Since an adversarial press is suddenly such a good thing….
Why is an adversarial president toward press such a bad thing?
Why is an adversarial president toward press such a bad thing?
No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.
Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.
But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.
Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details
WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.
The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.
The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.
Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.
“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/
The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.
Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.
So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.
Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?
For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?
As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.
Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?
In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:
A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more
All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:
“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”
He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.
They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”
The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.
The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.
“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.
So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.
He recently told a reporter in December that:
“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”
Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.
Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.
RightRing | Bullright
One basic rule for Trump should be: if a question is on a matter pending further investigation, then NO comment or answer should be given. When in Rome….
Don’t like that? Then take it up with Obama. No comment was the widely accepted and understood gold standard for the last 8 yrs. Why change policy now?
Since they have most of Trump’s first three weeks and campaign under investigation, well, suck an egg media. You want investigations? Fine, then you cannot have both.
While we are on the subject, Supreme Court nominees do not have to answer a question on something that may come before the High Court in the future. It’s the standard, stupid.
So all those questions about Russia and Russophobia, take a hike media. Besides the narrative is getting a little old. And questions relating to Trump’s campaign? That was the campaign, we’ve all moved on. We’re past the campaign now, do try to keep up.
I actually heard a CNN anchor say that Trump should never reply to something with “I won the election.” Wasn’t that Obama’s popular tag line? They didn’t complain then. Let’s face it, they don’t want Trump to have any answers to questions because they will fill in all the blanks just fine by themselves. They already do anyway.
RightRing | Bullright
The National Association of Collective Hypocrites has run out now with an army to dig up stories and information on Trump. Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos told his Washington Post to dig up everything they can find on Trump, “doing articles about every phase of his life.”
From what Bob Woodward admitted to Fox, the Bezos mandate is a political initiative to influence the ballot box. He warns that people must have access to all information about Trump before going into the voting booth. “The New York real estate world is more complex than the CIA,” Woodward says. Complexity is a rationale.
But they unabashedly stomped all over the news on Barack Obama, even on Hillary. Instead of digging and putting information out there, they played a game of wack-a-mole waiting for any critical stories about Obama to surface and then aggressively beat them down, collectively. Rhodes and Gruber both confirmed media’s role.
They outright refused to vett him, dismissing or completely ignoring huge stories like Constitutional qualifications or his birth certificate. They operated under the assumption that we must prove he is not qualified rather than actually vetting him for people to decide. Media either did not want people to know or have fundamental questions about Obama. They wanted everyone on board with their narrative of a historical election — reassuring serfs that all was well in their kingdom. “Complexity” then was their excuse.
Only racists cared about Obama’s history or life. Only racist bigots cared about his qualifications. He tried writing two biographies just to keep people from concentrating on his disturbing history. Obama called people bitter clingers. Then the media buried anything critical of him. Revisionists were in high demand.
Imagine if Ben Franklin were around to see what they did? They abdicated their duty and wanted people to go into the voting booth without critical information about Obama. They wanted people to ignore basic questions and information — the dumber the better. And once elected, they declared the time for questioning was over. They told us the American people elected him. They told us the information was out there but we elected him anyway. They put a an exclamation point at the end of the sentence. “Game over!”
Old Ben would be shocked that the modern press apparatus collectively took a pass to vet or cover Obama with anything near a hint of objectivity. He’d wonder how they could intentionally do that and what their real purpose was for doing it?
So now we have a citizenry fed up with the elite political establishment, but secondly just as fed up with the mainstream media agenda. Oh right, they are one and the same now — another thing Franklin would find fascinating and troubling. That this collective cabal would essentially decide who our president should be and that voters would be putty or pawns in media’s hands.
Now the National Association of Collective Hypocrites pulls out their rule book to say it is their job to dig into every faucet of one’s life and expose all the character flaws of the candidate. Anything short of that would be dereliction of their duty. And they’ll tell us the public demands it and nothing less. We could not shame them into vetting or questioning Obama. They can’t even report on what he has done in office. Instead, like Rhodes claimed, the press are only echo chambers for the administration. But truth about Obama’s agenda could be toxic and even hazardous to the press — thou shalt not be critical of Obama.
RightRing | Bullright
Every once in a while — all right more frequent than that — it is time to get out and see what some of the biggest mouthpieces are saying about key events going on outside the beltway-fed silos or mainstream American news cycles.
Whoops, did I just say mainstream America? That should be a typo since what the left’s acolytes increasingly lump into “mainstream” are the radical assertions trickled down from ivory towers on high, cultivated then fertilized further by hotbeds of hatred activists for anyone with opposing views to their uber-centric, neo-Marxist ideology.
Al Jazeera asks medical experts about the psychological, physical and generational effects of war on Gaza’s youth
July 31, 2014 | Al Jazeera
Beyond the immediate loss in Gaza — destruction of property, infrastructure, and the deaths of more than 1,600 people, mostly civilians — Israel’s onslaught will have long-term mental and physical effects on the Palestinian children who survived weeks of airstrikes and naval and tank shelling.
Many of them watched as family members were killed and homes, schools and mosques bombarded. Others suffered life-altering injuries. Israel’s military campaign may also affect the unborn, as mothers and fathers struggle with traumatic stress, health experts warn. [more]
I challenge you after reading these clips, to take a look at the link from Al Jazeera to see the academic level of their Leftist diagnosis of the Israel-Palestinian situation, which is the thought they are trying to mainstream. They’ve been somewhat successful at it.
Dr. Jesse Ghannam, clinical professor of psychiatry and global health sciences at the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine:
Even before the current military offensive, young Gazans bore the mental scars of years under siege and previous episodes of bombardment. After the 2012 war, the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among children in Gaza doubled, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides assistance for Palestinian refugees. Mental health experts fear that the latest bombardment may create detrimental repercussions too difficult for children to overcome.
Palestinian children in Gaza are exposed to more violence in their lifetime than any other people, any other children, anywhere in the world. If you look at children right now who are 10 years old, they’ve been through Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009, the invasion in 2012 and now the invasion and destruction in 2014, in addition to the siege. If you look at the statistics, for example, even before Cast Lead, 80 percent of Palestinian children in Gaza have witnessed some sort of violence against them, a friend or a family member. And now you’re getting to the point where probably close to 99 percent of children in Gaza are being exposed to a level of violence where they have seen family members be killed, murdered, burned alive. There’s nothing like the levels of traumatic exposure that any child in the world has ever been exposed to on a chronic and daily basis. – more Al Jazeera
Here is a llnk from the Salon magazine arguing against the coverage in the NYT of the Israel-Palestine conflict. They blame the Times for getting it wrong by leading people to think it is a matter of various factors and social media that lead Palestinian youth to the violence like the recent attacks on Israelis. They take big issue that this be blamed on anything but Israel. Imagine that, even the Times doesn’t satisfy their anti-Israel appetite.
It may be hard for us to consider that the Times falls short in carrying the Leftists’ water, but this illustrates that dynamic I’m talking about where even the Leftists are not far enough Left to satisfy them. Thus, the whole push to mainstream, further, the narrative of the new Leftist thought. And they will have their way, as they usually do, even if incrementally, driving the Times and other Leftist mouthpieces into their narrative. After all, when they get academia and virtually all their other liberal institutions to drive a point it usually has results.
So just for a flavor of that high-brow prodding toward their “mainstream” view, here is a small sampling:
If not placing the blame on social media and Palestinian youth, defenders of Israel’s policies argue that the cause of the violence goes far back in history, to an inbred, and therefore a historical hatred toward Jews. Such an argument also says therefore that the Occupation is not to blame. Maybe not, but how then to ignore the fact that the very worst of the violence we have seen through the years has been in the West Bank and Gaza, and that it is occurring now? – Salon
Then you have from a blogger on the topic, what passes now more for liberal mainstream, an overview of the mainstreaming activism of pro-Palestinian thought.
The leftwing movement of criticism of Israel is getting more and more mainstream by the second. Everyone is walking the path; they’re just getting there a little later. The Washington Post, a hotbed of neoconservative ideas for the last 15 years, has another article harshly critical of Israel today, written by an Israeli. And guess what: that article along with yesterday’s article by the two prestige Jewish academics calling for boycott of Israel are the two “most-read” articles on the Post list this morning! –
This feeds into the next topic, the BDS activist movement. As it says, this is increasingly becoming mainstream opinion/thought, at least from leftists. They get louder to drive the narrative and seem to think the more they promote it as such, the more it becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy. Seeing is believing.
Now we see the clear picture of the media hypocrisy. We had the Democrat debates where Sanders announced he was “sick and tired” of hearing about Hillary’s damn emails and the press in the press room cheered. They were giddy over the declaration to end any questions over Hillary’s servergate scandal.
Then we have their nonsensical, insulting, off topic gotcha questions to Republicans — at least one outright fabricated, okay call that a lie. Then the press complains when they are called on it. Well, now that they have an official truce on Hillary’s emails and Benghazi, calling her a winner, that gives them them lots more time to focus on Republicans. (even if they have to make it up)
CNBC counters the negative criticism and defends their debate saying: “People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions.” Yet press applauded the Sanders’ declaration to end the email subject. The mainstream media has no credibility. One week they are rabid attack dogs for tough but irrelevant questions, and the next gushing over front runner Democrats saying how well she did after handing her softballs. That we see how fast they can do a 180 is amazing.
Opinion writer –
The consequences of President Obama’s passive foreign policy came close to home this week.
My Post colleague Jason Rezaian, the paper’s Tehran bureau chief, has been languishing in an Iranian jail for 15 months on bogus charges of espionage. He was put on secret trial by a kangaroo court. On Sunday, Iranian state TV reported that he had been convicted.
And Obama said . . . nothing. He didn’t go to the briefing room and make a statement. He didn’t even release a written statement. On Tuesday, his press secretary, in response to a reporter’s question at the briefing, responded with what might have been described as minor annoyance with the Iranian regime.
“We’ve got a number of concerns,” the spokesman said, mentioning the “unjust” detention and “opaque” process.
That’s the White House, Obama’s message. Pick a number, any number…
Which of that number is just wrong and causes Obama to say something? 0
But it’s really not so baffling, for Obama. Yet he can come out to “politicize” a shooting in Oregon before the bodies are moved. Speaking of opaque.
This is why you should never believe “liberals'” mantra, and why they are so dangerous.
In addition to trying to redefine the Second Amendment as not protecting anyone’s right to bear arms, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (pictured) is now excited about how to redefine the First Amendment.
As with guns, Durbin is trying to limit constitutional freedoms so that they cannot be used by people of whom he disapproves. In an opinion essay published in the Chicago Sun Times last week, Durbin argued it was “time to say who’s a real reporter,” so that no one else can be given First Amendment protections.
“Is each of Twitter’s 141 million users in the United States a journalist? How about the 164 million Facebook users? What about bloggers, people posting on Instagram, or users of online message boards like Reddit?” Durbin asked.
Ostensibly, Durbin’s motive seems to be about extending additional freedoms sometimes called “shield laws” which place some limitations on courts…
View original post 754 more words