Trump Wasn't Remotely Clever, Cruel, Or Ruthless Enough To Fight The 5th Estate

WSJ  |  So compromised are the national reporting staffs of the Washington Post, the New York Times and other outlets that they can’t be trusted on the biggest story of the day. A Jeff Bezos, say, would have to take a page from the CIA’s own history and recruit a “Team B” off-site from his Washington Post to investigate the laptop ruse, then require his newspaper to report the truth however discomfiting to its newsroom and leadership.

The laptop ruse also ought to have you rethinking the FBI’s and Robert Mueller’s dragging out of the collusion inquiry to damage a president they distrusted. It ought to have you rethinking James Comey’s convenient resolution of the Hillary Clinton email matter based on secret “Russian intelligence” that he made sure would remain hidden from you even today.

Our press would bring these stories to light if it could refute them, but it can’t so it ignores them. And no, Twitter and Substack aren’t a substitute for institutions that can deploy teams of reporters and substantial resources to investigations.

The point has long since stopped being whose ox is gored, Mr. Trump’s or Mr. Biden’s. American voters whatever their sympathies don’t want their government and media lying to them to shape their political choices. (Put aside lying in a way that falsely incriminates a nuclear-armed hostile power as trying to fix a U.S. election on behalf of one of the candidates—an element of this episode that none want to confront.) The election is over; the truth is kept from you now to protect the guilty, not to save the country from the supposed menace of Trumpism. In a different universe far, far away—that is, America pre-Donald Trump—a conscientious press would be reporting the hell out of all this.

Now House Republicans will have to do the job instead, implicitly holding the press to account in the process. Whether Joe Biden actively promoted his son’s ventures is a secondary question but will yield to further investigation. Whether active-duty officials joined in lying to news outlets about the laptop origins will become clear as the Twitter revelations are followed up. One question I think we can say is already resolved conclusively: The 51 former officials lied to the public with deliberation and premeditation to influence a presidential election, and the national press abetted them.

Black Political Agenda: Defund Israel/Deport All Replacement Negroes

Affirmative action is based on a view of equal protection that compensates for historical and present prejudice and lack of opportunity. It is premised on the notion that some of us start behind the eight ball and need an extra boost to achieve basic access. Favorable treatment for blacks is controversial because it appears to be applied in zero sum contexts. If you favor a black person, you have to disfavor a white one and that's the seasoning upon which Mr. Blum's cases are all based. It is not the definition of equal that causes the controversy. it is the adverse effect on whites, or in this case, proxy white replacement negroes. 

In the case of Harvard University, it would be trivial to favor blacks while protecting replacement negroes serving as proxies for poor whites. You see, kibutzim Blum pretends to be unaware of the historic legacy of Blacks in America - thus his elite racist bootlicking antics. Blum could of course trivially solve the zero sum angle he seeks to exploit by going after the 30% + alumni legacy admissions. Blum lacks the historical perspective, ethical fiber, and testicular fortitude to go after any elite affirmative action, well, because, these selfsame racist elites are the folks who pay his bills.

Ivy League "affirmative action" began shortly after World War II. It was stimulated by the GI Bill, which made college possible for veterans who never would have dreamed of going to college, let alone to an Ivy League university. The GI Bill demonstrated there was untapped national talent out in flyover. They found public high school students in the South, Midwest, and Far West with school records rivaling the best of the prep schools. Even when some public high school scores were slightly lower than preppy competitors, admissions committees sometimes chose the provincial public high school student over the privileged alumni legacy. They recognized high achievement in the face of educational and cultural disadvantage.

As a consequence, Harvard and its Ivy sisters began recruiting a few good men out beyond the inbred Lovecraftian prep schools and elite academies of New England and the Atlantic Coast. The Ivies understood that there was more promise in the lesser academic record than in the marginally better academic record. Moreover, they wanted a more diverse student body. 

This was the original affirmative action”. It transformed the Ivies into truly national and meritocratic institutions instead of elite regional colleges for those with wealth, privilege, and pedigree. Only when the same principles of national diversity and meritocratic selection—based on recognition of high achievement and the overcoming of disadvantages—came to include black student admissions,  did we experience white backlash and resentment.

NYTimes |  At the heart of the case is whether Harvard’s admissions staff hold Asian-Americans to higher standards than applicants of other racial or ethnic groups, and whether they use subjective measures, like personal scores, to cap the number of Asian students accepted to the school.

“Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s,” Students for Fair Admissions said in a court filing.

Harvard, which admitted less than 5 percent of its applicants this year, said that its own analysis did not find discrimination.

A trial in the case has been scheduled for October.

WaPo Making Up New Concepts of Tribalism to Claim "Trump Voters Are Wayciss"

WaPo |  You remember the photo, taken in early August, of two men at an Ohio Trump rally whose matching T-shirts read, “I’d rather be a Russian than a Democrat.” (Now you can buy them online for $14.) It was a gibe that spoke to our moment. The Republican brand — as with presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — used to be pointedly anti-Russian; Romney called Moscow our chief global enemy. In the Trump era, though, you can be a Republican Russophile for whom Vladi­mir Putin is a defender of conservative values. American politics, it has become plain, is driven less by ideological commitments than by partisan identities — less by what we think than by what we are. Identity precedes ideology.

“The Democratic Party today is divided over whether it wants to focus on the economy or identity,” the veteran strategist and pollster Stanley B. Greenberg, a man of the economy-first school, has said. But once you come to grips with the potency of partisan-identity politics, the binary falls away. So does the assumption that the great majority of Republicans who support Trump are drawn to his noxious views. (That’s the good news in the bad news.) Among candidates who led in the Republican primaries, after all, his percentage of the vote was the lowest in nearly half a century. Identity groups come to rally behind their leaders, and partisan identification wouldn’t be so stable if it didn’t allow for a great deal of ideological flexibility. That’s why rank-and-file Republicans could go from “We need to stand up to Putin!” to “Why wouldn’t we want to get along with Putin?” in the time it takes to say: Rubio’s out, Trump’s in.

What’s true of partisan allegiance is true of ideological allegiance. In research published earlier this year, political scientist Lilliana Mason conducted a national survey that determined where people stood on various hot-button issues: same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control, immigration, the Affordable Care Act, the deficit. Then they were asked how they felt about spending time with liberals or conservatives. About becoming friends with one. About marrying one.

What's The Matter With John Brennan?

theburningplatform |  Putin moved against the so-called “oligarch’s, a mainly Jewish gang of ex-Communists who were in the forefront of looting the country.  Those he did not chase off to London (where you can see their greasy mugs swilling in the best restaurants, hookers on each arm) he placed under firm control.  He reorganized the economy for Russia’s benefit, not ours.  Meddling?  The United States and various European countries sent in armies of international do-gooders and busy bodies to undermine the Russian government and, among other things, promote the homosexual agenda and corrupt Russian youth.  Loudmouth journalists, the Russian equivalents of Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Trevor Noah and similar troublemakers (“pro-democracy” activists, all of them) were put on a leash.  Most surprisingly for me, and effectively for Putin, he restored the Russian Orthodox Church to its former importance and influence, a very Russian thing to do.  Is Putin a real Christian?  I don’t know.  Go ask him.  If it is merely a cynical ploy it has worked.  I might add that I admire the Russian Orthodox Church.  It is one of the few Christian churches that has rejected the filth and garbage of the modern world and remains focused on its real job, saving souls.  There are no faggot priests in it, I can tell you that.  Orthodox priests marry.

Putin shrewdly decided to focus on quality rather than quantity in his rebuilding of the Russian military.  If news reports are accurate (and I sure as hell hope they are not) the Russians have developed new generations of weapons against which we have no real defense.  China has done exactly the same thing.

There is no reason at all to believe that Russia has any intention of actually using those weapons against us in some new Pearl Harbor.  That being the case, Putin has made it crystal clear that he will not allow Russia to be pushed around.  Where is his redline?  Who knows?  I don’t want to find out.

The sight of a rejuvenated Russia, proud, controlling its own economy, conducting its won foreign policy in what it believes to be its own interests, throwing pedophiles and other perverts in jail, running foreign subversives out of the place, arresting or exiling Jewish gangsters, well, all of this is just too much for the globalists and the Neo-Con’s to take.

