Saturday, June 8, 2019

Never Trumper wrong? Who'd a thunk?

Comment:

If impressions and memory serves, Ben Shapiro is a never Trumper.  Maybe not so much of one now?

It might even possible to get George Will to join the "cult"!  C'mon Georgie.

Frankly, I don't follow Shapiro.  It could well be the case that he was joining in with the never Trumpers without actually being one.  He supported Ted Cruz, according the Wikipedia link above.   As for George Will, well, that was a joke, of course.


The increasingly tattered and discredited Mueller investigation

Comment:

Even the freaking New York Times seems to know more about Russian collusion than Mueller did.

What a loser.

Money quote from the Times:

Mueller barked up the wrong tree, even the New York Times could tell that.

"KK" as he is known, had State Department connections.  How can he be a Russian spy, unless the State Department is effed?  Maybe the State Department really is effed, but Mueller was looking elsewhere.  Why?  You'd think all these super-patriots like George Will would want to find out about that.



Real clear investigations reports: Mueller's "scorched earth tactics"

Comment:

The human cost of Mueller's phony investigation into a nonexistent crime.  George Will would approve.



Friday, June 7, 2019

New Development in Flynn Case

Updated,

6.7.19:

4:52 pm:

Well, the plan was not to spend all day on it, but here I am, spending all day on it.  For anybody who's interested, the Flynn conversation referred to was near the end of a 5 page release.  It looks like 10 pages, but the other 5 pages is a duplicate.  ( I think, since I am not going to go look at that thing again to verify. )

The prosecution involved perhaps as many as 4 lies to the FBI claimed by the Mueller gang.  As I mentioned, you cannot determine if Flynn lied on the basis of the 302's alone.  There has to be evidence of something.  The 302 reads like those who are asking the questions knew what they were looking for, and so if Flynn lied, it had to be for a reason.

However, we don't have any way of knowing that.  The government won't make that public, but it may have given that information to Judge Sullivan exclusivelyIf Sullivan doesn't get it, then what does he do?


1:30 pm:

After studying the released 302 a bit, and not wishing to spend all day on this, I have come to a preliminary conclusion that Judge Sullivan is attempting to verify if Flynn really did make false statements to the FBI.

If he did, and if he pleaded to that effect, Flynn doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You cannot make that determination unless you have access to the wire tapped conversations of Flynn.  How they got those wiretaps is another matter.  However, if they got the wiretaps as they must have, because there is no information in the Mueller report that shows how Flynn was purportedly lying; and if those show that he was indeed lying, then Flynn is guilty.

I think that is what Judge Sullivan is attempting to verify.  If he does find that those match up, then he will sentence Flynn, and Flynn may well have nothing to complain about.

It could well be that they got those wiretaps through a fraudulent FISA app, then that would be something.

However, they may have their asses covered on that one too.  For if there was an information meeting to get their story straight, then there may not have been anything that is plainly false about the Steele Dossier.  Not that anything in it was verified for factual accuracy as to the central allegation of Russian collusion, but that serious factual errors might have been removed as a result of the Kavalec meeting.

Then the Kavalec meeting might well have been unethical in the extreme, and maybe even illegal.  However the FISA app itself might have been "good enough" to pass the smell test.

All of this is speculation.  It was all bravo sierra and political.  Still is.  But you may not get any convictions for stuff like this.


6.6.19:


Comment:

This one just goes on and on, like an Energizer Bunny.  If this one results in anything but a dismissal of the case, I'd be surprised.  On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

Anything could happen these days.

It is obvious to me that Flynn didn't deserve this.  But this is the way it is these days.






Here we go again...

Comment:

There is truly some value in presenting truth, but sometimes you have to step back and just look at the big picture.

The big picture in the Russian collusion hoax is that it is a hoax.  So, this is just more evidence of the hoax.  Glad to know it, but water is wet too.  I don't need further evidence of water being wet.  I can always know that water is wet, so I don't need anybody to tell me that.

But I suppose there are people out there who need to be reminded that water really is wet.

Dan Bongino alluded to something yesterday.  Sure, more water is wet evidence that the Russian collusion hoax is a hoax.  Yep, Bongino posed the possibility that Steele's meeting with Kavalec ( which produced the handwritten notes of Steele's and Kavalec's conversation ) was an "information exchange".  The information exchange was to get Steele's story straight.

In other words, that there was coordination between the State Department and the FBI. 

So this kind of buttresses what Bongino said yesterday on his podcast.  But, wait.  Doesn't this already confirm what you should already know?  I mean, water is wet, or is it not?

This is getting surreal.  I guess I can play along like I need to prove that water is wet to people who insist upon denying it.  Sure, let's all play along.  Sheesh.


Thursday, June 6, 2019

Dire Straits - Lions

5.31.19:

A song off their debut album recorded in the late seventies.

At the time, the song intrigued me, so I studied it a bit.  Just now, I looked it up again on Songmeanings website, and a number of people offered their opinions of what the song meant.

The people's analysis was too superficial, in my opinion.  I think the song is about the fall of Western Civilization.

He ends the song asking about the lions, and what happened to them?  The lions are very brave-- but there's just a scared young woman relying upon astrology to get her home.  The song's tone is bleak.  No question about it.  Even the "red sun" going down sounds ominous.

See if you don't agree.

Updated:

6.6.19:

A revision, but only a slight one.  It isn't exactly about Western Civ, but mostly about the UK.  The setting is at Trafalgar Square, which commemorates a British naval victory.  The Lions are on Trafalgar Square.  Metaphorically, they guard the Empire.  What happened to the Lions?  They are the old generation.  In other words, the Lions are made of stone.  They are dead and gone with the old generation.  The new generation cares little about the old glories, and won't even have children to replace themselves when they die.  The result is that something has to fill the vacuum, and it won't be British.

"The starlings are tough, but the Lions are made of stone."



6.2.19:

Compare and contrast with Social Disaster.  That is, if you agree that the Dire Straits song is about social decay in the West ( particularly the UK).  One thing that could stand out is popularity.  One is popular, the other is not.  Does popularity really mean as much as is attributed to it, then?

You'd have to agree with Western decline to be able to answer that question.  For it requires that as a premise.


What's left of the West worth saving?

Comment:

Unbelievable.  But that is in the UK.  In this country, maybe not impossible for a guy like that to be elected mayor.  Even after 9/11.




I'd love to be able to respond to this, but cannot

At least not on the Mahablog itself.  However, I still can here.  That is, as long as there is free speech in this country, which may not last much longer if the left gets its way.

The Mahablog banned me on her blog for a lot less than what I am about to say in this post.

She claims that if Trump ever pisses off the 1%, he's toast.  I'm saying that the 1% didn't get him elected, Maha.  In fact, the 1% are the ones running the Establishment wing of both parties.  Those people already hate his guts.

Now if the Establishment wing has that much influence over the rest of Congress, then she might be right.  However, the Congress still gets elected by the people.  The 1% don't have that kind of power.  Not yet, at least.  It's the people who are keeping Trump in office, not the 1%.  If it were the 1% who decides whether he goes or stays, he would be gone already.

As for the Democrats, if it weren't for the 1%, they would have to be honest for a change, and support the people.  Trump is at least attempting to do that.

Now, if Maha was really all about freedom and democracy and all the good things, why would she ban something as mild as this?


Here come da judge

Updated,

6.6.19:

10:30 am:

Here's a piece from the so-called "Moderate Voice".  What is "moderate" about this???  There is just one amorphous mob called the Democrat party now.  They aren't capable of moderation.  The author is Dana Milbank, who promised to eat his own words if Trump got the GOP nomination in 2016.  Evidently, he is also capable of being WRONG, and crazy ( his own words).

He's not promising to eat his own words this time.

9:00 am:

Here is a long essay that expounds upon the issue.  I didn't bother reading all of it.  Why not?  It is probably too long, and besides, the general idea is stated early in the essay.  The rest is just more examples of the same.

6.5.19:

( an old laugh-in gag )


But it is no joke.  There is one good reason to fight back against the left.  The left will claim that you have no right to judge, but the left doesn't apply that standard to themselves.  So, why can't you judge?

Not Christian?  Somehow, I think this is meant to disarm those who would fight back otherwise.  It is an Alinsky tactic.  ( Alinsky said to make your opponents live up to their own standards. ) After all, if you judge, then how can you be a good Christian?  Doesn't it say in the New Testament "judge not, and be not judged"?  However, there is a moral bargain made between those who say that you cannot judge in any case.  That would mean nobody judges nobody.  For if you cannot, then neither can they.  But if they can, then so can you.  If they break the moral bargain, then all bets should be off.

Generally speaking, it is weak to allow yourself to pushed around by bullies.  If the left has gotten this far, it is with bullying tactics.  The best way to cope with the bully is to stand up to him.


Hillary:"POTUS not above law"

Comment:

No, only she is.



Pelosi disgraced herself

Pelosi is Speaker of the House.  Such a position of power requires a sense of responsibility.  Reports have it that she said that she wanted to see Trump in jail.   This is very irresponsible, for it could lead to retaliation.

If Trump is to be jailed for anything, it cannot be for political reasons.  That's the kind of thing that happens in banana republics.  For the Speaker of the House to talk like this is a very irresponsible thing to do, for it erodes the basis for a civil society.

If this report is true, then Pelosi should resign.  She would be unfit for such a high office, for it requires trust.  Such a statement is a breach of public trust.

If she said that he violated the law, and should be charged as such, that would be more defensible.  But it would still not be good.  The president would be entitled to a fair trial, as everyone else is.

Besides, the POTUS is innocent, and the Democrats are lying when they say otherwise.




Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Deeper dive into Bongino's video of 6.4.19

Updated,

3:00 pm:

There is more on this video, as the earlier portion is only about half of the video.

There are at least two other references besides the Mueller case that he covers.  One involved a beating of an old guy who wore a MAGA cap.  These stories are a recurrent theme out there.  The left appears to be resorting to violence if they cannot have their way.

Lest you think this is only on the fringe, he mentions the Manafort treatment.  He doesn't defend Manafort's behavior.  He was convicted.  No, not that.  It does seem clear that the left wants to punish Manafort all out of proportion to what he was actually convicted of doing.  My take on that is that they want to intimidate those who would support Trump in any way.

Keep in mind that the DOJ passed on the prosecution of Manafort long before Trump ran for POTUS.  Therefore, he is being treated this way because of his association with Trump.  It is plain and simple intimidation.  It is coming under the color of authority.  This isn't fringe, then.

If elements of the GOP want to join with that, then whatever is said against them is justified as far as I am concerned.  Actually, anybody who joins something like this ought to be removed from any organization with any sense of decency.


11:32 am:

The stuff that Bongino covers is also in his show notes, or so he says.  The thing that grabbed my attention appears to not be in the show notes.  Or if it is, it isn't properly labelled.

This isn't to knock Bongino's work.  I think he is doing a great job, but there is so much stuff in there that you can get lost in the details.  That is especially true when you are watching a video.  A lot of info goes flying by, and you think .... wait!  Back up the truck, and let's look at that again.

With that in mind, I dive a bit deeper into that video.  There's some interesting tidbits here that should be looked at a bit closer.  Only insiders may be fully familiar with it.  Somebody like me is NOT an insider, so this stuff may seem a bit esoteric at times.  The following may seem like insider baseball, but it actually made it into the Washington Post, of all places.

Let's look once again at this Ruemmler character.  Did you know that she was on the short list as replacement AG in the Obama Administration?  There was a 2014 scandal in the "scandal-free" administration involving the Secret Service and prostitutes.  It seems that Ruemmler was in the thick of that, and that is why she didn't make AG, you see.  This wasn't the only time Ruemmler was involved in something questionable.

As we reported previously, not only was Ms. Ruemmler in the middle of the IRS email scandal, the Benghazi cover-up, and the most vigorous “protector” of a president while increasing government secrecy and violating the rights of others, the Post places her squarely in the middle of the cover-up of the Cartagena sex scandal for which the Secret Service and the military took the sole blame for having several prostitutes spend the night before the President arrived.[ Sidney Powell, Observer dot com op-ed ]
Reference to this tidbit was here:

Ruemmler is a "fixer".  
It so happens that Ruemmler is Nader's attorney, and was Obama's White House legal counsel as well.  Talking about a John Dean type character.  Except that she hasn't been caught yet involved in something, or has she?  Well, if she has, nobody seems to be looking.  Why not?  Maybe this is a clue.

Nader has been around.  This guy is a guy that Trump INHERITS from previous administration, including Obama's.  But you'd never know that from the way it is being reported.

So, from here, Bongino swerves into mentioning his "fixer show".  Whoa!  Back up the truck again.  You gottta lay out these details a bit more.  Well from that, I got the connections of all these people to each other.  I posted that yesterday.  Here it is again in a chart.

They all know each other.

This screen shot came from the fixer show mentioned here:

You have to watch this show too, which I did.

So, why was Mueller so interested in Nader as the source?  Remember, Nader has just gotten busted for child porn.  He is a REPEAT offender.  NOBODY seemed interested in that.  Why?  Just asking, WHY?

Well, here's a link to a possible motivation:

What?  Clinton machine ties to Saudi Arabia, and lobbyists-bundlers were connected to a RUSSIAN firm co-founded by Putin.
Read the caption, there.  Why is Mueller talking to a guy who might know something that could incriminate Hillary?  What does this have to do with Trump?  Salon says that there is nothing to see with regard to Hillary.  But is that really true?  Anyway, the term Panama Papers came up.  One more thing to research there.  What this all about?  Click on the link above for more info ( from Wikipedia)  Bongino comments that the salon dot com piece was written on the basis of left-wing angle ---"nail the rich" --- not the Mueller Russian investigation angle.  But did they miss something?  Bongino thinks so.

This relates to Nader and his information regarding a certain meeting.  Nader was involved in setting up the meeting.  Evidently, this meeting was supposed to have information useful to Mueller, but as we've seen, there was no there "there".   It could have been meant as a "set up" in order to smear Trump with a fake suspicious meeting, which was actually a nothingburger.  The real significance is how Clinton gets involved in something nefarious, it is a nothing, but when Trump has an insignificant brush with it, well there a scandal there.  That old double standard rears its head.  Nader's motivation is to get help with his own troubles.  Hence, his need for a fixer.

Note that the "Republican" named Mueller, the guy running the investigation, isn't the least bit interested in any possible collusion of Hillary with this Russian intereference in the US election.  No sir, he is only interested in Trump.  For this, we are to believe that it is non-partisan.  Hah.

It is well-known that Republicans didn't want Trump as the nominee in 2016.  Yet, after two years of this, and a great deal of spying, they cannot pin anything on the guy.  Could the Clintons survive that kind of scrutiny?  No way.

Because of all that bias against Trump, the real scandals are not investigated.  The GOP would rather stop Trump than investigate real corruption in the DOJ and in the previous administration.  Is there any wonder then that they are so ineffective as an opposition party?

Guess who was brought into the Mueller team?  Kathy Reummler.  Bias?  What bias. /sarc  Conflict of interest?  What conflict of interest? ( remember that Reummler represents one of Mueller's informants, who happens to be a child porn offender who needs a "fixer")  /sarc



Okay, I think this is about all that I want to cover.  It is taking all morning to do this much, but this is only about half the show.

What did I get out of it?  That the Mueller Investigation is running cover for the Obamas and Clintons.  He's part of their Praetorian Guard.  As long as Trump has to play defense, he cannot turn his attention to cleaning up DC.  Trump cannot "drain the swamp" while they are trying to drown him in it.  The Democrats have GOP help, but Trump needs their support in order to survive.  Meanwhile, they both work overtime to stop his agenda, and keep a cloud over him so that they can get him out by election if not by coup.



FBI was warned more than once about Steele

Sen. Lindsey Graham says that they were warned in August 2016.  Even after this, Steele travels to US and there was the Kavalec memo.

This testimony could clinch it, if there is any more doubt anywhere that the case was bogus.

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Fed Policy changes?

Updated,

6.4.19:

Some talk of a rate cut sent the market on fire today.  The kind of money you could make if you had an inkling of a news item like that.

6.3.19:

It looks like the bond markets expect one, but current Fed policy says otherwise.




Davis: Bad day for Comey, Mueller

Updated,

6.4.19:

5:51 pm:

Just so you know that it isn't just a bunch of bravo sierra, here's a chart that Bongino had on his show, which shows the links.  Monaco and Weissmann worked on the Enron case, with Mueller.  Mueller was using Nader, who had Ruemmler as his attorney.  Same for Obama!  Ruemmler worked with Monaco as well.   Weissmann got to hire his own people.  Weissmann was a big Hillary supporter.

There are more details in the show.

"They all knew each other."  Sounds familiar, like the people who ensnared PapaD, who all knew each other.  Plus the people who produced the Dossier, and so forth.  This is what you might expect from a conspiracy.  Ooops!  I should have said "collusion".

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Obama.   Somebody might accuse me of racism.


4:00 pm:

Here's the low down on why this was a bad day for Comey and Mueller.  However, as Bongino notes here, nobody's interested.

Why???

That's a $64k question right there.  These people are getting away with something.  In fact, they have been getting away with a lot for a long time now.  It won't stop until enough people do pay attention.

By the way, the original story was written up like a Trump issue, but it is not.  It is really an Obama issue.  But Obama is untouchable.  He is the ONE WHO CANNOT BE CRITICIZED.  Ever.

This is the kind of thing that can happen when somebody is not subject to the rules.  Yet they try to say that about Trump.  It was Obama who was not subject to the rules. 

It's okay to go after Trump, but you can never go after Obama.  The thing is, two could play that game, but it doesn't get played but by one side.  That's the difference.




6.3.19:

Comment:

But it is written like it was a Trump problem.  Why Davis thinks it is bad for Mueller and Comey is not real clear from the WaPo article.

One thing is clear, the guy is a sleazebag.

This may have a bit of a set up feel about it, so there's that possibility.




Here's a JUICY tidbit.  Kathy Ruemmler is George Nader's lawyer.   Links to Obama and Weissmann.

Now that is something.




More evidence of intent

Comment:

Hillary was not prosecuted because it was said that there was no intent ( if memory serves).

By the way, it was James Comey who made that announcement even though it wasn't his call.  Also, proof of intent was not necessary.

So, here we are, 3 years later, and we've got evidence of intent, says Fitton.  It would not surprise me if he is 100% correct.  The point is, Hillary has got Trump under pressure while out of office, and she's guilty as sin.  Meanwhile, Trump is not.

This ought to say something to people, but I suspect that it won't.




Sidney Powell interview on YouTube

Updated,

6.4.19:

Another stunner of a moment came while I was listening to the Bongino show.  I heard this too ( I think ) on the Powell show below.  The thing was that Mueller was involved in the Arthur Anderson case, which is connected to the Enron case.  Many of those convictions were thrown out.

But that isn't what stunned me.  What stuns me is the same thing as with this that I wrote previously.  Why did the Bush Administration sit by idly while the Democrats were trashing his administration???

The point is that this didn't begin with Trump.  It is a GOP problem.  They seem to be like deer in the headlights when it comes to what the Democrats pull off.

Mueller is said to be a Republican.  Well, they can say that, but why does he work with Democrat hacks like he did in the recently concluded Russian collusion hoax?

That is why I say that there are a faction in the GOP who are enabling the bravo sierra that is killing the party.

The GOP doesn't have to be a willing participant in their own destruction.  Especially when they didn't do anything wrong, for heaven's sake.  Bush could have done something besides sitting there helpless.


6.1.19:

This was rather interesting, and I listened to most of it.  The thing that stopped me was this disconnect between what she was saying, and the facts on the ground.

For instance, she is finding great fault with the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.  That person, by the name of Jessie Liu, was appointed by the current POTUS.  That is the fact on the ground.

Something is disconnected here.  So, I stopped at that point.  Let me be clear.  I do not challenge Powell's assertion that Liu made a really bad decision recently.  ( and perhaps more than just the one she mentioned )

However, if you accept what Powell is saying as accurate, then why did Trump nominate her, and why does he keep her on the job?  That's the fact on the ground that stops me cold.



12% Democrats say America never great

6.4.19:

11:22 am:

Could it be the UK?  Elton John may disagree with you.



11:08 am:

If America was never great, then what country in the world is?  It would interesting to see the answer to such a question.



A tweet a tweet

I tawt I taw a tweety tweet.  I did!  I did!

I've noticed this thing that Attkisson has up.  Now I am going to jump in.  Let's see what happens.


WaPo: "Democracy dies in darkness."


Comment:

Seems a bit "dark" here, Mr. WaPo reporter.





Monday, June 3, 2019

Like a lot of things, fundraising could be done better.

Someone takes fundraising to task.  "If only certain candidates had more money"--- goes the lament.

The fact is they probably did.  People stole the money and didn't use it for the purpose intended.

It all boils down to truth.  If you really want the result, you can get it.  But you really have to want it. 

Let's put it another way--- if you aren't more careful with your money, it could be diverted from where you thought it was going to where you don't want it to go.

Thieves are stealing our culture away.  Somebody comes along and promises to do something about that, but they lie.  They take your money and actually do the opposite with it.  Terrible isn't it?  But if you are not careful with your money, how do you know for sure if that is where the money is going?

You just have to be careful these days.  People are so deceitful.


Steering wheels

Comment:

This reminds me of a story.   There was somebody who didn't like what somebody else did out there driving on the streets of Houston.  So, one driver asks the other how many steering wheels does his vehicle have.  The answer, of course, is one.  So the first driver says to the other driver that he should take care of his steering wheel, and he would take care of his own.

Seems like London is London's business, and America is America's business.  If Trump called him a loser, it is because London's mayor is poking his nose in somebody else's business.

Novel concept, is it not?  "Take care of your business."  Who'd a thunk of that?



Social media blues

Social media is driving us all crazy, says the Instapundit.

Well, it does appear to encourage mob behavior.  That's not good.

Seguing into something somewhat related, the current political situation may be contrived in order to rule over us.  How?

Consider this:  The phony Russian collusion attack is being allowed because it maintains the sharp divisions between the red and blue models.  Since the GOP could have quashed this "investigation" long ago, the hoax is being tolerated so that Trump will toe the red line.  As for the left, the accusations are being supported without evidence because it keeps their people in line and engaged.

Trump held promise as the ultimate outsider who could change the political equation, but the Russian collusion hoax is helping the ruling class, aka Establishment, keep him in constant check.  If he doesn't do exactly what they want, they will remove him..  If Trump fails in his promise, the public will tire of him, and won't re-elect him, provided that he survives the coup attempt.  Either way, the ruling class wins.

At least, that is the theory.  As for how that relates to social media, it could be the way that mobbism seems to self-validate itself.  The Framers of the CONUS did not trust mobbism.

The best way to check the mob is with firepower.  Check Col. Sherburn in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn.  Another weapon is independence of thought, which is a difficult task since the mob destroys independent thinking.  You could ask people to think for themselves, but that could be asking too much.


Sunday, June 2, 2019

One of things Sidney Powell mentioned


... is that Weissmann was connected to GPS Fusion.  Not to mention his other connections.

There is so much wrong here that it amazes me that it was allowed to go on for this long.

Seriously, people... why was this allowed?  Is Trump powerless?  Yet his critics claim that he is a dictator.  Would a dictator allow this?


If Barr could have stopped this, then why did he allow it?

Comment:

Here's another one of these mind blowers.  If I read this right, Barr could have stomped this Mueller Inquisition to death so that Congress could not do a thing about it.

Instead, Congress can hide behind Mueller, and Mueller can hide behind Congress.

Barr may be a bit of a disappointment after all.   This article makes Barr look weak.  Not as weak as Sessions, but still weak.





Angry white males need not apply


By Cuomo's logic, since he looks a bit angry himself, he should love Trump.  What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe Cuomo should wear blackface, since it worked for Virginia's governor.






Comey says Barr is repeating conspiracy theories

It is well to remember that the "collusion" theory was a conspiracy theory as well.  Comey repeated that one, and still is.

Why would Comey attempt to label Barr's words in such a manner?  It is to discredit what Barr is saying.

Comey says Barr's job is to gather the facts.  If Comey had gathered some facts correctly, he'd still have his job!