Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Media Rich Russiagate

A media rich edition. From Jerry Dunleavy at WaEx new that Nellie Ohr met Christopher Steele at Mayflower Hotel the day before FBI's Trump-Russia investigation began. Sometimes they really are out to get you. Michael Van der Galien at PJ Media, Sara Carter Slams the Deep State for Targeting Trump: 'This Is Witch Hunt 2.0'
and sundance at CTH sends along Sean Hannity Provides Latest Tick Tock – IG Report Will Contain Criminal Referrals…

Some analysis from Byron York at Wa Ex, Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
Here are four problems with the Vindman testimony:

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer. . .
2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators. . .
3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge. . .
4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President Trump. . .
And from Ace, Surprise! The Same Media That Spent a Week Lecturing People That It Was a Crime to Criticize LTC Vindman Now Flip-Flop and Start Attacking LTC Hickman, For Having The Audacity to Criticize Vindman "It's okay to attack gauche, deplorable veterans." From "Bonchie" at Red State, Alexander Vindman’s Lawyer Makes A Fool Of Himself And It Shows His Coordination With Adam Schiff, which will work in the House, but not in the Senate. From Matt Margolis, PJ Media, Reports That Lt. Col. Vindman Was Fired Over His Testimony are Fake News Sundance provides Dobbs and Fitton Discuss Vindman’s “Deep State” Coup Effort….

And "Whistleblower #1"? At Am Spec, Ann Hendershott digs into The Radicalizing of Eric Ciaramella - It starts at Yale and a professor of Arabic who romanticizes terrorism.
In fact, long before he was digging up dirt with the DNC’s Alexandra Chalupa about President Trump’s mythical collusion with Russia, Ciaramella was involved in leading a protest over what he believed was the poor treatment of Bassam Frangieh, a radical professor of Arabic studies at Yale. On April 15, 2005, then first-year Yale student Ciaramella dressed in all white to lead a contingent of 10 similarly dressed first-year Yale Arabic students to the offices of the provost and the president of the university to demand that the university provide an incentive to encourage Frangieh to stay at Yale. The students were unhappy because Frangieh had decided earlier in the school year to accept a tenure-track position at the University of Delaware.
Charlie Martin at PJ Media Eric Ciaramella or Voldemort?  "He Who Is Not To Be Named." Ace,  Mollie Hemingway Says, Factually, That Eric Ciaramella Has Been Reported to be the Whistleblower and the Seditious Media Attacks "Howie Kuntz was said to be sputtering in rage."
At CR, Levin slams ‘feckless’ Senate Republicans for trying to keep the identity of the ‘so-called whistleblower’ secret

Debra J. Saunder at AmSpec, Count on Big Media to Protect Anti-Trump Sources

Althouse, "A key to Mr. Biden’s relevance as vice president was his willingness to take jobs nobody else wanted."
. . . That "without evidence" — in "Mr. Giuliani has claimed, without evidence..." — would make more sense to me if the same words were used when people are imagining Trump's intentions based on something that we know he did.

We know what Trump said in his Ukraine phone call, but we continually hear that's strong evidence that he was using U.S. monetary aid to bribe Ukraine into manufacturing dirt on his political opponent to serve his personal interests.

Why don't they say people only claim that without evidence? We have evidence of Biden's statements and activities, but we don't know what was in his head, but he could have been motivated by a desire to cover for his son. That's an inference you could make from the evidence, and it's always hard to prove what's inside somebody's head.

I'd just like to see a consistent approach to talking about other people's thoughts. You could say "without evidence" whenever you're making an inference about thought from the evidence that we do have. Or you could make inferences from the evidence and just speak about them as if the inferences are evidence.

Both of those approaches are bad, and I know damned well that nobody understanding the choice and wanting to be consistent and neutral would pick either option. What I want is clear speech about what evidence there is, the need to make inferences from the evidence, which inferences are stronger, and what we should do when there are different possible inferences.
NYT, through Hot Air, whines that  Giuliani Associate Says He Gave Demand For Biden Inquiry To Ukrainians. I don't really care, do you? And the AP, National security officials objected to stopping Ukraine aid. Fine, they recommend, but the President decides. Reuters, former Bushie, Former U.S. top diplomat Rice concerned by shadow diplomacy on Ukraine
Or as Insty notes OR (3) It’s all bullshit, isn’t it?

Josh Hammer at DaWire has the background The Complete Timeline Of The Trump-Ukraine Story

Robert Curry at AmGreat, Has the Coup Already Happened? "We have an elite that does not accept the American idea of government—government by, for, and of the people." At DaWire, Liberal Democrat Dershowitz Compares Democrats To Russian Secret Police Under Stalin, Blisters CNN

Hugh Hewitt at WaPoo, How the Senate can stop a purely partisan impeachment. Just vote to not to proceed to consider each of the articles of impeachment. Politico whines that Republicans plot counterattack for impeachment hearings, and from Legal Insurrection, “Impeachment” Hearings: Republicans Plan To Put Biden and Democrats on Trial, and Schiff Is Not Happy
“Committee sources” tell Axios, linked above, the goal of the hearings is to keep things “narrowly focused” in order to help “accelerate the impeachment timeline”:
Between the lines: Committee sources tell Axios’ Alayna Treene their goal is to keep the public hearings narrowly focused so that it’s both easy for the American public to follow and helps accelerate the impeachment timeline. They’re focused on bringing in the career officials who revealed the most about Trump and Ukraine — meaning don’t expect many new names or faces as the inquiry shifts to a more public setting.
Let’s really read between the lines here. The fact that they want to “accelerate” public impeachment proceedings goes against everything House leaders including Schiff, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler have been saying for months regarding the Ukraine call controversy and the Russia collusion investigation: that there is no rush to judgment and no rush to impeach.

Of course, that was an obvious lie, but the sources telling Axios their goal is to speed up the process just confirms it.

Secondly, Taylor, Kent, and Yovanovitch will go first because they are supposedly the Democrats’ star witnesses who Schiff and Co. believe will provide to the public the most damaging case against President Trump.

The most revealing information from the Axios report, however, is in how the committee seeks to keep the public hearings “narrowly focused.” The stated reason is to make it easier for the public to follow and to speed up the process.

The real reason is because Democrats want to obstruct House Republicans from their strategy of broadening the inquiry via their selection of witnesses in an effort to show the American people there are justifiable reasons why President Trump would want the Joe and Hunter Biden issue and the DNC server issue further investigated by Ukrainian officials.

After all, if the case can be made that Trump’s requests were legitimate and served American interests, then the reasons given for impeaching him will evaporate.
CNS News, Democrat Himes: Americans Will Hear from 'Immensely Patriotic, Beautifully Articulate' Witnesses as opposed to the immensely fascistic, ugly, poorly spoken Trump supporters. WaFeeBee: PBS Correspondent: Dems Hoping for Tearful Impeachment Hearings
Democrats 'want Marie Yovanovitch to be there because I'm told she cried during her deposition'. Breitbart, Democrats Shift from ‘Quid Pro Quo’ to ‘Bribery’ and ‘Extortion’ Ahead of Public Impeachment Hearings. Still trying to create a crime.

Capt. Ed at Hot Air, Moyers: For The Sake Of The Nation, PBS Must Go Wall-To-Wall On Impeachment Hearings. I would expect nothing less from the former Press Secretary for LBJ. And from John Sexton, Soledad O’Brien: Brian Stelter Should Be Ashamed Of Himself.
"Cillizza-level inanity" I'll have to file that under "useful phrases". From Clarice Feldman at AmThink, the Impeachment Mashup
Democrats have tried to impeach every elected Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. They’ve never succeeded and there’s no reason to believe this time is different. As Bill Mitchell tweeted:
“If China thought there were any real chance of Trump’s impeachment ofrloss in 2020, they wouldn’t be negotiating and making trade deals now. The stock market and China know the same thing. Trump won’t be impeached and he wins in 2020.”
Why this practice persists is that they are continually reluctant to accept political outcomes they don’t like. David Hirsanyi argues this point well as well as illustrating perfectly the left’s projection of their actions onto their opponents . . .
CNS News, Sen. John Kennedy: Dems Are Giving Trump 'A Fair and Impartial Firing Squad'

No comments:

Post a Comment