Advertisements
Open post

The Tantrum-Tossing Brats in the Democrat Playpen Demand Their Impeachment!

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

“I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an April interview with the Washington Post.

Oh, why the hell not? – Democrats in the House of Representatives were always bound to try to impeach President Donald Trump sooner or later. They spent 18 months living in a fantasy world in which they’d be going down this road backed up by the findings of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” compiled in a final report by Gestapo Chief…er…”Special Counsel” Robert Mueller and his band of evil Clinton/Obama thugs, but that didn’t work out quite the way they’d hoped.

But Democrats are always determined to self-immolate themselves at the altar of the desires of their most incoherently radicalized members, supporters and the shrews on “The View,” so they’re just ready now to go down this road anyway. Thus, despite San Fran Nan’s protestations against the desires of the mob to try to reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election for no valid reason whatsoever, the mob is most likely going to get its way, and soon.

The President’s refusal to allow half a dozen Democrat-controlled congressional committees to have a do-over of the whole Mueller Witch Hunt  will become their rationale for claiming Mr. Trump is “obstructing justice” or something. That, and his refusal to let the likes of Jabba the Nadler and Bug-Eyed Adam Schiff have his last 20 tax returns to use for political exploitation.

Folks, these are not “high crimes.” They aren’t even “misdemeanors.” They are a President of the United States protecting the office of the presidency, which is a very important thing for him to be doing in the face of such congressional corruption and overreach. That is, if we wish to maintain a constitutional Republic form of government, something the Democrats stopped caring about many years ago.

David Cicilline, Chairman of the House something-or-other Committee – they’re all chairmen of something – typifies the Democrat incoherence on the subject. Appearing on Fox News on Tuesday, here is what he had to say:

Cicilline told Fox News there is a “tremendous level of frustration” behind the growing impeachment efforts, adding that he believes Trump is “behaving as though he is above the law and he is not.”

Uh, what law? Cicilline can’t say. Oh. So the plan is to impeach a president because you’re all frustrated? That probably isn’t what our Founders had in mind with this whole “impeachment” thingy.

The Rhode Island Democrat appeared on MSNBC and offered his reaction that the White House is instructing McGahn to refuse to comply with a subpoena to appear on Capitol Hill and the assurance from the Department of Justice that McGahn has “immunity” which does not legally require him to testify before Congress, something Cicilline believed was “legally incorrect.”

Dear Cong. Cicilline: Disagreements over the law should be resolved in the courts, not by throwing tantrums on the floor of the House.

“Let me be clear; if Don McGahn doesn’t testify, it is time to open an impeachment inquiry,” Cicilline said. “The president has engaged in an ongoing effort to impede our ability to find the truth, to collect evidence, to do our work, and this is preventing us really from ultimately finding the facts and doing our work in terms of oversight.

Uh, what oversight work is that, Congressman? Cicilline can’t specify. Oh.

Ok, what about a guy named Mark Pocan, who is Chairman [because of course he is] of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which means he’s basically a Marxist. Can he be more specific?

Rep. Mark Pocan, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Trump’s “stonewalling” of Congress “only enhances the President’s appearance of guilt,” and “has pushed Congress to a point where we must start an impeachment inquiry.”

“Regrettably, the President’s most recent actions and continued disrespect for the Constitution are forcing us down the road to impeachment,”

Uh, what “disrespect” for which part of the Constitution would that be? Can you be specific? No? Oh.

Ok, please go on.

“The President and his associates are engaging in a campaign of obstruction and lawlessness that undermines the rule of law and does not reflect the actions of someone who is ‘exonerated’ as innocent. Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight and get the information we need to deliver the truth to the American public regarding Russia’s interference in our elections.”

Oh, so we’re back to the whole “we’re mad ‘cuz the Bad Orange Man won’t let us have our do-over!!!” right? Right.

Please, do take that argument to the American people. It will not end well for you.

But that’s all the children have, and they’re angry, and they aren’t going to bed until they’ve had their do-over. Thus, Mommy Nan announced Tuesday afternoon that she will hold a special “impeachment meeting” of her tantrum-tossing caucus at 9:00 ET today. Oh, to be a fly on the wall…

Interestingly – and this is utterly without precedent and thus worth noting – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez actually sounded like one of the rare adults in the room in talking about all of this. In a brief interview with Politico, the normally-raging nitwit from the Bronx said “I trust that the speaker is taking a measured approach to ensure that we’re moving everyone forward, I know that being a Speaker is hard – holding this party together is a difficult task, but I think that we know what we need to do. I personally believe…that I think we have to move forward.”