Then comes Trump!  Who woulda thunk it?  I seriously doubt if a single senior Russian ever imagined that Trump would emerge as a presidential candidate.  Did you?

This man, seen by the self-proclaimed elites of the U.S. and Europe as a turd in their punchbowl, is by any measure the most extraordinary person ever to occupy the White House.

Trump is not a Russian agent, he has not been blackmailed, he is not selling out the U.S., his interest in improving ties with Russia has nothing to do with his personal business empire, he did not have two Russian whores do pee-pee on Obama’s mattress.   Any person who claims to believe any of these things should be immediately marked down as either a fool, a Jew with an irrational ancestral hatred of Russia, a globalist, a Neo-Con, a leftist angry that Putin and Trump are both standing up for traditional culture (though neither are saints themselves), or somebody who either lost out on the Great Russia Piñata of the early 1990’s or fears that Russia will in some way hit them in the pocketbook, directly or indirectly.

There are several interest groups desperate to stop the building of a rational, normal, civilized relationship between the United States and Russia.  They include:

The Espionage Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight

consortiumnews |  With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.  
 

It’s looking more and more massive.  The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread the word to the press and key government officials.  Reportedly, they even tried to use these reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration.  Although the corporate press accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block “Siberian candidate” Trump.  

The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove, Halper’s friend and business partner.  Sitting in winged chairs in London’s venerable Garrick Club, according toThe Washington Post, Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous “golden showers” opposition research dossier, that Trump “reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin.”

Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.  When that didn’t work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light.  A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal.

Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as “The Walrus” for his impressive girth, other participants include:

• Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA.
• Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat.
• Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow.
• Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic.
• James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence.
• John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst).

In-Bred

A few things stand out about this august group.  One is its in-bred quality.  After helping to run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself “The Cambridge Security Initiative.”  Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet.  Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt’s international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor.

Giuliani the Fixer: #NeverTrump Down To Legal and Political Horse-Trading

theconservativetreehouse |  If you look at Robert Mueller from the position of trying to protect his cherished Deep State institutions from horrible Trump swamp draining…. things begin to take a more accurate context. The only way for Mueller to protect his Swamp Allies and Institutions, was to generate leverage against Trump.

Having established only political leverage, nothing factually unlawful or illegal, the Mueller investigation begins to dry up. Leverage diminishes.

Without direct leverage against President Trump, Team Mueller moved to position leverage against those Trump cares about… that’s a secondary approach; but the secondary leverage approach is fraught with public noting Mueller is on a “witch hunt”… the investigation into outlying Trump allies becomes transparent in motive. Support for Mueller erodes amid independent-minded people.

Enter Rudy Giuliani, a political and legal Subject Matter Expert – with direct knowledge of evidence held by NYPD and NY FBI field office of gross criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton. (Weiner Laptop etc) Buried by SDNY Clinton Allies.

With Special Counsel Mueller having exhausted most of his investigative leverage, Giuliani enters to negotiate Mueller’s exit and discuss his team’s path of retreat and image face-saving.

The discussion from Mueller’s perspective will not center around Trump, but rather center around how much risk to Hillary Clinton, and by extension political allies within FBI and DOJ – including Obama White House, Mueller will permit.

Mueller will be looking to protect the interests of Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. and negotiating degrees of risk to the institutions each represents. This is the political horsetrading phase. The leverage cards held by each participant are laid on the table for discussion. Low leverage officials will be sacrificed by Mueller to protect those holding more leverage.

Giuliani is a well qualified person to present the Trump administration position within these negotiations. They are essentially negotiating who faces criminal prosecution and who doesn’t.

Ultimately protecting Obama and Clinton will be of higher importance to Mueller. If Mueller doesn’t protect Clinton, he knows her team will destroy everyone if she goes down. That scorched earth approach is a historic part of Team Clinton’s leverage. The stronger the evidence is against Clinton the more people Mueller will have to give up to protect her. The stronger the evidence against the corrupt institutions, the bigger the officials Mueller will have to sacrifice to save them.

Negotiating all this with Robert Mueller will likely be Rudy Giuliani’s primary job.

Likely the general public will never know the ultimate deal decisions. We will only be able to gauge the scale of corruption by the officials Mueller agrees to sacrifice.