Friday, August 10, 2018

What would the intelligence community's 'insurance policy' against Trump look like?


The Hill . . . "Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.

"What exactly might an “insurance policy” against Donald Trump look like?

"He would have to be marginalized at every turn. Strategies would encompass politics, the courts, opposition research and the media. He’d have to become mired in lawsuits, distracted by allegations, riddled with calls for impeachment, hounded by investigations. His election must be portrayed as the illegitimate result of a criminal or un-American conspiracy.

"To accomplish this, bad actors in the intel community could step up use of surveillance tools as a weapon to look for dirt on Trump before his inauguration. They could rely on dubious political opposition research to secretly argue for wiretaps, plant one or more spies in the Trump campaign, then leak to the press a mix of true and false stories to create a sense of chaos.

"Once Trump is in office, a good insurance policy would call for neutralizing the advisers seen as most threatening, including his attorney general. The reigning FBI director could privately send the implicit message that as long as Trump minds his own business, he won’t be named as a target. When the president asks the FBI director to lift the cloud and tell the public their president isn’t under investigation, the FBI director could demur and allow a storm of innuendo to build. Idle chatter benefits the plot. There would be rampant media leaks, both true and false, but none of them would benefit Trump." . . .

What sort of economic wizards want to put Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in charge of the US economy?

Ocasio-Corte[z] cornered  "Ben Shapiro, with a huge assist from Candace Owens, has cornered the current darling of the left.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must be deathly afraid to debate capitalism versus socialism with any knowledgeable conservative.  Her embarrassing incoherence and unfamiliarity with basic knowledge that could be expected of an economics major from a respectable university have attracted major notice, even though her fans remain impervious to criticism coming from anywhere right of left-center on the political spectrum.


Socio Political Journal

"Now she has badly blundered in turning down an offer to discuss or debate socialism coming from Ben Shapiro:
. . . 
"I have no doubt that Ocasio-Cortez will at first ignore, and ultimately decline Candace Owens's offer, but she is going to have to come up with an excuse that does not rely on race or sex.  This leaves abundant opportunities to embarrass and humiliate her, such as protest signs and demonstrations at her many public appearances from now, challenging her inability to defend her views.
"It has become clear that this wonder girl of the left is the worst kind of ignoramus, the kind that remains self-confident and unaware of the huge lacunae in her knowledge and understanding.  Because she is attractive, smiles a lot, and has an approved race background, she is catnip for the mainstream media.
"She is about to become a public embarrassment."

When backed into a corner, call RACISM!

'CATCALLING' Ocasio-Cortez Thinks Debating Is A SLUR... . . . "Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions," she wrote. "And also like catcalling, for some reason they feel entitled to one."
"Shapiro responded: "Discussion and debate are not 'bad intentions.' Slandering someone as a sexist catcaller without reason or evidence does demonstrate cowardice and bad intent, however."
"Ocasio-Cortez’s unanticipated victory over veteran Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary over Crowley's New York seat put her in a national spotlight earlier this year. " . . .

Ocasio-Cortez dismisses Ben Shapiro's debate offer, compares to 'catcalling'
. . . “ 'You’ve noted that you think Republicans are afraid to debate you or talk to you or discuss the issues with you. Not only am I eager to discuss the issues with you, I’m willing to offer $10,000 to your campaign today for you to come on our Sunday special," Shapiro said on his show." . . .

The Epic Failure of Democratic Socialists on Primary Night  "Something happened on the way to the future for Democrats on Tuesday night. The democratic socialists swallowed a large dollop of reality and proceeded to choke on it.
"Every single Democratic primary candidate endorsed by the party's celebrity socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, lost. They not only went down to defeat, most of them were slaughtered." . . .

"Star Wars" They want to take Trump's star back? 30 more popped up today

Don Surber  "So, the West Hollywood City Council thought it would rid Hollywood of President Trump's Walk of Fame Star.
"President Trump's supporters had other idea[s]. "


Pretty funny. If you can't beat 'em, fake 'em: Fake Donald Trump Stars Pop Up All Over Hollywood Blvd. http://www.tmz.com/2018/08/09/fake-donald-trump-stars-all-over-hollywood-blvd-walk-of-fame/  via @TMZ

A group of anonymous right-wing street artists has multiplied President Donald Trump’s Walk of Fame star on Hollywood Blvd., following the destruction of his real one.

"The artist told the Hollywood Reporter that he was motivated not only by the vandalism of the real star and the unanimous vote by the West Hollywood City Council to recommend the removal of Trump’s star.
"Concerned about being attacked for the art, the group kept the name on the stars covered until they were all positioned.
“I didn’t want to get hit over the head from behind. We thought Trump Derangement Syndrome was a joke, but I’m pretty sure it’s real,” one of the artists told the Hollywood Reporter. “If no one peels these off, they could last there for 10 years.”

"Sadly, it seems that they have already been peeled off, as local businesses were worried about another maniac coming by with a pick ax."

The MSM vs. President Trump

Thomas Friedman: Media should work together to hurt Trump  "Liberal New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said the news media should work together and saturate the public with negative coverage of President Trump in order to erode his popularity among Republican voters.
"Friedman said in an op-ed published Wednesday afternoon that if the media emphasize Trump's personality instead of news about the strong economy, it may discourage enough GOP voters from continuing to support the president and benefit Democrats." . . .
Friedman
"Thomas Friedman lives in some parallel universe where this isn’t already happening."  Just watch CNN and MSNBC.

Liberal Magazine To Acosta: Your 'Performance Journalism' Is Only Helping Trump; UPDATE:Says Reporters Shouldn't Be The Story  . . . "From North Korea to the recent rally in Tampa, Florida, Acosta is being trashed. He then gets his television hot, where he laments how he feels like he isn’t in America anymore when people heckle him. Not everyone is receptive to this form of “performance journalism.” Former CNN producer Steve Krakauer called his antics embarrassing, while former MSNBC host Dave Shuster pretty much told Acosta to cut it out. Acosta had tweeted he was sad that Press Secretary Sarah Sanders didn’t declare that the press wasn’t the enemy of the people after the Tampa rally. Shuster more or less said suck it up, buttercup. Oh, and you’re hurting journalism:" . . .

CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta told Stephen Colbert that reporters are "not supposed to be the story" . . . . . . "Acosta, who appeared on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" to a standing ovation earlier this year, was promoted to CNN’s chief White House correspondent in January." . . .


The effect it all has on you when the liberal culture loves you:


How the Press Lies about Itself   .  . "In the same way, you can be very much in favor of the free press but against dishonest, agenda-driven reporting – i.e., "fake news."  In each set, one of these things – legal immigration and the free press – is not like the other one – illegal immigration and fake news – and that's true no matter how much somebody scruple-challenged might bleat otherwise in order to gain purchase on a fraudulent, dishonest position." . . .

Wall Street Journal peddling 'blue wave' doom  . . . "We have been told since at least 2008, when Obama won, that there is a blue wave.  People have said, repeating Democrat talking points, that the Republicans must move left and join in with Democrats on their policies or they will never win again.  Instead, the Republicans moved right with the Tea Party, advocating for smaller government and fewer regulations (which the public likes), and from 2010 to 2016, the Republicans picked up majorities in the House and the Senate and over 1,000 seats nationwide – and yet we continue to get the nostrum that Republicans had better move left and give in to illegal aliens, or else they will never win again." . . .
The collusion among the DNC, Hillary, the Obama administration, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the media to protect and elect Hillary and to destroy Trump and Republicans is much more dangerous than anything the Russians or other countries have ever done or could ever do.
CNN being CNN way back in the Gulf War:

The Case for Banning Alex Jones

TD tried several times to post a jpeg photo of Jones but the server rejected it every time, even the photo that came with this Weekly Standard article. It finally accepted this political "cartoon".


Weekly Standard  


"There's no reason for conservatives to be defending this guy.

"One of the downstream effects of Trumpism is that the fact of having a President Trump has given conservatives a hair-trigger on defending every marginal figure, no matter how stupid or malicious. It’s easy to understand why: Trump is close to these people in form and substance, so allowing them to be attacked can be seen as a proxy argument against Trump. No conservatives would have felt duty-bound to defend Milo Yiannopoulos had Mitt Romney been president.

"But we are where we are, so various conservatives have risen to defend Alex Jones in the wake of Facebook, YouTube, and Apple kicking him off of their platforms. Their defenses come across three vectors, each of which is flawed.

"(1) It’s a First Amendment issue. Let’s dispense with this one off the top: No, it’s not. And conservatives used to understand the difference between having the right to say something and having the right to say something without consequences.

"None of the tech companies that have de-platformed Jones are impinging on his right to speech. He can still record and disseminate podcasts and videos. He can still publish whatever conspiracy theories he wants. No one is threatening him with violence or jail or a fine or denying him a license to carry on as he pleases. No arm of government touches this case in any way.

"All that is happening is that privately owned companies are declining to allow him to use their resources to broadcast his speech. There is no First Amendment case—none at all.

"(2) It’s an equal-access issue. You might recall a couple months ago when conservatives celebrated the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision. (Rightly, in my view.) The nub of their argument was that privately held businesses ought to be allowed to refuse certain kinds of services to certain customers, provided that (1) the refusal was based on reasonable, non-discriminatory grounds and that (2) the person being refused had reasonable recourse to an alternative remedy.

"That’s precisely what has happened here. Jones is being denied access based on his behavior and actions, not who or what he is. And he has an enormous, obvious, and reasonable remedy: The Internet." . . .

'Russian agent' Trump slaps more sanctions on Russia

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/
Rick Moran  . . . "Congress is considering even more severe sanctions for Russian meddling in the 2016 election.  The president and the State Department have not signed off on new sanctions, however, citing the damage new sanctions would cause U.S.-Russia bilateral relations.
"This proves, of course, that Trump is not Putin's "lap dog," nor is he being "run" by Russian intelligence.  Trump's mild reaction and expressed disbelief regarding Russia's clear interference in the 2016 election is troubling to many but hardly "proof" of collusion.
"It's a shame that the left didn't display this kind of suspicion of President Obama, who enabled the terror state Iran to expand its influence in the region by lifting sanctions after negotiating a one sided, ineffective agreement on Tehran's nuclear program."

Some Dare Call It Treason  "Trump’s Helsinki remarks impugned his judgment, not his loyalty, and the idea that disagreement with the intelligence agencies constitutes treason is profoundly disquieting."