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]. "

Andrew Malcolm

✔@AHMalcolm

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

5:12 PM - Aug 9, 2018

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." . . .

"Jim Acosta Tweets Photo Of His One True Love, Twitter Smacks Him Down"

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."

TRUMP WINS AGAIN: Germany's Central Bank Stops $400 Million Cash Delivery To Iran

Daily Wire

"President Trump has won another victory: Germany’s central bank has terminated a $400 million cash delivery to Iran.

"Deutsche Bundesbank has previously worked with the Iranian-owned European-Iranian trade bank (EIH) to end-around sanctions the United States has placed on Iran. As Fox News reports, “The U.S. and the European Union previously sanctioned the EIH for its role in advancing Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The sanctions on the EIH were lifted after the world powers reached an agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program in 2015.”

"In July, it was revealed that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government was trying to circumvent the sanctions that were implemented this week. U.S. ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell urged Merkel to terminate the $400 million cash delivery." . . .

Sarah Jeong Is a Boring, Typical Product of the American Academy

Heather McDonald at National Review

To decry her anti-white ‘racism’ gives her too much credit for originality.

"The most significant feature of Sarah Jeong, the New York Times’ embattled new editorial board member, is not that she is a “racist,” as her critics put it. It is that she is an entirely typical product of the contemporary academy.

"After the New York Times announced Jeong’s hire in early August, web sleuths dug out a mother lode of tweets demonstrating an obsession with whites. Samples include “white men are [bullsh**],” “#cancelwhitepeople,” “National/ Pretty goddam white/ Radio,” “I’m tired of being mad about white dudes. I’m going to pretend they don’t exist for a week,” and “I figured it out. Powerful white women automatically receive officer status in Club Feminism. Unless they disavow.” Both the Times and Jeong blamed her posts on . . . you guessed, it, whites. Her status as a “young Asian woman,” in the Times’ words, made her a subject of frequent online harassment, to which she responded “for a period of time” by “imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”

"This argument was, to borrow a phrase, bullsh**. Jeong’s five-year tweet trail is much longer than a mere “period of time” during which she allegedly experimented with counter-trolling. But most important, her tweets are not imitative of anything other than the ideology that now rules the higher-education establishment, including UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School, both of which Jeong attended. And that ideology is taking over non-academic institutions, whether in journalism, publishing, the tech sector, or the rest of corporate America. Sarah Jeong’s tweets and blog posts are just a marker of the world we already live in." . . .

NYTimes Has Embraced The BIGOTRY Of Identity Politics  . . . "Why are purveyors of identity politics so committed to preventing open conversations and freedom of association? Why don’t purveyors of identity politics realize that cultivating bitterness in people condemns millions of individuals to social isolation and punishment? Or do they realize this and not care?" . . .

Ann Coulter: Sarah Jeong Better Drive Carefully!    . . . "But the federal “hate crimes” statute allows the feds to skirt the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy — at least for certain kinds of “hate.”

— The stabbing of Yankel Rosenbaum by assailants yelling “Get the Jew!”: NOT a federal hate crime.

— The brutal kidnapping and murder of a young white couple in Knoxville, Tennessee, by black youths: NOT a federal hate crime.

— The torture of a mentally disabled kid in Chicago, by assailants saying “F— white people!” and “F— Trump!”: NOT a federal hate crime. (Curiously, none of the attackers was Sarah Jeong.)

— A white man killing a white woman by driving into a crowd of left-wing protesters: THAT’S a federal hate crime.

"To make their case, prosecutors did a deep dive into Fields’ social media postings to prove that, yes, while he might have killed a white woman in this particular case, he’s still a racist." . . .

Don Lemon’s dumb response to being called dumb

Shouldn't even the left be sick of the old "it's racism" schtick by now? TD

Power Line  "When President Trump assumed office, I resolved to begin watching CNN’s talk shows. Why? Because I wanted to make sure I heard reasoned criticism of the new administration.

"After about two weeks, I concluded that there was precious little reasoned criticism of Trump to be found on CNN. Typically, the network served up bloated panels with each member trying to outdo the others in mindlessly attacking the new president.

"Finding CNN unwatchable, I turned to Charlie Rose. He was insufferable, but asked mostly intelligent questions to mostly intelligent guests. We all know what became of Charlie, however.

"By then, I realized that I could get my fill of anti-Trump content — some reasoned, some not — just by reading the Washington Post every day.

