Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. COM.
Sat.,Oct.14, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~God Bless America
The Coach speaks sense…
Pair that beats a full house...
Message from a friend…
Deb Daigle
Friday the Thirteenth! From the Boston Herald Horoscopes Section today: The superstition of Friday the 13th began with the seizure of a medieval military order on Friday, Oct. 13, 1307. The downfall of this group, the Knights of Templar, had such an impact that the day was considered to be unlucky. Today the playful Leo moon aims to turn the paradigm inside out: Fortune favors creative mischief.
Trump Decertifies Iran Nuclear Deal
By Jason Devaney
(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
President Donald Trump said Friday he is not recertifying the Iran nuclear deal, which sets off a 60-day process for Congress to debate the issue.
Trump made the announcement during a White House speech Friday afternoon.
"As I have said many times, the Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into," Trump said.
"Based on the factual record I have put forward, I am announcing today that we cannot and will not make this certification. We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of Iran's nuclear breakthrough. That is why I am directing my administration to work closely with Congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so the regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons."
The Iran nuclear deal, which was negotiated and signed during the Obama administration, has been the subject of much debate. Critics of the agreement say it does not go far enough to limit Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The deal must be recertified every 90 days by the sitting U.S. president. Not doing so is not the same as withdrawing from the agreement, however. The action Trump took Friday gives Congress the power to come up with new terms.
"My fellow Americans, as president of the United States my highest priority is to ensure the safety and security of the American people. For this reason, I have ordered a complete strategic review of our policy toward the rogue regime in Iran. That review is now complete," Trump said Friday before announcing his administration's new stance on Iran and the nuclear agreement.
The president listed several occasions in which Iran has attacked Americans over the years and has taken part in and funded terrorism.
"The regime remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," Trump said.
"The regime's two favorite chants are "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Trump said the nuclear deal gave Iran "a political and economic lifeline," alluding to the $1.7 billion that the U.S. gave to Iran as part of the agreement.
"Just imagine the sight of those huge piles of money being hauled off by the Iranians, waiting at the airport for the cash. I wonder where all that money went."
Trump said America's new Iran policy includes placing sanctions on Iran to combat its terrorism activities and doing whatever it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The president tried to lay out a strong case to support his decision not to recertify the nuclear deal, referencing both the flaws he sees in the agreement and also Iran's violations of it since it was made official in January 2016.
"The Iranian regime has committed multiple violations of the agreement," Trump said. "For example, on two separate occasions they have exceeded the limit of 130 metric tons of heavy water. Until recently, the Iranian regime has also failed to meet our expectations in its operation of advanced centrifuges.
"The Iranian regime has also intimidated international inspectors into not using the full inspection authorities that the agreement calls for."
Trump added that if Congress is unable to come up with language and terms that, in his view, improve the agreement, he will take action to withdraw the U.S. from it.
"In the event we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies, the agreement will be terminated," Trump said. "It is under continuous review and our participation can be canceled by me as president at any time."
Consumer Sentiment in U.S. Unexpectedly Surges to 13-Year High
By Agnel Philip
U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly surged to a 13-year high as Americans’ perceptions of the economy and their own finances rebounded following several major hurricanes, a University of Michigan survey showed Friday.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MICHIGAN SENTIMENT (OCTOBER, PRELIMINARY)
HIGHLIGHTS OF MICHIGAN SENTIMENT (OCTOBER, PRELIMINARY)
|
Key Takeaways
The jump in sentiment, which was greater than any analyst had projected, may reflect several trends: falling gasoline prices following a hurricane-related spike; repeated record highs for the stock market; a 16-year low in unemployment; and post-storm recovery efforts driving a rebound in economic growth.
The advance in the main gauge spanned age and income subgroups as well as partisan views, according to the report. Almost six out of every 10 consumers thought the economy had recently improved in early October, the university said.
Not all measures in the survey showed big gains: the share of consumers reporting improved finances held steady at about half, while the proportion expecting gains in their financial situation fell slightly to 40 percent.
Official’s Views
“While the early October surge indicates greater optimism about the future course of the economy, it also reflects an unmistakable sense among consumers that economic prospects are now about as good as could be expected,” Richard Curtin, director of the University of Michigan consumer survey, said in a statement. “Indeed, nothing in the latest survey indicates that consumers anticipate an economic downturn anytime soon -- which contrarians may consider a clear warning sign of trouble ahead.”
Other Details
Other Details
-
83 percent of respondents saw buying conditions for household durables as favorable, most in more than a decade; positive vehicle-buying attitudes at 75 percent, highest since 2004
-
Consumers saw inflation rate in the next year at 2.3 percent after 2.7 percent the prior month
-
Inflation rate over next five to 10 years seen at 2.4 percent after 2.5 percent in September
Nolte: Why Did NBC Spike Hollywood’s Biggest Scandal Ever? Weinstein Is a Democrat.
by JOHN NOLTE
Errol Flynn tried and acquitted for statutory rape? Lana Turner’s Mafioso boyfriend killed by her daughter? Joan Crawford’s wire hangers? Ingrid Bergman’s affair with Roberto Rossellini?
Not even close.
Eddie Fisher dumping America’s sweetheart Debbie Reynolds for sexpot Elizabeth Taylor? Elizabeth Taylor dumping Eddie Fisher for Richard Burton while nearly putting 20th Century-Fox out of business with Cleopatra overruns?
Pish-posh.
Mel Gibson’s rants? Rob Lowe’s sex tape? Marilyn Monroe’s affairs with John and Bobby Kennedy? Woody Allen? Fatty Arbuckle? Thomas Ince? Natalie Wood? The Black Dahlia?
Stop boring me.
Never in the sordid, 100-year history of Hollywood has there ever been a scandal that even approached the size, scope, and consequence of the still-mushrooming Harvey Weinstein sex-a-palooza.
Think about it…
When you are talking about executives, Harvey Weinstein is by far the biggest name in entertainment today, a household name, a brand all his own; the man who launched Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Steven Soderbergh, Judi Dench, and countless others. Around a half-dozen Weinstein films have won the Oscar for Best Picture.
On top of that, throughout the 1990s, Weinstein revolutionized the way movies are distributed, the way Oscar campaigns are run, and was the godfather of that wonderful ten-year indie era that began in 1989 with Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape.
Weinstein is also one of the biggest movers and shakers in Democrat politics. Out of his own pocket, he has donated over a million dollars. Through bundling and fundraising, he has raised tens of millions more. Weinstein is the friend of two American presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, is as famous and successful as Walt Disney, and as politically connected as an American civilian can get.
Harvey Weinstein is a Kingfish in this pond we call America and…
NBC News let him off the hook, threw him back, said “no thanks” to the biggest story of 2017, and the biggest scandal in the history of Hollywood.
Yes, the same NBC that is perfectly happy to run around using sketchy, unnamed sources to attack President Trump with a steaming pile of fake news, the same NBC News that protected Barack Obama’s re-election by going hog wild over the War on Women with Todd Akin, the same NBC News that packages rumor, innuendo, and outright falsehoods as NEWS — that very same NBC News had audiotape of Harvey Weinstein admitting to sexual misconduct … and refused to run with it.
NBC News had on-the-record sources claiming Weinstein sexually harassed and even raped them … and refused to run with it.
NBC had it all, a massive, Massive, MASSIVE story, one of the biggest ever, all tied up in a bow … and they refused to run with it.
NBC’s own staffer, Ronan Farrow, had the story, nailed it with the audiotape and on-the-record sources, and NBC still sent him packing, told him to take the story elsewhere. So the bombshell ended up at The New Yorker.
NBC News not only gave away the story of the year, they lost the Pulitzers Farrow and The New Yorker are almost certainly going to win.
The question is why — why would an unbiased, objective, not-at-all left wing news outlet refuse to run a towering story against an America colossus?
We all know why.
We all know NBC is not about holding the powerful accountable — you do not get any more powerful than Harvey Weinstein.
NBC is not about the bottom line and clicks — the Weinstein scandal is a barnburner.
NBC is not about protecting the weak from the powerful, or sheltering women from predators…
Nope.
NBC is only about one thing… protecting the power of centralized government by protecting Democrats.
NBC News is nothing more than a left wing propaganda outlet, and if covering up for an alleged sexual predator results in a few more victims, NBC News sees those broken women only as sacrifices to The Cause.
GOP Strategist: Bannon’s Hostile Takeover Plan ‘Should Have Establishment Shaking in Their Boots’
by TONY LEE
GOP strategist Susan Del Percio said former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon’s plan to field economic nationalist candidates to oust establishment lawmakers should have the Republican establishment “shaking in their boots.”
In an interview with Fox News anchor Sean Hannity on Monday evening, Bannon, as Breitbart News noted, said he is working with grassroots organizations at the state level to spend “tons of time with candidates to make sure they are fully vetted and able to defeat Democrats after they take on incumbents.”
Del Percio said this week on MTP Daily that establishment Republicans in the past just identified their candidates and hoped that they would win with fundraising and the state operation, but Bannon has “now destroyed” that model.
Steve Kornacki, the very underrated political analyst, pointed out that even when economic nationalist candidates did not have the momentum their movement has now, the “traditional tools of politics” often failed the Republican establishment since the rise of the Tea Party movement.
Sensing Bannon’s threat to the establishment is indeed real, Del Percio urged the establishment to “stand their ground” against the “really aggressive, nasty campaigns” that Bannon the “street fighter” will encourage.
NBC Got Caught Covering Up The Clintons’ Connection To This Sex Scandal
The Clinton’s are up to their eyeballs in scandal.Now it involves one of their top allies being a sexual predator.
And this network got caught red-handed trying to cover it up.
Top Clinton ally Harvey Weinstein stands accused of being a serial sexual harasser and rapist.
The film mogul was a top Democrat donor and even threw Hillary Clinton a birthday party in 2000.
Explosive reports in the New York Times and the New Yorker rocked Democratic politics as the Clintons and the Obamas had to answer for why they spent so many years in the presence of an alleged sexual predator.
But a new report shows how the media – and specifically NBC – tried to bury the story and cover up for the Clintons and their friend’s predatory behavior.
Former MSNB anchor Ronan Farrow first brought the story to NBC.
He claimed to have audio recordings of women saying that Weinstein had groped them, as well as one accuser who was willing to appear on camera if her identity was concealed to claim the Hollywood mogul raped her.
Instead of accepting the scoop of the year, NBC passed it up.
Farrow claimed executives told him he needed to do more reporting and what he had on Weinstein wasn’t reportable.
The Huffington Post reports:
But at that moment Farrow was also caught in the pincers of an NBC News edict. He had been told by executives at NBC News that he didn’t have enough reporting to go on air with his Weinstein story, according to four sources, and he had been told by the network to stop reporting on it. NBC tried to put a stop to the interview with the woman accusing Weinstein of rape. The network insisted he not use an NBC News crew for the interview, and neither was he to mention his NBC News affiliation. And so that was how Ronan Farrow wound up paying out of his own pocket for a camera crew to film an interview.
As a project for NBC News, Farrow’s story was effectively dead. Later that month, he received permission to take his reporting to another news organization. The story that resulted, published Tuesday by The New Yorker, was a blockbuster: multiple women accusing Weinstein of rape and other sexual misconduct, accompanied by the audio of Weinstein admitting to sexual assault…
….At this point, Farrow and McHugh were ready to move forward with the story but were told by NBC executives that the story had to go up to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack for approval and that the story would be under review by Steve Burke, executive vice president of Comcast and president and CEO of NBCUniversal — a highly unusual level of scrutiny, according to three NBC News staffers, who had never heard of Burke’s office needing to review a story.”
NBC’s claims that Farrow didn’t have enough reportable material obviously fall flat.
Because the New Yorker did run the story, and within days Weinstein was fired from his company and allegedly has fled the country to enter rehabilitation in Europe.
Critics believe the liberal leaning NBC spiked the story to protect one of the Clintons’ biggest supporters.
What Trump’s Iran Decision Really Means
ANDREW MALCOLM
President Trump’s decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal may or may not accomplish anything with that rogue nation’s ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction and sow regional rebellion. But it certainly hands Congress a very hot falafel.
It’s a similar move to Trump earlier this year handing over to Congress the DACA mess, aimed at deporting the grown children of illegal immigrants. ‘Here, I did my part, you guys handle throwing these folks out.’
Both moves allow Trump to check off two more campaign promises. He’s called the Obama administration’s nuclear pact with Iran the worst deal in history. And predicted to the United Nations recently: “Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it, believe me.
Knowing the fate of his Iran deal, Obama refused to submit it to Congress, as the Constitution requires of treaties. In reply, Congress required that a president certify every 90 days that Iran is “transparently, verifiably and fully implementing the agreement.” Trump chafed at previous certifications this year.
But sending it to Congress now is actually a compromise within the administration between junking the pact and walking away, which would simply free Iran to resume full-scale weapons development, and falsely certifying Iran’s full compliance.
Pentagon officials have said Iran is not in “material” breach of the pact. But in Trump’s eyes, Iran’s export of terrorism must be stopped, though it’s not clearly not part of the pact. And Trump doesn’t like the sunset provision that lets Iran resume development no matter what in 10 years.
Congress is now left with the radioactive decision to snap back sanctions and free Iran from any compliance or leaving the pact untouched, despite years of harsh GOP criticism.
Trump’s decision actually does little but merely start a 60-day clock for Congress to decide to leave the pact despite allied concerns, order renegotiation, which Iran has promised to reject, or quite likely mire itself in yet another of the now familiar series of procedural feuds signifying the inability of argumentative Republican majorities to act like majorities.
Renewed U.S. economic sanctions would have greatly reduced effect without mutual European compliance. That’s unlikely given billions in new business launched by European companies.
Iran is positioned to lose basically nothing. Obama agreed to front-loading most of Iran’s benefits, including payment of $150 billion. So, Iran could potentially be free of the pact’s limits, keep its booming new business with Europe and have no incentive to curtail its terrorism funding.
One little-discussed aspect of the Iran deal’s future is it will, in effect, set a precedent for any possible future talks and agreement between the U.S. and North Korea. Its nuclear weapons program and ICBM delivery systems are much farther along than Iran’s.
Without mentioning by name the Iran deal or North Korea’s de facto nuclear arming, Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly commented on the situation at a news briefing Thursday:
I don’t mean any criticism to Mr. Trump’s predecessors, but there is an awful lot of things that were, in my view, kicked down the road that have come home to roost, pretty much right now, that have to be dealt with.
The road stretches on.
Massive NFL Scandal Surfaces, Media Wants It Buried
Ben Baker
It turns out that controversial anti-conservative politics were part of football long before President Trump or even Colin Kaepernick got involved.
According to an article on the Capital Research Center website, a watchdog organization did a probe into the National Football League Players Association tax records and discovered something very interesting. They’re actively funding “resistance” groups to oppose Trump’s presidency.
The discovery was made by the conservative watchdog group, 2nd Vote.
They discovered that the NFLPA makes regular donations to various groups that are working with the resistance efforts against Trump.
Such groups include the Center for Community Change, which fights for total acceptance and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Groups also include Working America, a union advocacy group, and the Center for Community Change Action, which donated around $3 million to Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency last year.
The NFLPA’s donations are part of a large mass of funds that go towards various anti-Trump groups to actively hinder or oppose his presidency. Many of these groups also receive funding from notable left-wing donor, George Soros.
This revelation isn’t too surprising considering the organized protests seen out of the NFL against Trump following his controversial statements in Alabama, according to USA Today. There at a rally, Trump stated fans were tired of the national anthem protests and it would be good for NFL owners to fire those players who protest.
Many NFL players and owners took offense to the comment and, of course, the NFLPA had issues with the statement as well. President of the NFLPA, Eric Winston, said the comments were “a slap in the face to the civil rights heroes of the past and present.”
According to Reuters, after Vice President Mike Pence walked out of a game when over a dozen players of the San Francisco 49ers protested the anthem, DeMaurice Smith, NFLPA executive director reacted by criticizing NFL management and dismissing the idea that the protests were somehow offensive.
Smith stated, “No player is disrespecting our Country or our Flag. As thousands have shown in the past, it takes bravery and courage to speak and confront these issues as our players have, especially when it is unpopular with some. There is room for Management to do the same and maybe then players do not have to risk the taunts and threats alone. This is their opportunity to lead as well and will be a true test of the motto that ‘Football is Family.’”
Smith stated, “No player is disrespecting our Country or our Flag. As thousands have shown in the past, it takes bravery and courage to speak and confront these issues as our players have, especially when it is unpopular with some. There is room for Management to do the same and maybe then players do not have to risk the taunts and threats alone. This is their opportunity to lead as well and will be a true test of the motto that ‘Football is Family.’”
Yet, as time has shown, fans disagree and the NFL has been suffering both in ratings and revenue as both fans and business associates have walked away from the sports organization.
Gun Banners Unmasked: The Vengeful Face of the Anti-gun Agenda Emerges Once Again
SUPPORT NRA-ILA
In the aftermath of tragedy, when emotions are running high, some people reveal perhaps more than they intend about themselves and their true intentions. Gun control advocates are feeling especially emboldened in the wake of the terrible murders in Las Vegas, and their predilections and prejudices are again on full display. To no great surprise, they are openly speaking of repealing the Second Amendment, retroactively turning gun owners into criminals, and confiscating firearms en masse. And while their publicly-expressed furor will eventually subside when reason again dominates the national discussion of gun policy, it’s important to keep in mind that what they say now is what they really want. It’s not “reasonable regulation.” It’s give up your gun or the government takes it and you go to jail. It’s always that, in the end.
New York Times commentator Bret Stephens led the way with his call to “repeal the Second Amendment.”Dismissing the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as a “fetish,” Stephens cites a litany of tired and debunked “science” and rhetoric that may do much to ingratiate himself to his new readers at the Times but does absolutely nothing to advance the debate on controlling violent crime.
He then asks, without apparent irony, why liberals nevertheless continue to lose the gun control debate. On this point, at least, Stephens is largely correct (if completely un-self-aware): Because gun control advocates don’t know what they’re talking about and because their proffered “common sense” solutions won’t make any appreciable difference.
Stephens, therefore, advocates for America to “fundamentally and permanently” change a “legal regime that most of the developed world considers nuts” by getting rid of the Second Amendment altogether. James Madison himself, Stephens insists, would look at modern America and say, “Take the guns – or at least the presumptive right to them – away.”
What happens to the 400 million or so firearms already in private hands? How does society actually benefit from his plan? Stephens doesn’t say. He apparently just trusts that things would eventually work themselves out if the government had carte blanche over yet another aspect of Americans’ lives.
Paul Waldman also wrote a piece for The Week with an even blunter prescription: “Ban guns.” Waldman at least acknowledges some of the practical problems inherent in his proposal. Yet he still muses that “it's worthwhile to step back from the concrete debates we're having, as important as those are, and spend a moment contemplating what kind of society we'd prefer if there were no practical impediments to radical change.”
Echoing Stephens, Waldman calls Americans’ dedication to their Second Amendment rights “absurd fetishism.” He insists, however, that “I get it.” But it’s not enough, he says, to justify “[o]ver 30,000 Americans dead every year, and tens of thousands more maimed and paralyzed.”
Self-defense would be less of an issue in his proposed Utopia, Waldman argues, because assailants “probably” wouldn’t have a gun, either. “[P]robably?” And besides, he writes, it’s a “ludicrous argument” that “even if you took away everyone’s guns, people would still have evil in their hearts, and if they really wanted to kill they’d find a way.”
We can only assume that Mr. Waldman doesn’t have much experience with the criminal element. Or much familiarity with history. Or even an awareness of the sorts of mass-casualty crimes committed in the relatively gun-free countries he obviously so admires.
Speaking of fetishes, no week’s worth of gun-prohibition rhetoric would be complete without gushing references to Australia, something of a Western democracy that actually managed to take a large number of guns away from peaceable individuals who already legally had them. Well, sort of, anyway.
And who better for this job than Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama, who along with his protégé and frenemy Hillary Clinton is America’s foremost proponent of importing Australia’s gun confiscation scheme to American shores?
Writing (appropriately) for the website Crooked.com, Pfeiffer laments that he and his fellow radical Democrats are “now in the midst of another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose.” He blames this on Democrats accepting what he calls an interpretation of the Second Amendment that was “reversed-engineered to pander to fantasies.” He then basically argues that just because the U.S. Supreme Court has authoritatively construed the Second Amendment to protect an individual right, Democrats don’t have to accept that as true.
Pfeiffer insists the “Democratic gun control strategy fails because it is defined by this poverty of ambition … .”
He then lists his own policy prescriptions, which are nothing if not ambitious, although not particularly original. These include national registration; “[t]racking and limiting purchases of ammunition;” mandatory “smart-gun” technology; and, of course, an Australian style “national gun buyback program.”
As savvy gun owners know, what happened in Australia was not a “buyback.” Gun owners didn’t return guns to the shops where they bought them. Rather, the government retroactively banned firearms that most people had acquired lawfully and in good faith. It then sternly threatened to imprison anyone who didn’t surrender their gun to the authorities for whatever compensation was offered, assuming the individual even survived the government’s attempt to seize the gun by force.
Many Australians buckled to the threat, and the government confiscated many hundreds of thousands of guns. But many didn’t. In the unlikely event that a the government of the United States somehow amassed the same proportion of its citizens’ firearms, hundreds of millions would still be left in private hands, but with a disproportionate share hoarded by criminals who need firearms for their livelihood.
Ironically, even as he and like-minded gun prohibitionists call for confiscation of America’s guns, Pfeiffer remains incredulous that “the NRA is still producing” what he calls “agitprop aimed at convincing gun owners that liberal Democrats and radical leftists are going to come after their guns.”
How dare we state the obvious: Your guns are not safe, as long as people like Stephens, Waldman, and Pfeiffer continue to have a role in national debate and in politics.
Which is to say, they’ll never be safe. Pfeiffer essentially admits this and counsels his fellow radical Democrats to stop trying to “fake moderation” and win over gun voters with “insincere pandering on the gun issue.”
It would be nice to think that with a pro-gun president and pro-gun majorities in Congress, statehouses, and governor’s mansions across the country, the battle to secure the Second Amendment is won. But as long as decent, law-abiding gun owners are blamed for the acts of deranged murderers, the battle can never end.
We don’t have to guess what people who press for gun control really want. People like Stephens, Waldman, and Pfeiffer are telling us themselves.
For us to think otherwise is to sow the seeds of our own undoing.
This Evidence Just Proved Collusion With Russia And You’ll Never Believe Who Is Guilty
The Russian-collusion story has gripped Washington for over oneyear.
Now there is evidence proving someone colluded with the Russians during the election.
And you’ll never believe who is guilty.
The media jumped on two developments to try and claim the Trump campaign colluded had with Russia.
The first was the fake news Christopher Steele dossier compiled on behalf of Fusion GPS.
The second was the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower between Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.
The meeting was about repealing the Magnitsky Act, and never produced any of the promised dirt on Clinton colluding with the Russians.
But the media made it seem like this was the summit where the grand plot was hatched to rig the election.
It later turned out that Fusion GPS – who compiled the fake news Trump dossier – was being paid by the Russians to lobby against the Magnitsky Act.
But why was the media so reluctant to report on this development?
It was because they were in on spreading the Russian propaganda Moscow distributed through Fusion GPS.
Lee Smith wrote at The Federalist:
“In his explosive July 27 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Browder, the 53-year-old CEO and founder of Hermitage Capital Management, alleged Fusion GPS may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by spreading Russian state propaganda. Washington DC journalists, Browder added, were in on the game—getting stories from the company that first tried to torque American law to benefit Putin and his cronies then spread the salacious Steele dossier.
“I suspect that a number of journalists,” Browder testified, “and one in particular here in Washington was operating so far outside the bounds of normal journalistic integrity that there must have been some incentive for them to be doing it coming from Fusion GPS.
The journalist Browder alluded to is NBC News’ intelligence and national security reporter: Ken Dilanian. In extensive interviews, Browder alleged to me that a number of journalists, including Dilanian, were beholden to Fusion GPS and its principals, including former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson, for supplying them with stories in the past. Reporters, Browder argued, were therefore reluctant to look too deeply into Fusion GPS’s smear campaign against him and Magnitsky. Multiple attempts to reach Dilanian for comment went unanswered.”
Smith identified that the real way Russia attacked American democracy in 2016 was by corrupting the press to spread false information.
He wrote:
“The fact that Fusion GPS was the source of both the anti-Magnitsky smear campaign and the anti-Trump dossier was perhaps too confusing, or too troubling for most reporters to consider. Putting both stories together suggests both the Steele dossier and Fusion GPS’s anti-Magnitsky work were Russian state-sponsored hit-jobs.
While critics of the current White House charge that it has covered up institutional or accidental collusion with Moscow, the refusal of the press to out itself calls into question its heroic narrative as a last bastion of democracy holding out against the dictatorial and factually impaired Trump. Instead, it implied that members of both the Trump circle and the media were at once victims of and willing participants in the same Russian-sourced scam.”
Rather than do real reporting on the origins of the Trump dossier, the media covered up the fact that Fusion GPS was being paid by the Russians when the firm was working against Trump.
The media – and not Donald Trump or his campaign – was the ones who colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/10/httpift_14.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment