Tag Archives: New York Times

Trump Speaks to the Times

He’s bellowed about “Fake News” and pointed out the chief culprit, the New York Times. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, Donald Trump just sat down with a number of the Times’ henchmen and gave them an interview.

Even moreso he talked some dirt on supporters, notably Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Trump, sadly, does not seem to brook any disagreement with him; even from major supporters.

Trump doesn’t grasp that Sessions is an interface between Trump and Washington’s denizens. He’s the one telling those people that Trump isn’t that bad and that they should work with him.

Trump just played into the ogre stereotype Washingtonians and the New York to Boston corridor have of him.

What does Trump get from speaking to the Times? They are not going to let up on their undermining and peddling of leaks and lies. He’s a fool if he thinks they’ll change their stripes over this favor. Why give them more ammunition?

He should freeze them out. Render the millers of Fake News irrelevant. How better to make the meisters of Fake News obsolete than to ignore them? Now he’s just fed the trolls…

Now expect a sit-down with the WaPoo and then a round with CNN and the network news…

Mr. Trump, you’ve wanted your supporters to ignore the MSM and those attacking you, we’ve done that. Now we see you having lunch with them? What gives?

Pitching your disappointment in Sessions to members of the cabal seeking your scalp seems a little odd. It looks like what many expected of Trump – if elected he’d revert back to being a northeastern liberal and disappoint those who got him into the White House.

Trump demands loyalty yet seems to have little himself. Jeff Sessions’s endorsement of Donald Trump was the single most important endorsement Trump received. It was the one that made Trump palatable for many conservatives and a lot of Republican leaders and soldiers.

Had Sessions not endorsed him, he would not be president.

I have to say that I am a little disappointed in Trump over this move.

Advertisements

The Susan Rice Story: Crickets and Squirrels

Last weekend it broke that former Obama apparatchik Susan Rice apparently spent 2016 and the transition period collecting classified intel on Donald Trump and his campaign/transition staffs. For exactly what purposes is unclear. Rice’s responses have been of the “You can’t prove it, I didn’t leak it and It wasn’t illegal” variety.

You might recall Ms. Rice, was the chief disinformation dispenser for the Benghazi cluster-eff.

This was a follow-on to the Evelyn Farkas fark-up, adding fuel to the fire that there was vast, Obama administration-wide conspiracy to gather and distribute classified surveillance intelligence that could be portrayed as embarrassing to Trump and his people.

An interesting sidelight about this bombshell of a story is its coverage or lack thereof. It broke last weekend yet, somehow, the major media, those great guys and gals that cover every utterance of Trump and so many Republicans, have helpfully relayed the “Trump is a Putin puppet” meme slavishly almost every hour of every day since it surfaced last year, have yet to get to the story, and I write this Thursday night.

Wait, I tell a lie. There have been a couple of odd stories about Susan Rice issuing mysterious denials concerning something that is entirely legal and hardly anything at all… The inestimable Mollie Hemingway has a great piece here.

The Farkas revelations too have been ignored.

Ahem…

Yeah, no media bias here… move along.

Obviously, the MSM is waiting for their cues from the DNC, via the New York Times, Washington Post and AP — all of which have turned a blind eye to a story that if it was committed by a Republican would be 24/7 news.

Eventually we’ll see a few dimwitted Dem parrots… er… politicians will chime in reinforcing the anointed meme. Clearly the DNC hasn’t figured out the angle yet.

Question, if the MSM doesn’t cover something, is it still news? (Their answer is ‘No.’)

The Conspiracy to Keep You Stupid (and Liberal)

Power Line’s John Hinderaker catches NPR’s Terry Gross (surprise!) and the New York Times’ Nicholas Casey  (double surprise!) playing dumb about socialism and the effects of it. Obviously, acknowledging the failure of socialism, in Venezuela in this case, would scotch the whole grand socialist plan, currently in its “Elect Hillary” or “Elect Bernie” edition.

Check out “NPR + NYT: A Recipe for Cluelessness” and spread it around.

Take special note of their attempt to equate Donald Trump with Venezuela’s failed socialist enterprise.

This is one way the leftists and their media attack dogs keep people ignorant of what leftism is about.

Oh, and it’s also a reason to make sure we stop funding and never further develop national “public broadcasters” of any kind. Make NPR survive on its own. There are plenty of wealthy socialists out there that could spend their dime, not mine, to keep it afloat.

Will Hillary Clinton Be Indicted?

That is not to be confused with “Should Hillary Clinton be indicted? To which the answer is a resounding, Yes!

At this moment, I think it’s at or less than a 4 in 10 chance she’ll be indicted. That is, less than 50-50.

It has to be understood that the governing principle here is pure politics. As long as she remains the presumptive Democratic nominee AND as long as she remains politically afloat she is untouchable.

While that remains in effect, no matter what the FBI does or says or pushes for nothing will move forward from the Dept. of Justice. Even if the FBI pushed for an indictment, DOJ would just move into a version of the old North Carolina basketball version of the Four Corners stall tactic. Attorney General Loretta Lynch or some PR flunkee would talk about how they are seriously examining the issue and don’t want to jump to conclusions, especially considering that this would affect a presidential election. “We don’t want to play politics!” they’d say. (The late Cap Weinberger and Tom DeLay would find that laughable.) Then they’d run out the clock. (No one would ask the obvious question, ‘So, are you going to indict if she’s elected?’ ‘If elected, will she be able to pardon herself?’)

However, if the good ship S.S. Hillary begins to list seriously, either in the primaries or in the general election, things could change. If she’s underwater and dragging the down-ticket candidates down with her, there could be a sudden indictment to push her off the stage (and Sloe Joe Biden substituted). But using the “Lautenberg Option” would require her to be in a huge amount of trouble (poll numbers in the low 30s, likability in the 20s, minority voters depressed and, most importantly, fundraising drying up).

Remember, these craven people brazened out the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky thing (along with several other impeachable offenses) — Nothing to see here! Time to move on! — so they have no compunction about acting in a purely self-interested manner — political civility be damned!

I’ll toss out one possible subterfuge, a quickie plea deal. Hillary could always take a fast plea deal to shut all of this down immediately. With a friendly DOJ, she’d get a slap on the wrist, pay a little fine and not even admit to guilt and the investigation would go no further. She’d explain that it is all in the best interest of the country to move on, she’s real sorry that anyone was offended and she won’t hold it against the Republican-run FBI. Obama or Lynch would crow, “See, our justice system works!” The Democrats and the MSM would sing with a glee how noble she is and the campaign would turn a whomping negative into a positive.

I think this would be better exercised sooner rather than later but knowing the short-term mentality of the low-information voter, Hillary could probably wait awhile.

And speaking of completely soporific pandering (along with sheer delusion), check out the New York Times’s endorsement of this unindicted criminal kingpin. Talk about living in Bizarro World….

Pillory Hillary

Remember way back when, in the 1992 campaign, Pres. George H.W. Bush was mocked when he was (allegedly) stumped by a supermarket price scanner? He was portrayed as out of touch with ordinary people; a scion of the insulated, pampered Washington life. Such a man was clearly unfit for office! Here’s the famous N.Y. Times story to remind you.

Reporter Andrew Rosenthal (a truer hack there never was) wrote: “This career politician, who has lived the cloistered life of a top Washington bureaucrat for decades, is having trouble presenting himself to the electorate as a man in touch with middle-class life. Today, for instance, he emerged from 11 years in Washington’s choicest executive mansions to confront the modern supermarket.” Rosenthal had his clueless puppet “shake his head in wonder,” at the amazing gizmos he saw at a World’s Fair convention of grocery store technology. It’s amazing that Rosenthal didn’t have Bush in a straw boater, chortling, “Gosh, Jeeves, what a wonder!”

Despite the fact that Rosenthal fabricated much of the story (he wasn’t there though he writes as if he was, gathered the material from the pool report and got several important details wrong and made up several others, etc.), I’m not here to rip him (as much as he deserves it) but rather here to ask, where’s the same reporting on Hillary Clinton?

We’ve learned from her released emails (which she tried to hide and then delete) that Mrs. Clinton, far more insulated from everyday than Mr. Bush was, has no idea how any modern technology works. She seems to have sent large numbers of emails asking her aides how her various communications widgets worked, how they plugged-in, what channel “Homeland” was on, etc. In fact, as part of her defense, she has pleaded ignorance of modern technology and said she needed her home-brew email system because she couldn’t handle more than one communications device at one time. That doesn’t even make sense.

So NYT, is such a technologically out-of-touch person fit for office in a tech-happy world?

I’m pretty sure I know what their answer would be if it was even possible for them to entertain the question.