Republicans into such a state of outright panic?

In the wake of the arrest and charging of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, does the focused campaign over the last three years by our fake news media and entertainment industry to normalize pedophilia in the public consciousness begin to make sense? As you discover all of Epstein’s relationships to not just the Clintons, but also to all manner of famous Democrats and media and entertainment figures, do you now understand why Hillary, after she was asked a few “tough” questions by disgraced sex abuser Matt Lauer during the 2016 campaign, scolded him that “we will all hang” if Trump were to win the election?  Which, incidentally, he did?

Are you now starting to understand why Slick Willie issued that classic Clintonian butt-covering statement to the press last night? Because everyone needs to understand that an ex-President would not have issued such a statement unless he knows some truly serious, damaging information is now in the hands of investigators.

Think about it: He already has 90% of the news media feverishly scrambling to cover for him. WikiPedia has already altered its page on Jeffrey Epstein to eliminate all mention of the Clintons. So there was no reason to issue that statement solely based on the information that is already public. The Clintons know that Slick’s name is all over the flight logs of the Lolita Express, and they know what Bill – and Hillary – did with Epstein over the years.

Now, they also know all of that information is in the hands of federal prosecutors, and they no longer have Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or Robert Mueller or James Comey in power to cover for them. That’s why you saw Slick issue that statement last night. It’s the setting of a favorable narrative that is now being parroted all across our fake news media landscape, providing cover in preparation for the storm they know is coming.

This is no different than when, in 1998, Slick, then POTUS, wagged his crooked index finger at the cameras and said “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” It’s the setting of a damage control narrative. It’s what the Clintons do, and what they have always done.

And here’s the thing: It’s always worked for them before, but before, they’ve always had fellow swamp creatures in positions of high power to help cover for them.

How absurd is the claim of “I know nothing! Nothing!” by Sgt. Schulz, er, ex-President Clinton?  So ridiculous that reporter Conchita Sarnoff, who has spent the last decade investigating the case, outright called him a liar on national television Monday night. Watch:

Ouch.

The Campaign Update, as noted above, will be silent for the next couple of weeks as I go to recharge my batteries and get a little R&R. Some readers are scolding me that now is a bad time to be doing that because so much is going on. But think about the last few years and tell me when we had two weeks during which there was not a bunch of really important stuff going on.

The fact is, there are no longer any good times to do this, which is why I’m doing it now. See you in a couple of weeks!

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Michael Bennet: The Next Media-fed Democrat “Rising Star”?

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

[Editor’s Note: The Campaign Update will be silent from July 11 through July 23 because Dave needs some down time.]

Some interesting tidbits in the news this morning. Consider this:

“Americans demand climate action (as long as it doesn’t cost much),” writes Reuters analyst Valerie Volcovici. “Nearly 70% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want the United States to take ‘aggressive’ action to combat climate change — but only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year to help, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.”

What do those results tell us? It tells us the vast majority of Americans understand in their hearts that the whole “Climate Change” alarmist industry is a giant scam, which is why they aren’t willing to spend any real money on it. But even many who recognize this will tell a pollster that they are for “aggressive” action to fight the scam because they feel pressured to signal the virtue of loving the “environment.”

Thus, the focused brainwashing campaign engaged in by our fake news media on this subject over the last 20 years or so has been amazingly ineffective, considering the billions of dollars they’ve invested in it. Perhaps that’s explained in part by the rising diversity of viewing options on TV, expansion of the Internet and the death of Democrat propaganda-driven newspapers.

Even the Sunday morning “news” shows are dying. The Washington Times this morning reports that the average audience for programs like “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” fell by 8% in 2018 and now attract an average audience of just 2.3 million viewers. The weekday evening newscasts, meanwhile, attract an average audience of just 5.3 million sets of eyes, a fraction of the number who tuned in 30-40 years ago. If nobody’s watching, the brainwashing doesn’t take.

This death of ratings for the broadcast TV networks exacerbates the problems for the Democrat Party in its ongoing efforts to dumb down and brainwash the American public, since any brainwashing campaign requires attention from the subjects. At the same time we see these “news” shows on ABC, NBC and CBS passing away, we are also seeing the ongoing collapse of ratings at CNN and MSNBC, a collapse that has only accelerated since the issuance of the Mueller report exonerating President Trump.

A new Democrat “rising star” on the horizon? Remember the name “Michael Bennet,” because I suspect he’s about to become the next media darling “rising star” in the Democrat race. The senator from Colorado was on Fox News Sunday yesterday, another of the low-rated Sunday shows whose audience is collapsing as host Chris Wallace tilts further and further to the political left.

Watching the interview, I was struck by what an accomplished and convincing liar Bennet is. He brought back memories of Bob Kerrey’s famous quote that “Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar.” Bennet has that same ability to tell bald-faced lies and convince you he really believes his own BS, a trait also possessed by Pete Buttigieg. Remember, I told you way back in March that Mayor Pete was probably going to have his own “rising star” moment after a similar interview on Fox News Sunday.

But Mayor Pete’s star is now fading after his lost weekend back in South Bend a couple of weeks back, so the Democrat toadies in the fake news media will be looking for a new date. The pickings are getting pretty slim at this point, so they will be looking around for someone who does well on TV, someone who is articulate, and someone who toes the leftist, SJW party line that attracts clicks and retweets.

The other guy to watch right now is Julian Castro, who, in addition to being a very convincing liar (though not quite as convincing as Bennet) also happens to be an actual minority, so he checks off the identity politics box that is so appealing to shallow Democrats. But the media has been trying to give Castro a boost for weeks now with gobs of free air time, and it just hasn’t been taking for whatever reason.

The other reason to think Bennet may be about to have a little boomlet is fundraising. In the second quarter, Bennet led all of the second tier candidates, raising $2.8 million from April through June. Castro bragged about a surge in his own fundraising following the debate, but has refused to release actual 2nd quarter numbers thus far, which obviously means he isn’t too proud of them.

So, expect to see Michael Bennet a lot more on your TV screens in the coming few weeks. After all, these fawning fake reporters have to have some Democrat to make goo-goo eyes at and whisper sweet nothings to, and Mayor Pete just isn’t getting it done for them anymore.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Why Trump’s Sanctuary City Plan has Democrats so Enraged

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Prepare for exploding Democrat heads all weekend long. – Smelling a golden opportunity handed to him by the Washington Post yesterday to keep an issue very favorable to him alive at the top of the news cycle this weekend, President Donald Trump (I never tire of typing those three glorious words) continued to push a plan to place all these tens of thousands of illegal aliens invading our Southern border into Democrat-run sanctuary cities with this tweet late Friday evening:

Given the left’s obsession with the President’s Twitter account, this single message alone most likely ensures that this topic will be first up on every Sunday morning fake news program. Regardless of how viciously the liberal talking heads attack President Trump on the issue, this will in fact amount to about five hours of free, favorable air time for the President and cause him to rise in the polls as a result. President Trump knows this, I know this, you know this, but it seems as if the vapid, TDS-enraged Democrats and their media co-conspirators will never figure it all out. I’m cool with that.

It’s important to understand why the Democrats and the fake news media are so enraged by this plan. The President may or may not be serious about it – that remains up in the air – but that really doesn’t much matter in the grand scheme of things. From the perspective of both President Trump and the Democrat leadership, it’s the simple fact of having the public debate over this idea that really matters, for a couple of big reasons.

I discussed one reason in last night’s Evening Campaign Update: The Democrats hate being forced to engage in this public discussion for the simple fact that it exposes the ultimate end game of their “sanctuary city” sham. Democrat mayors in Democrat-run cities from coast to coast have spent the last several years refusing to cooperate with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies in a very organized effort to protect criminal illegal aliens who they view as ripe prospects for illegal voting in the near term. In the longer term, the Democrats hope these illegals will ultimately receive some sort of blanket amnesty and become a big, new voting bloc for their party.

Democrats don’t care if these criminal aliens are murderers or rapists – they truly don’t care. All they see and care about is potential votes, whether legal or illegal, because the overriding goal of the Democrat Party since the elevation of the Clintons has been simple: The acquisition and maintenance of political power.

Their problem with this public debate is that the President’s proposal makes all kinds of sense to anyone who is able to reason logically. This of course excludes mind-numbed Democrat voters, but they only make up about a third of the adult population. What frightens the Democrats and media so much is that independent voters are by and large able to reason logically, so when they hear this proposal, most of them think, “Ok, makes sense to me.” They then marvel that any Democrat politician, like San Fran Nan, whose own home city has been protecting murderers and rapists for over a decade now, would oppose it.

Oh, my, Democrats can’t have that, now, can they?

All of which leads to the second reason why the Democrats are so enraged by this plan: Because it negates their own long-term plan for placement of millions of illegal aliens into Republican and/or battleground states.

Starting in the Clinton Administration, the Democrat plan has been to keep as many illegals as possible in border “red” states like Texas and Arizona, so that when their longed-for amnesty comes about, those “red” states will suddenly turn into “blue” states. During the Obama years, that plan was broadened to include putting thousands of illegals onto planes and buses and shipping them to other “red” or borderline states like Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado and Wisconsin for the same political ends.

They have almost gotten to critical mass now at which a blanket amnesty would in fact render all of those states – with the possible exception of Texas – as permanent Democrat states, making it virtually impossible for the GOP to ever elect another president.

This has been the long-term plan of the Democrat Party for a quarter of a century now. They cannot possibly conduct an honest public debate on the merits, so their immediate response is what we have seen: Have national Dems like Pelosi and Schumer and Beto and Mayor Pete demonize the President for his supposed “cruelty” in using all of these “innocent” illegals as “political pawns”, while the Democrat mayors of those sanctuary cities issue pious statements claiming that they would welcome such an influx into their already bankrupt towns as they pray to whatever god they might worship that it never happens.

Apparently, when President Trump broached this concept at a recent White House meeting a few weeks ago, it was quickly scuttled by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and her department’s lawyers. Nielsen simply lacked the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary to stem this border invasion.

Kevin MacAleenan is now the acting Secretary of DHS. We may well find out very soon whether or not he has the stomach for the battle or not. This plan makes all kinds of good sense – which is why the Democrats and media are so outraged by it – and should be pursued by the President and his Administration in a very public and aggressive way.

Fill those sanctuary cities up with these invaders, Mr. Trump. Let the Democrats take full responsibility for their irrational sanctuary rhetoric. It will be a good lesson for all concerned.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Posts navigation

1 2 3 4
Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: