President Trump is excoriated by Leftists, Demorats, American Media Maggots and many Republicans for allegedly saying “why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries. We should have more people from Norway.”
A comment, by the way, not in total keeping with those present at the meeting.
Leftists fell all over each other in reaction of course, pining for the days of Josef Stalin, Karl Marx or Fidel Castro. Here is Brian Williams, the Most Trusted Man In News, providing “world reaction” to Trump’s comments.
CNN ensured it said and wrote the word “shithole” 120+ times in one day. Create your own hashtag. Everyone does. Just because. A meager sampling below.
But wait, there’s more. CNN wasn’t done.
Point made, I think. Like your little brother learning a new word.
But it wasn’t a given. Durbin said yes, Senators Cotton and Perdue said “we didn’t hear that.” And they were there. Partisan? Purposely? It depended on whom you asked.
The funny thing is this. the American Media Maggot Historical Alzheimers sets in once again. Part XXVLXXV of a continuing story.
Barack Obama says David Cameron allowed Libya to become a ‘shit show’
by Tim Walker & Nigel Morris
Unprecedented attack by serving US President claims UK was ‘distracted’
Barack Obama has sharply criticised David Cameron for the UK’s role in allowing Libya to become a “shit show” after the fall of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi, in an unprecedented attack on a British leader by a serving US President.
Mr Obama said that following a successful military intervention to aid rebels during the 2011 Arab Spring revolt, Libya was left to spiral out of control – due largely to the inaction of America’s European allies.
Wait. Aren’t Libyan’s mostly brown? And aren’t Egyptians mostly brown? The two states that Barack Hussein Obama abjectly and purposely destroyed in order to make a political statement? Obama had no problem with utterly destroying dark skinned people.
BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith, Editor-In-Chief, responds on the one year anniversary of the release of the so-called “Trump Dossier.” It’s all, of course, proper and warranted.
This is from the NYTimes.com, written by Ben Smith in the opinion section.
Exactly one year ago BuzzFeed published what’s now known simply as “the dossier”: a set of reports put together by a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign. The 35-page dossier suggested that the Russian government had both compromised and colluded with President-elect Donald Trump.
Our choice to publish the dossier was greeted by outrage from two sources. Journalistic traditionalists didn’t like the idea of sharing an unfiltered, unverified document with the public, whatever the caveats and context. NBC’s Chuck Todd told me on air, “You just published fake news.” Mr. Trump agreed. He described CNN’s reporting on the dossier as “fake news” and called BuzzFeed a “failing pile of garbage.”
But a year of government inquiries and blockbuster journalism has made clear that the dossier is unquestionably real news. That’s a fact that has been tacitly acknowledged even by those who opposed our decision to publish. It has helped journalists explain to their audience the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election. And Mr. Trump and his allies have seized on the dossier in their efforts to discredit the special counsel leading the investigation, Robert Mueller.
Because the dossier is specious. It is theoretical. It is unconfirmed and, further, disavowed. Contested. It is not a clear given. Persons specifically mentioned within its pages have proven that what was attributed to them was physically impossible and hence a bald-faced lie. Mueller has an agenda — as he is a good and proven friend and ally of James Comey — and has somehow magically found the only legal team in DC employing nothing but Demorats and those with anti-Trump agendas. Peter Strzok anyone? DC is literally festooned with attorneys. They’re a dime a dozen. Yet Mueller could only hire those who are Demorats? Ahem. Uh, yeah.
Further, the investigation by Mueller was spurred by an illegal action via another individual with “hurted feewings” and a personal revenge agenda, James Comey.
Without the dossier, Americans would have found it difficult to understand the actions of their elected representatives and government officials. Their posture toward Mr. Trump was, we now know even more comprehensively than we did in January 2017, shaped by Mr. Steele’s report. The Russia investigation, meanwhile, didn’t turn out to be some minor side story but instead the central challenge to Mr. Trump’s presidency.
Correct. Because Leftists like yourself made it so. What we are lacking, however, is something quite necessary in a civilized society and a nation given to the rule of law. That is commonly called evidence.
When we published the dossier, we knew a lot: We knew that it had been written by the former head of the Russia desk at Britain’s main foreign intelligence agency, a man whose job had made him a leading source on Russian espionage. We knew that key members of the Senate — Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, and John McCain, the Arizona Republican — had acted on its contents. We had also learned that intelligence officials had briefed President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump on the dossier, and that the F.B.I. was already looking into it.
Hold up on that car wash. Harry Reid had an obvious agenda as does John McCain. McCain, presidential loser in 2008. McCain, who threatened to change his (R) to a (D) because he wasn’t sufficiently revered by the ‘phants.
McCain didn’t just “act” on the contents. This teeny-weeny bit from Breitbart.com:
Fusion GPS Admits They Used John McCain to Pass Anti-Trump Dossier to Obama-Era Intel Agencies
by Aaron Klein
EILAT, Israel — The founders of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion GPS admitted that they helped the researcher hired to compile the infamous, largely discredited 35-page dossier on President Donald Trump to share the document with Sen. John McCain.
Imagine that. I wrote about the very same thing back in January of 2017, a year ago. Far before anyone else. Please read my blog post here. Also read the buttressing attribution here.
The disclosure raises questions about whether McCain knew that the information he delivered to the intelligence community was actually an opposition document reportedly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
McCain’s office did not reply yesterday to a Breitbart News request for comment on the matter.
Let’s make no mistake. McCain is all about McCain. Prototypical GOP EstabliHack. Quintessential. The source of the word RINO.
Back to Ben Smith.
We didn’t discount the arguments against publishing salacious allegations — which reporters do all the time in covering lawsuits, internal investigations or reports like Mr. Steele’s. And we understand why President Trump’s supporters remain furious at the airing of a disturbingly vivid unproven allegation about encounters with prostitutes.
But we never bought the notion, made by the traditionalists, that a main threat to journalism is that journalists might be too transparent with their audience. Keeping the reporting process wrapped in mystery only helps those who oppose the free press. This is why The New York Times posts leaked audio recordings, and why news organizations routinely publish raw court documents underlying their articles.
Of course you discounted the arguments. You published the entire thing. Disingenuous at best, lying outright at worst, Ben.
You admit that the dossier is an “unproven allegation.” Your own words.
Best practices for “standard journalism” historically, until the 70s, was at minimum two sources and, best yet, three sources. Others say that for every positive source there should be a negative source. That standard is now out the door. Completely. “Anonymous” sources are, even at major papers, sufficient. Depending upon the agenda, they are the best. Allegations. Hints. Rumors. All fair game in today’s American Media Maggot landscape.
We strongly believed that publishing the disputed document whose existence we and others were reporting was in the public interest.
Define “the public interest.” I dare you. Define pornography. Define proper. Define free speech. According to Leftists that varies. Depending upon the prevailing political prairie winds, tidal pull, sunspots, solar flares.
Since we published, the public has learned a great deal more about how seriously the F.B.I. took the dossier. The F.B.I., CNN reported, used the dossier to justify its effort to spy on an American citizen, and reimbursed Mr. Steele for some of his expenses. The BBC reported that the dossier was a “road map” to the F.B.I. investigation. Fox News recently reported that a top Department of Justice official met with Mr. Steele during the 2016 campaign. And on Tuesday, the public was given a glimpse, in the release of secret testimony, into the fierce battle between Senate Democrats and Republicans over the dossier and how the F.B.I. made use of it during the 2016 campaign.
Wait. Did Ben Smith just say that the “dossier” was utilized by the FBI to justify a FISA warrant request in order to surveil the Trump campaign prior to the election?
Yes. Confirming everything I have suspected up to this point. Thanks Ben. This is an astounding, amazing revelation. Is anyone listening or reading? Does anyone care? Do you Grok the implications of this? Confirmation of a soft coup upon a potential sitting administration? Early? Prior to the actual election? And continuing post-election?
As the seriousness of the Russia investigation has become clearer, the pro-Trump line has shifted from dismissing the dossier to stressing its role in the investigation: The dossier, some of Mr. Trump’s defenders now say, played too big a part, given that a portion of Mr. Steele’s funding came from political enemies of Mr. Trump, including the Democratic National Committee. “Are we in the midst of a major criminal investigation against the president of the United States as a result of this dodgy dossier?” asked Tom Fitton, a Trump ally, on “Fox & Friends” recently.
Because Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots continue to stress the role in the investigation. Yes. The dossier was a major component in a fated, illegal and conspiratorial, false application for a FISA warrant in order to destroy the Trump campaign.
While Mr. Trump’s camp dismiss the dossier as malicious fiction or pure political opportunism, some elements have been corroborated. For example, that the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort hid payments for his work in Ukraine, as federal authorities have alleged; that the Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was withdrawn suddenly from the United States; and that Mr. Trump sought, but never consummated, business deals in Russia.
Odd. Now Manafort is suing Robert Mueller. From TheHill.com:
Manafort sues Mueller, challenging scope of Russia investigation
by Katie Bo Williams
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is suing the Department of Justice and special counsel Robert Mueller in an attempt to kneecap the federal probe into alleged coordination between the campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.
In a court filing on Wednesday, lawyers for Manafort argue that the order establishing Mueller’s investigation is overly broad and not permitted under Justice Department regulations.
Mueller should be ordered to stop investigating any of Manafort’s conduct that doesn’t relate to his time as campaign chair, the suit says, and the appointment itself should be declared invalid.
“By ignoring the boundaries of the jurisdiction granted to the Special Counsel in the Appointment Order, Mr. Mueller acted beyond the scope of his authority. Mr. Mueller’s actions must be set aside,” the filing states.
Manafort, whom Mueller is prosecuting on tax fraud and money laundering charges, is also suing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who issued the order in May appointing Mueller as special counsel.
That appointment, according to Manafort’s lawyers, was “arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance” with a law governing the implementation of federal regulations — in this case, the regulation that allows for the appointment of a special counsel.
Ben Smith continues.
Mr. Steele also reported, in pages submitted just 11 days after a Russian lawyer reportedly promised Mr. Trump’s aides negative information on Hillary Clinton during a meeting in Trump Tower, that “the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Wait. Isn’t that what oppo research is all about? And why the Demorats have been doing that for years against Republicans to no one’s chagrin? Oppo research illegal? Unlawful? Please.
“Valuable intelligence” is in the eye of the reader. It’s only “valuable” if it’s true. Perhaps that is what the Leftist feared most?
But wait, there’s more. If you haven’t larfed yet you’ll larf at this.
“One large portion of the dossier is crystal-clear, certain, consistent and corroborated,” a C.I.A. veteran, John Sipher, wrote recently. “Russia’s goal all along has been to do damage to America and our leadership role in the world.”
Well fuck me. I never saw that coming. Up until Trump considered becoming president, the Russians and, before them, the Soviets were always our best friends. Right?
Yes. Leftists and the American Media Maggots are in truth that stupid. Demorats knew it all along. Millennials and GenZ’rs are incredible and willing dupes.
For all these reasons, the chorus of criticism of our decision to publish has faded. I haven’t had a single person approach me to say, “I wish I hadn’t read the dossier, and wish I had less insight into the forces at play in America.” Do you feel that way? Does anyone?
Nope. Because it continues to provide insight into your skewed and clear agenda.
If it isn’t a Demorat thought or idea, it isn’t valid.
Simple as that.
It is you, Ben Smith, who continues to emphasize the moribund status of US journalism.
And you wonder why you bleed readers and advertisers.
Congress has handed Trump a historic presidential victory
by Jake Novak
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is giving President Trump yet another major victory on judicial nominations.
None of this would have been possible without Harry Reid’s decision to kill the filibuster.
The result is Trump will get to fill the most federal judiciary vacancies in 40 years.
Stop there just a moment.
Let’s say you hate Trump. Let’s say you’re an EstabliHack Republican. But I digress.
Do you laud Trump? Do you manage to praise this fact — not a rumor or a hint but a fact? Or does it so stick in your craw that you cannot recognize a win when it appears before your very gesicht? That you cannot for whatever reason realize Neil Gorsuch could potentially be the veritable “gift that keeps on giving”?
And that you need to replicate the win?
President Donald Trump should give special thanks to two U.S. Senators this Thanksgiving weekend. One is still serving in the Senate, the other recently retired. One is a Republican. The other a Democrat. And what should President Trump be thanking them for? Quite simply they have handed him one of the biggest victories any president could claim in the past 45 years.
It is not a small thing, these appointments. They are incredibly significant. They are the first courts to hear issues of conflict. Which is why the Demorats, Leftists and American Media Maggots conspire to tamp the story down.
That brings us first to naming the Republican gift giver: Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa. The longtime member of Congress has big time clout as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And Grassley has just used that clout to eliminate one of the final hurdles in the already furious pace of Trump administration judicial appointments to the federal bench.
Didn’t we refer to a Demorat “gift giver”? We did indeed. The last person you’d conjure.
And that brings us to the Democrat who provided the initial generous source of President Trump’s solid triumph: Former Senate Majority Leader, and Democrat, Harry Reid. Reid is a major reason this good fortune has befallen President Trump because Reid was the one who killed the filibuster rule for judicial nominees in 2013. And when he killed it, it was gone for good.
“Watch out, you might get what you’re after. . .”
The consequences were entirely foreseeable but not in the fetid and knurled brain of Harry Mason Reid, he of the abject lie against then-Republican-presidential-candidate Mitt Romney.
But, of course, because he was a Demorat the issue was dropped. It wasn’t as if a camel turd was potentially aimed at the Bentley driven by Elon Musk. Elon Musk. Doesn’t that sound like a 70s bottled fragrance?
That long period of confirmation obstruction has given President Trump a huge number of seats to fill; twice as many as President Obama’s also large number of vacancies when he took office in 2009. The Christian Science Monitor reports this is likely the most vacancies for a president to fill in 40 years. And the Trump team hasn’t been wasting much time.
But wait, there’s more.
Consider that as of November 3rd, 13 Trump nominees to the courts have been confirmed this year. The big name is Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, but we also have eight new federal appeals court judges, and four new U.S. district court judges. President Trump has now already surpassed the last four presidents’ records for first-year judicial confirmations.
Wait. Read that again: “President Trump has now already surpassed the last four presidents’ records for first-year judicial confirmations.”
And he’s even tied President Ronald Reagan number of appeals court confirmations in year one.
Judges. The gift that keeps on giving? Grand News Pt I:
But this isn’t just about sheer numbers, it’s about ideology too. While President Trump and conservatives have diverged in matters of policy several times over the past year, the judicial nomination process is decidedly not one of them. The nominees sent to the Senate from the White House are more conservative and even younger than what we saw during President George W. Bush’s two terms in office.
Grand News Pt II:
In case the importance of making an impact on the courts is lost on anyone, just note the many setbacks the Trump administration has suffered this year alone thanks to the courts. Delays and changes to the White House-imposed travel and immigration bans have grabbed the most attention. But the administration is also dealing with judicial push back and other potential hurdles on everything from its opposition to the AT&T-Time Warner merger to its transgender military ban.
Now fast forward a couple of years where the Trump judicial appointment surge will have set in across the federal system. Just for this administration alone, that could make a huge difference. And for conservative causes and cases over time, it will be even more significant.
This is now, quite apparently, what we’ve come down to in the United States.
We all know about Fake News courtesy of Leftist “journalistas.” There is now, courtesy of Leftist judges and attorneys, Fake Law.
I can’t believe I’m reading the article correctly but, sadly, I am indeed. From Breitbart.com:
Neal Katyal at 9th Circuit: If Trump Says ‘Islam Is Peace’ He Can Have a Travel Ban
by Ian Mason
Neal Katyal made oral arguments for maintaining the injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order banning migrants from certain Muslim-majority countries Monday before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“He could say, like President Bush did right after September 11th, ‘The face of Terror is not the true face of Islam, that’s not what Islam is about, Islam is Peace.’ Instead, we get ‘Islam hates us’,” Katyal told the bench, answering Clinton-appointed Judge Richard Paez’s question on what, if anything, Trump could do to make the executive order acceptable.
Really? All President Trump has to do, according to Katyal, is cry “uncle” and all is forgiven? Really?
Katyal, former President Barack Obama’s one-time acting Solicitor General, has taken on the representation of the plaintiffs who stopped the executive order’s implementation in March when a federal court in Hawaii ruled in their favor. The Justice Department has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, seeking to vacate that injunction.
Do you believe Katyal will actually relent and back off the lawsuit if President Trump but says the “magic words”?
The most controversial element of Obama-appointed district court Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling was its justification of the injunction based not on the text or effect of the executive order, but on statements President Trump made during the 2016 campaign.
Precisely. Fake Law. Predicated not upon the documents in front of the court, but on mostly everything but.
According to that ruling, speaking about a “Muslim ban” and speaking negatively about the religion’s relationship with the West meant that the plaintiffs had a high enough likelihood of proving a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to block the order. This is true even though the actual order does not take any action based on people being Muslim because, “[A] reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion[.]”
Meaning, again, that the issue was not what was immured on paper but what was said in the ether and not supported by paper. A logical question was then asked.
The argumentation led naturally to the question of what, if anything, could be done to save such a facially neutral order. “Does that mean that the President is forever barred from issuing an executive order along these lines?” Judge Paez asked Katyal. “What does he have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?”
What indeed? Twenty-three Hail Marys? Genuflect towards Mecca? Tap a wrist? Provide evidence of stigmata?
Trump might gain more power to issue executive order if he “disavows,” Katyal argued. “One example would be what Judge Hawkins said about disavowing formally the stuff before.”
You can’t make this stuff up. But wait, there’s more. Let’s just excise whatever unappetizing elements actually exist within Islam, shall we?
In addition to suggesting Trump could save his order by telling the country “Islam is peace,” Katyal also recommended removing references, in the text of the order, to the unsavory elements of Islamic society. “It could eliminate the text which refers to honor killings,” he told the court.
Of course. Let’s just eliminate those niggling little female genital mutilation issues, the misogynist issues, the beheading issues, the Borg issues, the bacha bazi issues, the pedophilia of Islam, the internal combustion of Islam.
By the way, who is Neal Katyal? He’s the man who said this about Neil Gorsuch at Gorsuch’s hearing:
He’s also the man with the god-like endless CV. Superbly humble.
Katyal is the recipient of the very highest award given to a civilian by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Edmund Randolph Award, which the Attorney General presented to him in 2011. The Chief Justice of the United States appointed him in 2011 to the Advisory Committee on Federal Appellate Rules, and again in 2014. Additionally, he was named as One of the 40 Most Influential Lawyers of the Last Decade Nationwide by National Law Journal (2010); One of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers Over the Last 30 Years by Legal Times (2008); Lawyer of the Year by Lawyers USA (2006); Runner-Up for Lawyer of the Year by National Law Journal (2006); One of the Top 50 Litigators Nationwide 45 Years Old or Younger by American Lawyer (2007); and one of the top 500 lawyers in the country by LawDragon Magazine for each of the last ten years. He also won the National Law Journal’s pro bono award.