"Of all the folks I watched during my brief flirtation with CNN, Don Lemon struck me as the least intelligent. Thus, although President Trump’s recent statement that Lemon is the dumbest man on television covers a vast amount of territory, I’m not about to quarrel.

"Lemon, naturally, is quarreling. But he’s doing so in a way that reinforces Trump’s assessment. Lemon claims that it is racist to call an African-American dumb, regardless, presumably, of whether he is. He said:

The president has called a lot of people stupid. Some of those people are white. But I would just like to note that referring to an African American as dumb — remember this is America — is one of the oldest canards of America’s racist past and present: that black people are of inferior intelligence.

"Here’s what Lemon is saying: Racists believe African-Americans are intellectually inferior to Whites. Donald Trump has called a few of his African-American critics, as well as some of his Whites ones, dumb. Therefore, believes African-Americans are intellectually inferior to Whites. Therefore, Donald Trump is a racist." . . .

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace Jubilant Over Report of Omarosa Secretly Recording Trump: ‘That’s Awesome!’

. . . Wallace, one of the Trump administration's fiercest critics at MSNBC, didn't seem to know that as she closed her daytime program with the report—the show came back from commercial break with panelists already giggling—and noted Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, was apparently not the only person in the president's orbit to record their conversations.  Free Beacon

Weasel Zippers

"Objective journalist. But turns out with most of the things they pin their hopes on, it’s so far pretty innocuous."  Via Free Beacon:

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace sounded ebullient on Wednesday over a report that former White House aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman secretly recorded conversations with President Donald Trump.

The Daily Beast reported she secretly taped Trump and leveraged the conversations while shopping her new “tell-all” book about her time in the White House, entitled Unhinged. The report noted multiple sources “described the recorded conversations between Trump and Manigault as anodyne, everyday chatter, but said they did appear to feature Trump’s voice, either over the phone or in-person.” . . .

Keep reading…

D’Souza’s Death of a Nation has provoked prog critics' outrage

There are, of course, some good reviews.  Randy DeSoto writes for the Western Journal.  He is right when he says that the film "leaves you with a sense of pride for what the United States has stood for...."   He is exactly right.  If only the American left could feel pride in America and how its success as a democratic republic has benefitted the  world.  But they don't feel pride, they feel anger and rage.  Why is a mystery to behold. 

Patricia McCarthy  "Unsurprisingly, Dinesh D'Souza's film Death of a Nation has made the loud voices on the left stark, raving mad.  A perfect example is the film review website, Rotten Tomatoes.  The eleven critics gave the film a zero.  The voting audience gave it 90%  approval.  The same is true at all the typically leftwing sites that review films." 

Rotten Tomatoes 

. . . "The hysterical reaction to this film by the left is yet another sad commentary on the state of American education.  The film is thoughtful and balanced.  Unlike privileged film reviewers like Scheck,  D'Souza, an immigrant from India,  sees so clearly what is great about America.  He is grateful that it is his country now. 

"Few, if any American leftists ever express gratitude for being born in America.  They relentlessly complain and malign this country.  They have no appreciation, no gratitude for their good fortune to be American.  That's what they do.  That is who they are." . . .

Among Democrats, the Clinton name is starting to stink

Knowing how the Clintons operate, and knowing how they never intend to go away, one can safely conclude that they aren't going to let this stand.  There will be payback to the Democrats for this, and the Clintons will make it miserable.  For Republicans, all we have to do is have some popcorn ready.

Monica Showalter  . . . "Democrats are moving away from Bill Clinton like a bad smell.  In New Hampshire, which up until now has been one of Clinton's strongest states, a name inextricably linked to some of Clinton's strongest political successes, as the Boston Globe notes, grassroots Democrats have yanked Clinton's name from the masthead of a big Democratic Party fundraiser, changing the whole thing to the hoary name of Eleanor Roosevelt."
. . . 

"It's a fall that coincides with Democratic Party operatives' efforts to separate themselves from Hillary Clinton, who's been a millstone around their neck lately, and who they've repeatedly said they wish would just go away.

"Turns out they don't want "the big he" around, either.  That's a loss of clout.

"Maybe that's a cumulative thing, given that from the Democrats' point of view, as I noted here, the Clintons have selfishly drained Democratic funds away from the central mission of electing candidates toward themselves, rigged the Democratic primaries in Hillary Clinton's favor, and made themselves a public relations liability for Democrats through Hillary's continuous expressed disdain for the electorate.  They aren't exactly a good thing for Democrats as they seek to rebuild from the rubble of Obamadom." . . .