Grappling with a paradigm shift

Media lies are the real scandal by Don Surber – “Most voters are numb because we no longer believe the media.”

“John C. Harwood at CNBC wrote a piece, “Most voters have become numb to each new Trump scandal because they don’t believe what he says anyway.”

Since Trump’s election on November 8, 2016, the media has reported lie after lie after lie about him and his supporters.

Harwood and others just allege ‘liar’ without anything solid to back it up as a character attribute. As with much of the character assassination epithets hurled at Trump, evidence and reason, comparison and contrast, cause concern about the accuser and not the accused. Surber provides a list to illustrate this.

April Ryan shows that the victimized media are faking it by Eddie Scarry – “The moaning from the national media about the Trump administration inciting violence against reporters has always been a lie, and now everyone knows.” Claiming victimhood is the last realm of scoundrels. Here is a case study. It’s another ‘compare and contrast’ of reality versus fantasy.

“To date, however, there has not been a single act of violence against a reporter that can be directly traced to Trump calling the media “fake news” or Sanders, who has complained about the “tone” some reporters take in their questions.

Media indifference to Hillary’s money-laundering by Jack Hellner – “Can the media think of any other porn star who has been treated as pure as the driven snow by the media because of one unsubstantiated claim of a seven-hour rendezvous twelve years ago?”

“Meanwhile, escaping the media’s gaze is over $10 million funneled through a law firm from the DNC and the Hillary campaign to pay Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele to create a false Russian dossier by paying Russian sources to destroy Trump.

The goal every day by people in the bureaucracy and in the media is obviously to destroy Trump. Facts haven’t mattered for a long time.

Busted! FBI-DOJ caught using redactions of House Intel Committee Report to protect their posteriors by Thomas Lifson – “The release of a less redacted version of the House Intelligence Committee Report on Russian active measures (AKA “collusion”) has exposed abuse of the redaction process to protect the bureaucrats at the FBI and Department of Justice.”

“In theory, redacting of official documents prior to public release is supposed to be solely to protect confidential sources, or protect ongoing prosecutions, or otherwise serve legitimate government interests. Redactions to prevent embarrassment or potentially illegal activities on the part of federal officials is not legitimate.

Yet that is clearly what happened when the House Intelligence Committee report was first redacted by the DOJ and FBI.

It is now clear beyond dispute that the agents of the Deep State are afraid of exposure and are abusing the powers of their offices to prevent their perfidy from being exposed.

Judge Ellis Wants to See Mueller’s Hunting License by Clarice Feldman – “Rosenstein’s hat is no longer white, either.” The pot is boiling and mud splatters are being dissected. Will justice prevail? Will the rule of law mean anything to the courts? Some glimmers show but hope is still rather dim.

Why All the Secrecy? By Andrew C. McCarthy – “It’s time to level with the public about the basis for Mueller’s investigation.”

“A prosecutor has the power to subpoena virtually anyone. In our system, there are very few limits on what the grand jury may investigate. A comparison usefully illustrates this point. I’ve frequently observed that by appointing Mueller without first establishing a basis to believe a crime warranting investigation had been committed, Rosenstein violated regulations that govern special-counsel appointments. By contrast, the grand jury has no such constraints — it can investigate pretty much anything. There is no proof hurdle — such as “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” — that has to be surmounted. In fact, a grand jury is free to investigate even if it just wants to satisfy itself that a crime has not been committed.

So a prosecutor who is using the grand jury has sweeping investigative authority. That includes broad subpoena power. There is a big difference, however, between the power to issue a subpoena to a person and the power to make that person testify.

Bottom line: The question is not whether a prosecutor has the power to issue a subpoena. It is whether the person he wants to subpoena has a privilege that would allow him to refuse to testify.

Now, why does our law grant such privileges? Because we recognize that in a society based on ordered liberty, some things are simply more important than the search for truth in a criminal investigation.

There are thus very good reasons why Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein should step in and prevent Special Counsel Mueller from seeking to question the president. But I want to leave you with a different thought. How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?

Mueller probe is a political counter-revolution to overthrow TrumpIt must be defeated by Steve Hilton – “Denying the facts is exactly what the elitists are trying to do.”

“The elitists in Washington (including – frighteningly – current and former leadership in our law enforcement and security bureaucracy) are monumentally aggrieved that the people had the temerity to elect a populist outsider to the White House. And they’re not prepared to wait for the 2020 election to try to replace populist Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe is political warfare through legal means – not surprising when you consider that the Democrats are the party of lawyers, funded by lawyers.

They don’t care how their political counter-revolution gets President Trump out – whether it’s proving the original, fabricated claim about collusion; or by some legal process misstep by the president and his team; or by something to do with Stormy Daniels. As long as it gets President Trump out of the Oval Office before 2020, it’s fine with the counter-revolutionaries.

But this all-out effort by the establishment to remove a president who was legitimately elected according to the Constitution is doing terrible damage to the United States.

The 2016 election was far from a fluke By Salena Zito – “America’s political experts got it wrong in 2016 — not because they took too few polls, but because they made the false assumption that American elections are immune to societal change.” It’s called a paradigm shift.

“Trump was not the cause of this movement, he was the result of it. In order to fully appreciate his rise to the White House, you need focus on the people who put him there.
… 
Far from a fluke, the 2016 election was a product of the tectonic plate-grinding of our society — a backlash against globalism, secularism and coastal elitism.

New York Post: The insanely complex and pointless court war over DACA – “Sadly, the Dreamers’ best hope now is that Congress will do its job once the court games end.” There shouldn’t be ‘court games’ but the judiciary cannot agree on what is law and what is political ideology and has it priorities in strange places.

Comments are closed.