Man, who wrote that damn-near-sensible statement for her? I mean, you can tell from her body language that she’s reciting a script, but it isn’t her normal incoherent Marxist gibberish. Guess Cenk Uygur must be on vacation.

Dear Democrats: When AOC is suddenly sounding like the calm kid in your playpen, you are well and truly out of control.

Please, don’t stop on my account. Somebody go pop some popcorn…

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.

Advertisements
Open post

Why Mayor Pete is More Likely to Become President Than Joe Biden

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

Please note that headline says “Become President,” not “Become the Democrat Nominee in 2020.” – That’s a key distinction here, because Biden still does have a slightly better chance of being the party’s nominee, although even that edge is steadily declining and will continue to do so over the summer.

And this shouldn’t be just a comparison between Buttigieg and Biden. I would submit that Kamala Harris has a better shot at becoming president than Elizabeth Warren, and that even Irish Bob O’Rourke has a better shot at doing so than Cory Booker and everybody has a better chance than The Commie does.

Why? The first reason is simple. Because, as I wrote back on April 5, American voters don’t like electing Washington, DC long-timers to be their president.

Here’s what I wrote in that piece:

… since Biden first came to Washington, the American people have shown a very strong bias against electing “experienced” guys like him to serve in the presidency. Going back to the 1976 election, here is how many years’ experience in Washington DC our past seven presidents had when they got elected:

Jimmy Carter – 0

Ronald Reagan – 0

George H.W. Bush – roughly 20

Bill Clinton – 0

George W. Bush – 0

Barack Obama – 2

Donald Trump – 0

Combined, those seven presidents had about 22 years’ total experience in the DC Swamp, with Bush 41 having almost all of them. Bush 41, as we all remember, was defeated in 1992 by an outsider, Bill Clinton, who got a big assist from an even more authentic outsider, Ross Perot.

Are you seeing a trend here? I am.

Who are the “establishment” candidates in this race? Biden, The Commie, Fauxcahontas, Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan. While Biden, the Commie and Fauxcahontas are currently leading the polls for the nomination, the odds are heavily-stacked against any of these people being our president-elect come November 4, 2020.

Americans don’t want some crotchety old geezer who’s been ensconced in the DC swamp for 30+ years – or even 10 years – to be their national leader. If they did, Robert Dole and Walter Mondale and John Kerry and Al Gore and John McCain would have all served in the nation’s highest office over the past 30 years.

Yes, Harris is a senator, but she’s only been in that office a little over two years, same as Obama circa 2008. Yes, Irish Bob O’Rourke was in congress for 8 years, but he never did anything notable while there so nobody is really aware of his time in DC. Thus, both are viewed by the media and public through that same Obama “outsider” prism.

But back to the Biden/Buttigieg thing: The simple fact of the matter is that Buttigieg is a better, more effective candidate than Biden, and Biden knows it. Biden right now is riding the same wave of party establishment support that Jeb! was riding at this point in 2015. Well all know how that turned out.

Mayor Pete was all over the news yesterday because of the townhall he did on Fox News Sunday night, which was hosted by Chris Wallace. Conservatives complained all day Monday about Wallace’s softball conduct of the interview and the fact that Fox News chose to fill the venue with a pack of Buttigieg supporters, but so what?

The fact is that Buttigieg proved once again that he is an extremely composed and impressive public speaker, far moreso at age 37 than Creepy Sleepy Joe is at age 76. He is also very adept at fielding tough questions, as he proved back in March when Wallace peppered him with much tougher questions on Fox News Sunday. I was so impressed with Mayor Pete’s performance at that time that I tagged him as one of the real “Rising Stars” of this primary season.

Yes, most of what he says and thinks is batsh*t crazy. Yes, most of what he says is outright lies. But Buttigieg is, as one Democrat congressman said of Bill Clinton back in 1993, “an unusually good liar.” He says the crazy stuff he says with the conviction born of a true sociopath, which puts him in company with the last two Democrat presidents.

Contrast that with the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, both of whom are also inveterate liars but who are both unusually bad at it. Come to think of it, Gore and Kerry were also unusually poor liars, as were Dole, Poppy Bush and McCain – it must have something to do with spending too much time in the nation’s capital.

And then there’s Biden, who has been lying about so many things for so long that they just pop right out of his mouth, but only in short, semi-literate bursts in which no sentence is ever completed. Biden’s like a guy with a case of political Tourette’s syndrome. Biden is fond of saying “I’m the guy that passed that [fill-in-the-blank] bill!” only the bills he talks about either don’t exist or were written by someone else. On Sunday, he went even further, claiming he was the guy who started the whole “Climate Change” thing back in 1987. Somewhere, Al Gore – who also didn’t invent this whole “Climate Change” thing but likes to claim he did – is saying “whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?”

But I digress. All the Democrat candidates lie about pretty much everything because they’re all leftwing hacks and that’s the only way leftists can win elections. It’s just a given. Democrat voters love to be lied to, and will generally end up nominating whichever candidate is the most effective liar of the bunch.

The key for Democrat voters in this cycle will be to nominate the best liar who is not a fossilized DC insider if they want to have any real shot at defeating President Trump. Because Americans innately understand that the DC establishment, regardless of party affiliation, is their true mortal enemy.

Many Americans have tired of all the uproar and chaos that they have seen since the election of Donald Trump, and would love for things to calm down after 2020. But are they likely to choose to replace a political outsider like Trump with a long-time establishment insider who will just return things to the status quo they rejected in 2016?

Nope.

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

Watch Trey Gowdy and Mark Meadows Discuss FBI/CIA Effort to Entrap Papadopoulous

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

A couple of Fox News interviews Sunday and Monday morning serve to emphasize how important it is for President Donald Trump to declassify documents thus far withheld by the Mueller Investigation and the FBI under its “sources and methods” catch-all used to hide up embarrassing evidence from the public. The evidence discussed in these clips is transcripts of tapes made of FBI/CIA efforts to entrap Trump campaign operative George Papadopoulous in 2016.

The first clip is of Trey Gowdy being interviewed Sunday morning by Maria Bartiromo.

Here are some of Gowdy’s key comments:

“If the bureau is going to send an informant in it’s going to be wired and if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls there’s a transcript of that. And some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist. But they haven’t been made public.”

“I think one [transcript] in particular is going, it has the potential to actually persuade people. Very little on this Russia probe, I’m afraid, is going to persuade people who hate Trump or love Trump. But there is some information in these transcripts that I think has the potential to be a game changer, if it’s ever made public.”

“[Texas Congressman] John Ratcliffe is rightfully exercised over the obligations the government has to tell the whole truth to a court when you are speaking permission to spy or do surveillance on an American. And part of that includes the responsibility of providing exculpatory information or information that tends to show the person did not do something wrong.”

“If you have exculpatory information and you don’t share it with the court, that ain’t good. I’ve seen it, Johnny has seen it, I’d love for your viewers to see it.”

The second clip is from a Monday morning interview Congressman Mark Meadows conducted on Fox and Friends addressing the same topic. This one has closed captioning along with it, so you can read it while viewing with the sound off.

What these two interviews do is just emphasize what we already knew: That these documents and many more simply must be declassified if we are ever going to get to the truth of what happened during the months in which the Obama FBI/CIA cabal was spying on and attempting to entrap members of the Trump Campaign and Transition Team.

Meadows said he has talked with President Trump about declassifying the documents, and that the President is serious about doing it soon.

“I think the delay is over,” Meadows said. “I think the president is serious. I’ve spoken to him recently and I think declassification is right around the corner and hopefully the American people will be able to judge for themselves.”

We’ve heard that repeatedly for months now, without result. If the President really is going to declassify documents, he needs to stop talking about it and just get it done.

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

Beto O’Rourke Must Turn on the Media that Invented Him

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

Some free advice for Beto O’Rourke. – I suppose that I should preface this long piece by reminding readers that I have no love for Irish Bob O’Rourke. In fact, what I really hold for him more than anything else is contempt. The substance-devoid empty suit from El Paso finds himself today in a predicament of his own making, a situation in which his once-promising presidential campaign is mired in weak also-ran status in a crowded field that is occupied by more capable and more-clever candidates.

Irish Bob’s situation is compounded by the reality that the elite, northeastern fake news media establishment that literally put the presidential bug in his ear by fawning all over him for the last six months of 2018 has now turned on him because he waited too long to bend the knee and consummate its courtship of him. Since he finally announced his candidacy in March – the fickle nature of the fake media demanded he do so in December, January at the outside – he has been treated as a stepchild, hit by a series of negative stories and given the back of the hand by elitist media outlets angry that he hasn’t shown up on their doorsteps with a bouquet of roses in-hand and tickets to that night’s Knicks game for them.

A friend pointed me to a really good May 15 piece posted by Vanity Fair titled “How the Media Fell Out of Love with Beto O’Rourke,” which interestingly sounds like a title we would use here at the Campaign Update. We’ve certainly come close to it in the past, and written on the same basic theme, albeit in a more sarcastic way.

The Vanity Fair piece is written from an obviously more friendly perspective towards O’Rourke, but chronicles the same basic story we’ve chronicled here. It is very long, but a really good read and I encourage everyone to read it in full.

Here are some outtakes I want to emphasize this morning:

Since announcing his campaign for president in mid-March, just two months ago, O’Rourke has gone from the media darling who almost beat Ted Cruz in Texas to the designated punching bag of the pundit class. Harry Siegel of the Daily Beast called Beto a “manchild” on Twitter, while sharing a lacerating piece from the columnist Margaret Carlson, who wrote about “her unscientific poll asking every woman I see” and the conclusion that O’Rourke, the married father of three who enjoys making Sunday morning pancakes for his family, reminds them of “the worst boyfriend they ever had.”

Oof.

The press commentary swirling around O’Rourke has been like this for months—mockery first, re-tweets second, sober analysis third.

“A presidential campaign is several universes away from a statewide campaign,” said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, a former adviser on both of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns. “It’s 10 times harder. The scrutiny is just so much greater. Your worst day on Capitol Hill or in the statehouse or on a Senate campaign is three times worse every day on a presidential campaign…You can’t escape the media. You have to have a plan to deal with them.”

O’Rourke is trying to repair the damage this week, stopping by New York greenrooms that’s he’s so far been shunning, making appearances on The Rachel Maddow Show and The View. And as he did during his Senate run, he’s also booked an appearance at a CNN town hall, a format that’s proven to be a ratings and fund-raising bonanza for candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.

So, those capture the basic theme, which is: 1) The media fell in love with “Beto” last year and made him as a senatorial candidate; 2) Beto tried to mostly ignore them early in his presidential campaign, taking it right to the grassroots instead; 3) The fickle media elitists turned on him in a typically vicious manner; and 4) Beto is now dutifully making the rounds on bended knee.

But it’s probably all too late, if the goal is to have the media elitists go back to loving their former flame. The damage has been done, and it’s hard to rekindle the kind of media love Irish Bob received in 2018. Besides, in 2018 he was running against one of the most media-hated Republican in the nation; now, he’s running against a pack of beloved fellow Democrats. Making the rounds and passing out Knicks tickets probably isn’t gonna undo this damage.

To me, the key for a possible O’Rourke comeback lies in one passage a little over halfway through the piece:

“I guess I still haven’t heard the Ted Kennedy answer from him,” said former South Carolina legislator Boyd Brown, an early O’Rourke supporter in the primary state. Brown was invoking Kennedy’s devastating failure to answer CBS anchor Roger Mudd’s question “Why do you want to be president?” days before his 1980 campaign launch. Still, Brown, who is 32, told me that O’Rourke “personifies” and “embodies” the “views of my generation,” pointing to his climate-change plan as the most ambitious of any Democrat running. But he also bristled at the national press for harping on O’Rourke’s personality and missteps. “Who the hell wants to go on TV and get talked over and lectured by a bunch of D.C. and New York types? I’m old enough to remember when friends of mine in the journalism profession would go out of their way not to show bias. Now it feels like they have cheapened the overall profession because they want a lot of likes and re-tweets on Twitter. Reporters want to be woke on Twitter and get their 15 minutes of fame. It’s devalued journalism.”

You hear that, Irish Bob? Your natural base voters don’t really have any more use for the Margaret Carlsons of the world than I do. They have different reasons for that dislike, but it is there and it is simmering just below the surface, waiting for you or some other candidate in the race to tap into it.

Here’s the thing: O’Rourke is sitting there at 3-5% in the polls, mired in the middle of a field crowded with politicians who are just as craven and ambitious as he is. It is in that millieu that he must find a way to differentiate himself, to stand out in that crowd.

Is he going to get that done by dutifully doing the same lame appearances on all the daytime and late night talk shows and CNN townhalls that everyone else is doing? Is he going to do that by announcing a “Climate Change” plan that wastes one or two trillion dollars more than these 7 rivals, but one or two trillion less than those other 10 to 12 rivals?

The answer is obvious. That’s just spinning your skateboard wheels, waving your arms and failing.

But ask yourself this: Which Democrat candidate right now is loudly criticizing any media outlet other than the standard Democrat bogeyman, Fox News?

There’s your opportunity to stand out. Get out there and talk about how you’re a Texan from Flyover Country, from the heart of our nation, fighting against the elite northeastern media. Talk about how these snarky fake journalists are devaluing their profession in their never-ending grasp for more re-tweets and followers. Talk about how you are suddenly the outsider in this race, fighting for the interests of the little guy against the elite media and your party’s establishment, which want to tilt the playing field in favor of Party regulars like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, elitists favoring fellow elitists.

In other words, Irish Bob, if you really want to stand out among this crowd of pandering, groveling, hack politicians, you need to start sounding a lot like…wait for it…Donald J. Trump, circa 2015.

Mr. Brown has given you some really sound advice in that Vanity Fair piece, and Mr. Trump has already shown you the way. It may or may not work, but it’s really the only chance you have remaining at this point.

Are you smart enough to take that chance?

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

God Save us From Reliance on “Experts”

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

God save us from reliance on “experts”. – David Epstein has a fantastic piece in the June issue of the Atlantic, one which illustrates why we “normals” out here in Flyover Country should avoid listening to predictions made by “experts”.

Regular readers will know that I make fun of “experts” and their persistent wrongness all the time, especially those in the fields of politics, “climate change” and economics. Epstein’s piece doesn’t directly address those specific fields in any detail, but he does illustrate major reasons why media-recognized “experts” are so consistently-wrong about pretty much everything.

How many consecutive months do we have to read headlines like “Trump economy adds 263,000 jobs in April, far surpassing expert projections” before we stop listening to “experts” on the economy? How many times must we see headlines like “Australia’s conservative party shocks pollsters and pundits with easy victory” before we accept the reality that almost all pollsters and pundits suffer from a chronic anti-conservative bias? How many times must we reflect on predictions by climate “experts” that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2015, that snow would end by 2020, that New York City would be under water by 2025 before we realize that these people are just a bunch of politically-motivated scam artists?

Epstein’s piece is long but well worth reading in full, so I highly recommend you all do so. But here are some key snippets that tell us all we really need to know about “experts” in any field:

The integrators [those who had expertise in multiple fields] outperformed their colleagues in pretty much every way, but especially trounced them on long-term predictions. Eventually, Tetlock bestowed nicknames (borrowed from the philosopher Isaiah Berlin) on the experts he’d observed: The highly specialized hedgehogs knew “one big thing,” while the integrator foxes knew “many little things.”

Hedgehogs are deeply and tightly focused. Some have spent their career studying one problem. Like Ehrlich and Simon, they fashion tidy theories of how the world works based on observations through the single lens of their specialty. Foxes, meanwhile, “draw from an eclectic array of traditions, and accept ambiguity and contradiction,” Tetlock wrote. Where hedgehogs represent narrowness, foxes embody breadth.

Incredibly, the hedgehogs performed especially poorly on long-term predictions within their specialty. They got worse as they accumulated experience and credentials in their field. The more information they had to work with, the more easily they could fit any story into their worldview.

One study compiled a decade of annual dollar-to-euro exchange-rate predictions made by 22 international banks: Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and others. Each year, every bank predicted the end-of-year exchange rate. The banks missed every single change of direction in the exchange rate. In six of the 10 years, the true exchange rate fell outside the entire range of all 22 bank forecasts.

Tetlock, along with his wife and collaborator, the psychologist Barbara Mellers, ran a team named the Good Judgment Project. Rather than recruit decorated experts, they issued an open call for volunteers. After a simple screening, they invited 3,200 people to start forecasting. Among those, they identified a small group of the foxiest forecasters—bright people with extremely wide-ranging interests and unusually expansive reading habits, but no particular relevant background—and weighted team forecasts toward their predictions. They destroyed the competition.

And here is the real killshot:

Tetlock and Mellers found that not only were the best forecasters foxy as individuals, but they tended to have qualities that made them particularly effective collaborators. They were “curious about, well, really everything,” as one of the top forecasters told me.

“Curious about…everything.” Think about that for a moment: My most persistent criticism of both pollsters and pundits is that they are singularly lacking in curiosity. They are stuck in their little New York City or Inside-the-Beltway echo chambers and never make any effort to venture out of them. They are comfortable; they are content; they love existing in a tiny, insulated world in which they are recognized as somehow being someone special. To venture out of that comfort zone is to risk that feeling of special-ness.

The average margin of error among pollsters in Wisconsin in 2016 was 6 percentage points. Yet, the conceit of every one of those “expert” pollsters is their methods produce results with only a 2-3 point “margin of error.” If you point that out to them, you invariably get some flippant insult or sarcastic retort, but never any sort of thoughtful, introspective admission that their methods are frankly crap.

The same is true of pundits and journalists.  Charles Krauthamer, who I admired throughout his career and life, was wrong about literally every aspect of the GOP’s 2015-16 nominating contest in general, and Donald Trump specifically. In that studious and stubborn wrongness, he had plenty of company. Pretty much every other recognized Inside-the-Beltway pundit was similarly wrong.

These folks were 180 degrees wrong because they never ventured outside of the Beltway to actually talk to some Trump supporters and try to figure out who they really were and what they were really thinking. That same refusal to learn was also shared by all pollsters except for Scott Rasmussen and pretty much every working reporter and editor in every national media outlet. They all hated being constantly proved wrong, hated the people who were responsible for their wrongness, and thus refused to make any effort to learn about them and understand how they think. They clung to their biases and preconceived misconceptions because are the very things that drive their own personal self-esteem.

To this day, in fact, two-and-a-half years after the 2016 election, almost none of these “experts” have ever made that effort. They remain ignorant, hived up in their echo chambers, and thus remain constantly wrong about pretty much everything.

So, why do the media-recognized “experts” seem to be consistently wrong about pretty much everything?

Because they are. It isn’t your imagination.

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

The Week in Review, Part II: William Barr Lays Down the Gauntlet

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

[The week just past as seen through the @GDBlackmon Twitter feed. This is the second of two parts. Part I can be viewed at this link.]

As Friday dawned, it was pure panic time for the Obama-era Deep State Cabal.

But no matter what else was happening, the Climate Scam never rests.

This happened, and literally no one in the American fake news media reported it. No surprise there, right? Right.

I took time out from watching the William Barr interview to talk a little Blackjack, because my attention span is shorter than a ferret’s.

It was the week when the most consistently-funny comedy in the history of television aired a pitch-perfect series finale, and this is what leftwing activists took away from it. What a sad and pathetic existence these people lead. 

This also happened.

Nobody does parody – on Twitter or anywhere else – better than the Babylon Bee. Nobody.

This huge bit of Friday news also went largely-unremarked by our fake news media.

This pretty well sums up Barr’s interview with Bill Hemmer.

The final season of Game of Thrones had turned into a raging, dragon-fueled dumpster fire.

Finally, we will close with my favorite Twitter meme of the week. Don’t know who came up with it, but I wish I did so I could give them credit.

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

The Week in Review, PART I: More Beto Fails and Deep State Panic

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

[The week just past as seen through the @GDBlackmon Twitter feed.]

The week began with another Climate Scammer proving that Climate Change is nothing more or less than a global religious cult. Things got better – much, much better – from there.

Hey, y’all! The “world’s fastest bullet train” goes a whopping 224 mph, not even half the speed of the typical airliner. Note to @AOC and fans of her nitwitted Green New Deal: This is NOT a workable substitute for air travel. Full stop.

This was the week we got to meet the “new Beto.” We discovered that not much had changed. Not much at all.

It was the week that Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib told us how she really feels about the Holocaust, and boy was it revealing.

It was maybe more revealing about the true sympathies of the Democrat leadership than Tlaib, in fact, given that no thinking person could have held any doubts about Ms. Tlaib’s antisemitism. 

The disgrace who is Tlaib was so obvious that even CNN felt the need to be temporarily honest about it.

It was the week Tim Conway died, and America became a little less amusing.

John Nolte captured everyone’s true hopes and aspirations for the fate of National Teenage Drama Queen James Comey.

It was the week we found out that this guy had already been investigating the investigators for a period of weeks, and we were just fine with that.

Unsurprisingly, it did not take long for the Democrat/Media smear machine to kick things into gear. *sigh*

Who was the last president who had the balls to travel to Louisiana to celebrate the great strength and progress of our nation’s oil and gas industry with a bunch of guys wearing hard hats? Hint: There is no correct answer to this question.

Oh, hey, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said something incredibly ignorant again. In other news, water continued to freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Not much to add here.

What do you mean, “as if”, Brent?

The folks at the Babylon Bee were on an epic roll this past week, which is just par for the course.

It was a week the Deep State skunks and snakes spent desperately trying – and failing – to secure favorable narratives for themselves as the wheels of justice at William Barr’s DOJ continue grinding.

And I’m going to have to cut this off right there, because WordPress has apparently run out of steam here. I’ll do the rest of the week in Part II to follow shortly.

 

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

Comey Lashes Out as Another Nadler “Deadline” Comes and Goes

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

Jabba The Nadler keeps setting deadlines, and they just keep getting ignored. – House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is very fond of “deadlines.” Unfortunately, he doesn’t appear to realize he has no authority to enforce most of them.

Oh, wait, before we get into this, watch Nadler smack his way through a breakfast interview with Democrat activist John Harwood, if you can stand it.:

For those of you who still like to read stuff, here is the transcript, courtesy of Rush Limbaugh:

NADLER: (restaurant noise) (lips smack) It’s… I mean, the right… (chewing) Ummm… (lips smack) Uh… (smacking lips) (unintelligible) That’s right. (lips smack) But, you know, we fought a — a — a Revolutionary War over that. (lips smack) It affects people’s lives ultimately. (lips smack) And, in fact, (lips smack) he may be… (lips smack) If he is destroying (lips smack) all the norms. (lips smack) and (lips smack) it’s a very different crisis. (lips smack) I think so. (lips smack) I mean, we have to hold hearings (lips smack) and not just on, (lips smack) you know, collusion with the — the Russians. (chewing) I believe that. (lips smack) I do believe that. (glasses clink) (lips smack) Donald Trump is a con man. (lips smack) He lies all the time. (lips smack) (swallows) Say, it’s down the road. I do. (glasses clink) (lips smack) Nixon (lips smack) never (chewing/swallows) never… (lips smack) …to the separation of powers. (lips smack) (glasses clink) I think that’s nonsense. (lips smack)

Ok, grossed out enough now? This man is at the tip of the Democrats’ entire “strategy” spear for 2019. How pathetic is that?

Back to the topic at hand: Thus far in 2019, Nadler has set deadlines on the production of President Donald Trump’s tax returns; on the production of the un-redacted Mueller Report; on the production of all supporting documents to the Mueller Report; on the production of documents from a vast array of Trump White House personnel and associates; on forcing Attorney General William Barr to testify; and twice now on forcing Robert Mueller to come testify live and in person before his Kangaroo Court Committee.

Pretty much all of these “deadlines” have passed without consequence. There is a good reason why that’s the case: Because Nadler is abusing his authority and attempting to assert powers he does not possess in his role as Chairman of the Kangaroo Court.

Nadler contends that all the subpoenas and deadlines and browbeating of potential witnesses through the media are all a part of his committee’s “oversight” authority. This is utter nonsense and he knows it. The Judiciary Committee has oversight authority to ensure the Department of Justice and all of its various arms are carrying out its duties under the law. The Judiciary Committee’s oversight authority does not give Nadler and his evil minions the right to do a re-boot of the entire 2-year, $35 million Mueller Investigation.

It is for this reason that Nadler’s subpoenas and deadlines are being ignored and will continue to be ignored. It is for this reason that Attorney General Barr ignored Nadler’s subpoena a couple of weeks ago, and will probably continue to do so.

It is for this reason that Mueller ignored Nadler’s initial May 15 deadline to testify, and it is for this reason that Nadler was forced to admit on Friday that Mueller will also most likely ignore his May 23 deadline to testify. In fact, it is for this reason that Mueller may never testify before Nadler’s Kangaroo Court at all.

Oh, yeah, there’s another reason why Mueller may never appear before Nadler’s committee, and it is buried all the way down in the last paragraph in the Politico story linked above:

Republicans eyeing a Mueller hearing see it as a chance to press the special counsel on the underlying motivations for the investigation and his reliance on FBI agents who shared anti-Trump text messages.

See, there are 17 Republicans on this Committee, and House rules require Nadler to let them question witnesses too. Does anyone really believe that Robert Mueller is going to voluntarily subject himself to questioning from the likes of Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert and John Ratcliffe?

Not likely.

Skunk Alert! – You can always tell who’s feeling guilty by looking for who is protesting the loudest. James Comey, our National Teenage Drama Queen, just can’t help himself. Last night, he responded to William Barr’s interview on Fox News – in which Barr never even mentioned Comey’s name – with this tweet:

I titled my piece on Barr’s interview “It’s Panic Time for the Deep State” for a reason. Comey personifies it.

You have the right to remain silent, Mr. Comey. You might want to take advantage of it for awhile.

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

About That January 6 Meeting Barr Referred To…

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

In my rush to get a partial transcript of William Barr’s interview on Fox News this morning posted up, I failed to include any explanatory notes. I thought it was more important to get the information out there for those who don’t have access to a TV during a workday than to take time for an analysis, particularly since the great majority of what Barr had to say is self-explanatory. But this has created confusion with some readers, particularly related to the “January 6” meeting to which Mr. Barr refers in the passage below:

Hemmer: Republicans have said for months that Brennan, Clapper, maybe Comey have had it in for Trump. Do you believe that’s the case?

Barr: “Again, I’m not gonna speculate about their motives.”

Hemmer: In the period between election day and the inauguration, did anyone in government take action to justify their decisions?

Barr:I think there were some very strange developments during that period – that’s one of the things we want to look into. Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6 between the intelligence chiefs and the President and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.”

Hemmer: Was that meeting in New York City? In Trump Tower?

Barr: “Yes.”

Hemmer: What questions do you have about what happened that day?

Barr: [smiling] “Again, I’m not gonna get into that. It’s one of the things we need to look at.”

[End]

Here is a video of the full Barr Interview for your viewing pleasure:

 

Ok, so, what “January 6” meeting is he talking about, and why is it important? Well, it’s very important, and the fact that Mr. Barr is focused on that meeting to the extent that he gives it specific mention in this interview is very telling.

The meeting in question took place on January 6, 2017 at Trump Tower in New York City. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to give the then-President-elect a full “intelligence briefing” from the Obama Administration’s senior intelligence advisors.

Backstory:

  • Less than a week before, either the New York Times or Washington Post – I forget which and does it really matter? – had run a hit piece claiming Trump was going to come into office unprepared because he had yet to accept this meeting. Trump famously stated that he did not need to be briefed by these skunks “because I’m smart.”
  • It is key to remember that by that time, Trump already knew that the Obama flunkies had been spying on his campaign and transition team, because NSA Director Mike Rogers had informed him of that reality shortly after Election Day. The briefing from Rogers prompted Trump to move his transition headquarters out of Trump Tower to a nearby resort property he owns.
  • This no doubt enraged James Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan, and they redoubled their efforts to press Trump for this “briefing” meeting. Trump finally relented and scheduled the meeting for January 6.
  • Present for the meeting were FBI Director Comey, CIA Director Brennan, Rogers and a representative the Office of Director of National Intelligence.  Clapper was then the DNI, but was not at the meeting personally. This is important, so remember it.
  • It was at this meeting that Comey informed Trump of the existence and basic content of the infamous Steele dossier, which by this time had already been used twice as the almost-sole justification for FISA warrants to spy on Trump officials.
  • Comey and Brennan have publicly argued in recent days about which of them insisted upon including this bogus dossier in this meeting – neither of them wants to accept responsibility for that decision, probably due to all the speculation that it was used in order to frighten and intimidate the incoming President.
  • Also remember that Trey Gowdy told Fox News last week that Comey and Brennan created an email trail leading up to this meeting that Gowdy believes will be incredibly damaging to both men once it is revealed.

Other key points here:

  • The January 6 meeting came a day after Comey, Brennan and Clapper, and reportedly Deputy AG Sally Yates as well, had briefed President Obama and AG Loretta Lynch. What do you suppose was discussed at that meeting?
  • Comey testified to congress that his “mission” – his word – for the Jan. 6 meeting was to let Trump know about the existence of the Steele Dossier. Who gave him that “mission”?
  • Comey testifed under oath that the reason he did not inform Trump that the dossier was – in Comey’s words – “salacious and unverified” in this meeting is because it was “not my mission for this meeting.”  Again, who gave him that “mission”?
  • Important to note here that above Comey in the Obama Administration’s pecking order sat Loretta Lynch, Brennan, Clapper, Yates and Barack Hussein Obama his own self. Any of those folks had the authority to assign Comey that “mission” for the Jan. 6 meeting.
  • We know that Comey left that meeting, called Clapper and said “Mission accomplished.”
  • Later that day, we know that someone leaked the contents of the Steele Dossier to CNN and CNN began reporting on its existence. Speculation here is that CNN actually already had the dossier in-hand well before that, but insisted it wasn’t news-worthy unless the incoming president had been informed of its existence. [“Mission Accomplished.”]
  • Shortly after that, Clapper was rewarded with a big contributor’s contract by CNN. CNN actually won awards for its fake reporting on the fake dossier.

Given all of that, does it make more sense to you when you see William Barr say this?:

I think there were some very strange developments during that period – that’s one of the things we want to look into. Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6 between the intelligence chiefs and the President and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.”

That’s why the Jan. 6, 2017 meeting at Trump Tower is a very, very important event in all of this. You unwind the discussions within the Obama Administration cabal that took place in advance of and right after that meeting, you have the key to the entire scheme.

Image may contain: David Keane, smiling, meme and eyeglasses, text that says 'I'M HERE TO INDICT THE DEEP STATE AND CHEW BUBBLEGUM ....AND I'M ALL OUTTA BUBBLEGUM'

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 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34
Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: