Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Not strong enough

Analysis of Trump intelligence flap


This article is supposed to be a defense of Trump, but it isn't good enough for my taste.  He ends with ( a paraphrasing here of what he wrote ) that the claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

What he should have said was that it should be dismissed out of hand.

The writer claims to be cynical.  If he were really cynical, he wouldn't be more cynical than what he was, as this is what he said in his piece.  Got that?  It means that he wasn't cynical to begin with.  To be really cynical is to just reject whatever the Washington Post and the rest of what fake media says.  Let them show proof with their claims.  They should not be taken seriously until they start dealing with facts from people with names and faces.

There are ways to dealing with serious issues, and running to the Washington Post with this story means that the story isn't serious to begin with.

Update(s): 6:06:

Something snarky like this post may be fun to read, but it is also weak tea.  Actually, to fight fire with fire, you need to do something like this.  The point is to stop playing defense, and go on offense.

6:40:   If Hillary wants to reenter the fray, then perhaps we should respond by asking about the so-called Vince Foster suicide.  According to this 2016 article, there was some additional evidence of foul play, which was covered up.  Furthermore, I read recently that Foster died the day after POTUS Bill Clinton fired all the US Attorneys at the time.  Moreover, one of Clinton's appointees quit his US Attorney job in protest of the compromised investigation.

Even though Kenneth Starr was accused of partisanship, I am so suspicious of establishment Republicans, that I wonder if his investigation was nothing more than failure theater.  That failure theater ended with the impeachment and failed conviction of Clinton.  In other words, they never really wanted justice in the first place.

Note:  Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994, which is well after the firing of the US Attorneys.  Therefore, Miguel Rodriguez, who was a US Attorney had to have been appointed by the slickster himself.  There is little information about Rodriguez, and my assertion is based upon the timing of the appointment of Starr.  Rodriguez was the lead investigator, and resigned in protest at a compromised investigation.

Finally I add that I didn't know some of this stuff.  Normally, you just slough off this stuff, or I do.  But things are getting a bit weird, so it may be time to start paying very close attention to what is going on.


Copy of Rodriguez's letter of resignation (pdf).

It clearly shows reasons to be deeply skeptical of the ruling of a suicide.

7:12:  It was the FIB director that Clinton firedBut Clinton did fire all US Attorney in 1993, so Rodriguez had to be a Clinton appointee.

7:24: Rodriguez letter shows that he was possibly the subject of an investigation himself.  This looks suspicious in itself.  It looks like a Clinton operation to discredit anybody who investigated them.


Starr's investigation had to be failure theater, or Kayfabe.  Why?  Why would you allow your lead investigator to be forced to resign?  If he was serious about getting a conviction, there was plenty of reason for getting tougher.  That includes the investigation of Rodriguez himself.  Not to mention the fact that aides were caught in Foster's office rifling through his files.  Now, isn't that reason to be suspicious?   Sounds a bit like bleach-bit-ing  emails to me.


The question today is: why would you agree to a special prosecutor, when there is no crime?  No dead bodies, no missing property, no breaking and entering.  Zip, zero, nada.  Why a prosecutor?  To prosecute for mere suspicion isn't good enough.  You have to have a crime to prosecute.

Why would you fire Comey, if you did not intend to have justice served?  What was the point of Comey being there if he wasn't going to serve justice?  Was justice served when it is as clear as day that she broke the law?  Hell no!

You seek an indictment.  Even if you don't get one, you recommend one.  If Comey believed he couldn't get one, or if he already asked for one, why not say that?  But he didn't say that.

Comey has no integrity.  It appears that this is the norm in Washington DC.

Finally, does Trump want to be POTUS?  Or is this just Kayfabing it?

No comments: