Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

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

Advertisements

To change or not change…rules

What’s a little rule change between friends? (okay, enemies)

Come one, come all, come and see the show.

RNC rules official warns lack of transparency could ‘blow up the convention’

Washington Examiner
By Daniel Chaitin • 4/16/16

A lack of transparency in the nomination process threatens to have dire consequences for the party, a member of the Republican National Committee’s committee warned Saturday.

Days after Donald Trump called the GOP nomination “rigged” after Ted Cruz swept the entirety of Colorado’s 34 delegates, two members of the RNC’s rules committee debated whether the party should change the delegate rules.

While members of the RNC rules committee meet this week to debate delegate rules, Randy Evans, a national committeeman from Georgia, told CNN’s Michal Smerconish that its too late in the game to start changing the rules.

“There is a sense in the committee that we really shouldn’t change any rules this late in the process,” said Evans.”

///

“We’re operating in a supercharged political environment. We could blow up the convention as well as the Republican Party,” Yue said.

Though he didn’t mention any particular examples, Yue said another threat to the party is Chairman Reince Priebus making decisions on his own without consulting the majority of the delegates.

See video

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rnc-rules-official-warns-lack-of-transparency-could-blow-up-the-convention/article/2588749

Blow up the Party? Hmmm seems the GOPe demolition experts have already done a bang-up job of that. Wow, they better watch that incendiary language.

In the end, it’s Trump

After months of deliberating and looking at candidates, I whittled down on my options to one. I thought I had a second choice but alas that was just an illusion.

So I decided on Trump. Since people already criticized and attacked me for supporting Trump, I suppose I might as well. Kidding aside, I tried all along keeping an open mind. In the end, I decided Donald Trump gets my vote. Unlike other people, I won’t hate on those supporting another candidate. It’s their choice.

First, it was not about popularity or favorites. I often support underdogs. In this strange case, Trump is a little like an underdog.(in some ways) He is not the favorite of the establishment. In fact, he is about the least favorite.

But there was a purpose and an objective. It was a 75-25 decision. I was already 75% behind Trump before. Then events of the last few weeks put me over the line. What a few weeks it has been for the panic-stricken arrogant elite. Plus the media has been casting its vote all along. That all made it easier. So there’s a hashtag NeverTrump making the rounds. But my hashtag would be not again. So I settled on Trump.

Reasons for my choice were broad. Enough is enough. Well, it has been enough for a while but this was the opportunity to voice it and do something different that hadn’t been done. Every election they tell us who our choices are and ram their establishment choices down our throats. We’re told we just have to accept it. Well, this is a bit of irony.

Some say he is not the best choice. I say he is not perfect. No candidate seems to be -particularly these three. But this offers more than a usual choice between two evils. This choice goes back a long way with me. In fact, back to 2000. That’s where Cruz took it, too. He brought John Roberts into the Bush vs. Gore battle. The rest is history, punctuated by Cruz’s advocacy for Roberts as a SCOTUS pick. He’s complaining about him?

Now that we are to decide who the outsider insurgent is, between three, the other two candidates have taken to the air to raise every suspicion possible. The roles reversed and Rubio is channeling Trump. Cruz pulls out every accusation he can dream up.However, it is not just them. The RNC and every operator within the establishment has been scheming to oust the Trumpster. Who’d have thunk something would cause such a stir in the establishment? Venom and tempers flare.

Romney, probably the king of the establishment, came out to personally launch an attack and whisper campaign against Trump. He was shopping for surrogates to do the dirty deed and then decided he would do it himself. Rubio contacted Christie after he dropped out, also after the smack down debate attack. Rubio boasted to Christie that he has a very bright future ahead. (you thought the Donald was the one with the over inflated ego)

Then Christie endorsed Trump, attacking Rubio in his speech as not ready for prime time. Cruz is too slimy for prime time. The RNC flung itself into the toilet threatening to flush itself down over Donald Trump. (hint: it might take a double flush, Reince)

The establishment had a meeting, according to NYT, to brainstorm how to take Trump down. They fear Trump threatens the Party(as they know it) and could cost them Congress and the election. Camp Rubio is making plans for a brokered convention scenario. Mitch McConnel is planning a Senate coup to abandon Trump.

At least one report says RNC has people strategizing some independent run. Kasich and other candidates are hypothesizing parsed out spoils of a post Trump era. They all complain about why more or somethimg wasn’t done to stop Trump much earlier? I thought they had tried. (everything they could think of) If these guys are this baffled over fighting off Trump, how can they deal with Hillary?

Little does this Party establishment elite realize their real fight is with the people, base, and conservatives. The more they dig in the more obvious it becomes.

Establishment RNC are boldly trying to connive a candidate ‘choice’ for the Party. Gee, you thought that’s what elections were for? So did I. It just reveals the true character of the RNC and estabo elite and how far they will go. It’s like gang turf war to them.

So in view of all this I made my decision. This all made that easier.
In the end, it’s Trump. Or is it Trump till the end?

RightRing | Bullright

Reince suspends NBC February debate

So Priebus fires off a letter. Why didn’t he cancel it? That would be appropriate.

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

But then the RNC has proved to not be great negotiators, so what good is suspending it? And NBC will do as it pleases anyway, so what is this about? How about also suspending the deal-maker in chief at the RNC (unpaid leave) since he made it? I also read CNBC promoting the debate online to be on Economy, Taxation, with some Climate Change. I never saw that mentioned elsewhere.

“In two parts, the debate focused on the economy, taxes, the national budget and climate change”.- CNBC