Tag Archives: John McCain

Who could stop a Trump SCOTUS nomination? Democrats? No, Republicans

Posted on by

And at this point there is at least one Republican who is vowing to do precisely that, if he doesn’t get his way.

It is Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona, a man doing justice to his last name. This should not be completely unexpected, as he learned at the lap of the Master Republican RINO himself, Senator John McCain, also of Arizona.

From RollCall.com:

Flake Confirms He’s Stalling Trump’s Judicial Nominees Over Tariffs

by Niels Lesniewski

Said Sunday he wants the Senate to respond to president’s trade policy

Sen. Jeff Flake has gone public with his threat to stall judicial nominations seeking action to rebuff President Donald Trump on tariffs.

It comes more than a week after the Arizona Republican first held up the nomination of Britt Grant to be a judge on the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals at the Judiciary Committee.

“We’ve approved a number of judges. That is important,” Flake said Sunday. “But, Article I — the Congress, Article II — the executive, are important as well.”

“I do think that unless we can actually do something other than just approving the president’s executive calendar, his nominees, judges, that we have no reason to be there,” Flake said. “So, I think myself and a number of senators, at least a few of us will stand up and say let’s not move any more judges until we get a vote for example on tariffs.”

This, you see, is perfectly in keeping with the McCain Doctrine, which distills down to this: “It’s all about me, it will always be about me and, when in doubt, see the first part of this sentence.” Perhaps BZ is not the fondest friend of John McCain. Veritas.

Luckily, a dime was dropped and somehow Flake got back in line. Would loved to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation. From AZCentral.com:

Jeff Flake says he won’t stall Supreme Court pick over tariff dispute

by Ronald J. Hansen

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake said Wednesday he would not try to strong-arm the Trump administration on tariffs — or other issues — by withholding his support from a Supreme Court nominee.

A lame duck about to piss in the champagne? Narrowly avoided.

But let’s go back in time for a moment and revisit just how it might be that the Demorats got into their current predicament — back to, say, 2013 and some little thingie called a filibuster involving then-Senator Harry Reid.

Who was it that said “elections have consequences?” Or: “don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.” Isn’t that what Obama heralds us to do? Win an election? And what happens if we do?

Are we to actually wield the power we acquire from said elections?

Too late Obama. You were right, there are consequences. On both sides. Some go along. Other just like to pinch a loaf in the punchbowl.

Yes, there are consequences to losing an election. They have visited the Demorats. But instead of taking Obama’s advice and not attempting to break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building, the LDAMM would rather just, well, break it.

Oh; and a few others as well. Altogether too many of them have an (R) behind their names.

Back to the original question: if Flake is eliminated as an obstructionist, who is left? Or Left?

Would it perhaps be some female Republicans?

From Politico.com:

The fate of the Supreme Court could ride on these 2 senators

by Burgess Everett and John Bresnahan

Sen. Susan Collins took a notable phone call Thursday as she enters the eye of the Supreme Court confirmation storm: It was White House counsel Don McGahn, sounding out the moderate Maine Republican in what she called a “preliminary discussion” of the high court vacancy.

Republicans control the Senate by a single seat and Arizona Sen. John McCain has been absent for months. That means any single GOP senator has enormous sway over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick.

Which is why Jeff Flake was of concern. One vote. Here’s two more.

I have admitted many times since 2016 that I voted for Donald John Trump, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head, for two very specific reasons. I hold to that two years later, as firm or firmer than ever:

  • President Trump is not Hillary Rodham Clinton, and
  • President Trump will make infinitely better SCOTUS nominations than HRC.

I and many others like me are being proven quite correct. We already are witness to the positive effects of Neil Gorsuch.

None matter more than Collins and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who also received her own call from McGahn on Thursday. Then on Thursday evening, the two were part of a small group of bipartisan senators to meet directly with the president himself.

How critical a handful of votes potentially become.

A year ago, the two moderate Republicans, along with McCain, stopped Obamacare repeal in its tracks while helping to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Now, as they weigh how to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the two are about to be squeezed more than ever — by liberals seeking a Republican to stop the court from outlawing abortion rights, among other potential conservative rulings, and by their fellow Republicans looking for a show of party unity on a hugely consequential vote.

But after all, it’s about politics and most everything is a negotiation in DC. So let’s examine some of the top Trump SCOTUS candidates.

From the NYPost.com:

Women are frontrunners on Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees

by Mary Kay Linge

Trump has winnowed down his short list of candidates to “about five,” two of them female, he said Friday.

He promised to make his selection from the same list of 25 jurists that he publicized during his 2016 campaign, which includes six women.

What about names? And what about age? If given the chance, any president would rather install someone who would potentially sit for years on the court.

International betting sites taking wagers on the eventual nominee see Amy Coney Barrett as a front-runner.

“There’s a lot of buzz about her, with good reason,” legal pundit John Hinderaker of the Power Line blog told The Post.

If you recall, she was mercilessly grilled by Demorats over her religion — illegally, I might add — when she was in contention for a 2017 federal circuit judgeship.

Then Diane Feinstein decided it was time to lump up Amy Barrett’s faith. “The dogma lives loudly in you.”

Funny how the religion of Demorats is never questioned because, these days, people like Nancy Pelosi pull the Religion Card frequently. But that’s just fine.

Bush question: is there a Harriet Meir amongst them?

Joan Larsen, 49, is also in the running, Hinderaker said.

“She was confirmed to the federal bench in November without a lot of fireworks, on a 60-38 vote,” he said. “She passed so easily such a short time ago, you’d have to ask why anyone who voted for her would oppose her now.”

This is an interesting point.

Murkowski opposed President Barack Obama’s appointee Elena Kagan, but otherwise she and Collins have voted for nominees under presidents of both parties. Collins and Murkowski both met with Obama nominee Merrick Garland, who never received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

The two senators said this nominee will be no more important than any other Supreme Court votes they’ve cast. But each acknowledged that the political stakes might be higher than ever, given their party’s narrow majority, the approaching midterms and the potential for the Supreme Court to be reshaped for a generation.

“This is what goes on in the Senate. Sometimes you’re in the pressure cooker,” Murkowski said. Asked whether a pressure campaign could backfire, as it did on Obamacare repeal, she paused and replied: “I could just say something flip, like ‘Watch me.’”

Then she added: “I don’t mean to be flip. … I take it very, very seriously.”

They both enjoy the spotlight focused upon them. They enjoy the fact that perception indicates they possess sufficient power to obstruct a very serious vote. They enjoy the recognition of their power however intermittent it may be. Alaska and Maine don’t customarily acquire power in terms of states. They have to grab for their 15 Minutes of Ring when it comes around.

Alan Dershowitz weighs in:

In addition, there is this: what will happen to the Demorats who are in possession of areas that, in the 2016 presidential election, voted for Donald John Trump? Dare they piss off their constituents and slay every nomination Trump makes? Can they afford to do that politically?

Danger, Will Robinson.

BZ

 

 Share

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: “I’m proud we published the Trump-Russia dossier”

Posted on by

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.”

Correct. Label applied accurately.

But wait. The “dossier” is available online here. Read it. You be the judge. Golden showers and all.

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?

AYFKM?

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.

BZ

 

 Share

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Posted on by

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

Posted on by

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

Broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, the Saloon was back open after a week’s absence.

For the first half hour we had an unexpected but absolutely welcome guest, none other than Dan Butcher of High Plains Pundit fame and, of course, it was grand to hear Dan in full political throat after his brief break with mavenity. Welcome back, sir, with an added helping of extra-crispy gusto!

Tonight in the Saloon:

  • First, you have to turn your radio on;
  • Second, it’s great to be back at the helm of the SHR Media Network board in the Belly of the Beast;
  • Third, huzzahs to Dan Butcher, a hale fellow well met;
  • Dan promotes BZ’s shameless contract as Shaun does love contract negotiations;
  • Mrs Butcher lets Dan out of the basement for a few moments: well appreciated;
  • The senate votes to “talk” on healthcare by ONLY one vote: Vice President Pence;
  • Kudos to John McCain for sacking up as he did and casting the vote he did;
  • You repeal ObamaKare first; you can replace with care at your leisure, we agree;
  • Dan: if the GOP fails to repeal ObamaKare you will see a Single Payer system;
  • ObamaKare = the Cloward-Piven Strategy writ large;
  • Charlie Gard embodies the failing Single Payer government-controlled system;
  • Death panels aren’t fiction; they’re here in the UK and coming to the US?
  • It’s the Twilight Zone and Logan’s Run and Soylent Green wrapped up in one;
  • Paul Ehrlich was wrong and, now, Al Gore is the new Paul Ehrlich;
  • Sack Heads Shaun and BZ interviewed radio host Larry Elder and it was fab;
  • We got Elder to relax, have fun and bark out laughter like a harbor seal;
  • The Alinsky Center’s Ralph Benko: are you kidding me? Right wing?
  • DWS Pakistani IT manager arrested fleeing the country;
  • And much more buttery BZ goodness.  .  .

If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday July 25th, 2017” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.

BZ

 

 Share

Comey’s Theater of the Absurd

Posted on by

Because, after all, James Brien Comey is the victim here.

Last Thursday, June 8th, a potentially great day for waterholes all over DC, former FBI Director James Comey appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a little over three hours. As it turns out, air was let out of many a Demorat sail. To ask the Demorats themselves it was nothing more than confirmation of a clear impeachment for President Donald Trump.

Except that there will not be an impeachment from this and there will not be “obstruction” charges from this.

Full transcript and video is here. Initial highlights from Comey are below, as per CBS news.

We’ll be sifting through Comey’s statements, but first, this unemphasized portion of the testimony from Senator Marco Rubio.

Make no mistake. For weeks Leftists and Demorats waited breathlessly for the triumphant return of James Comey, the man they knew would skewer Donald John Trump in public and finally provide damning evidence that he was linked inexorably to Russia and, further, directly into the office of Vladimir Putin. They would find Trump’s monogrammed coffee cup in Putin’s office, no less, along with Trump’s gilt-edged chair adjacent that of ol’ Vlad.

There were countdown clocks. There was baited breath — herring, likely — on the side of the Demorats, Leftists, Never Trumpers and RINOs such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan. Bars were packed. Drinks were sold. Chairs were occupied. Lines were formed. This would be spectacular Kabuki Theater in which jaded strumpets would put on their painted political masks fraught with feathers, finery, frippery and foppishness.

But it transitioned from Kabuki Theater to Theater of the Absurd. The Leftists and Demorats were indeed “Waiting For Comey.”

“Let the steamrollering commence!” shouted the Demorats and Leftists from the highest mountaintops to the lowest dungeons in the most marked of dudgeon.

Except that, well, there was a bit of doddering disappointment. One of my favorite hosts, Tucker Carlson, stated on the matter:

The other problem came the very day before Comey was to testify on Wednesday, June 7th, when Mr Comey released a copy of his opening statement which, dammit, punctured the Hope Balloon of Leftists and Demorats everywhere. Comey revealed there was no open investigation of Donald Trump. He also revealed, as Trump stated in a Tweet, that Comey had told Trump three separate times that he was not under investigation.

Dammit, Jim. Shoulders sagged throughout the nation. These two points have been rapidly and not-so-shockingly glossed-over by our loving American Media Maggots. They ended up being a glaring loser following Comey’s testimony.

Well, the Demorats and Leftists emphasized, there’s certainly more buttery goodness yet to come from Comey’s testimony, yes? Collusion? Obstruction? Impeachment? Of course, they cried in unison.

More was in fact to come, however. More that they hadn’t anticipated. More that didn’t place either Comey or former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a favorable light.

Again, it turns out that James Comey was himself a leaker — to a friend of his named Daniel Richman. Purposely. So that he could force a special investigator — his good friend Robert Mueller — into the Trump/Russia issue. Deed accomplished. Thanks to Comey’s leaking. Precisely the thing he was allegedly fighting whilst FBI director.

But wait. Did James Comey himself violate any laws by leaking? Perhaps so. I might refer one to this United States Code, to begin.

18 USC 641

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Newt Gingrich had this to say about Comey’s leaks and their intent.

If James Comey has not yet acquired competent counsel, I recommend he do so quickly.

Rand Paul weighs in on Comey’s leaks.

Leftist attorney Alan Dershowitz also weighed in on the Comey leaking issue. His insight is particularly damning considering the background of Mr Dershowitz.

James Comey leaked his own memos to a third party, who then leaked them to the American Media Maggots. He also carried corrupt water for Lynch and Obama as he specifically stated in the hearing. He said the American Maggots got it “dead wrong” and then acquiesced to Lynch’s insistence that he called Clinton’s investigation a “matter,” what he termed a “euphemism.”

Loretta Lynch may have now, by this, been placed into the gunsights of her own wonderful little investigation, as she well should be.

Another issue recently emerged regarding the probity of James Comey. From Lifezette.com:

Fmr. FBI Supervisor: Comey Likely Behind Three Anonymous Stories

by Brendan Kirby

Self-described defender of fired FBI director says he is ‘struck and troubled’ by leaks

President Donald Trump is not the only one upset that former FBI Director James Comey used a friend to place an anonymously sourced story in The New York Times.

James Gagliano said, “I was struck and troubled last Thursday when I watched the two or three hours that he testified in front of the Senate Intel Committee, and the part that bothered me the most was the admission about the leak and the way that it happened,” he said. “It wasn’t even a situation where the director went to a New York Times reporter. He actually gave it to a surrogate, a memo.”

Further, he stated.

Gagliano said it was the third of three incidents where it appears Comey anonymously placed stories in the press.

The first occurred in March when reports appeared that Comey was enraged that Trump had tweeted a suggestion that wiretaps may have been placed at Trump Tower in New York. The second occurred when news outlets reported that Trump had demanded a pledge of loyalty from Comey.

“I hate to say it, but I think those three stories probably originated from the FBI director,” he said.

Even — gulp — MSNBC’s Chris Matthews admits that shite might be coming apart.

Let us remember that NSA Director Mike Rogers stated he never felt pressured by Trump or his administration.

We all know what I think of James Comey. Last year, as you can see above, I created the graphic to express my thoughts. James Comey lied to Congress, he lied to me, to you, to the American Taxpayer. He became the Political Butt Boy of the Demorats, in particular Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch. He carried their water when demanded and did so willingly under the false guise of “independence.” Comey was as independent as your average cow. He could easily have referred Hillary Clinton, for example, to the DOJ for prosecution under these statutes:

  • 18 USC 793(f)
    Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
  • 44 USC 3101
    Records management by agency heads.
  • 18 USC 1924
    Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials.
  • 18 USC 2071
    Concealment, removal or mutilation generally.
  • 18 USC 1001
    Statements or entries generally (false).

Just to start.

James Brien Comey dishonored his law enforcement oath, lied under oath, portrayed himself and the FBI as helpless in the face of corruption, crimes and obstruction. He was an embarrassment to the FBI itself, to the Department of Justice and to all of law enforcement in general. He made extremely poor decisions based but upon politics and continuously placed himself in the limelight for naught but the embellishment of his own persona. He crafted his decisions in a terribly flawed manner and seemed to consider most everything but the actual laws he himself was tasked to obey. His own agency failed to follow the law in terms of reporting. His own agency destroyed evidence.

President Trump made a number of serious mistakes with regard to James Comey. I wrote back in 2016 that, because of the clearly political decisions Comey made, Donald Trump need to immediately fire James Comey. Comey’s waffling, indecision and poor decisions stemmed from politics and personal aggrandizement. James Comey should have been removed from the FBI Directorship on January 20th.

I believe Trump thought he might be able to work with Comey once he established some kind of working relationship. He provided Comey with a chance. That decision came back to bite Trump in the arse.

James Comey, sadly, was a terrible thorn in the Trump administration which could have been avoided had a different path been chosen.

Trump’s failure to remove Comey immediately provided political fodder for Demorats and Leftists nationally and helped to continue their anti-Trump narrative. It was a serious mistake to have kept James Comey in office.

Decisions, as well as elections, have consequences.

BZ

 

 Share