Salacious Smear of Trump Funded by Dems
After a year of trying to hype the Fusion GPS "dossier" on Donald Trump into alleged "proof" of his illicit collusion with Russia the Democrats have seen the escapade backfire big time. An expose in the Washington Post, of all places, disclosed that the Democratic National Committee paid up to $9 million for the political hit piece. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, chair of the DNC at the time these payments were made, and Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president at that time, both denied any knowledge of the payments.
Clinton pointed out that "we spent a billion dollars on the campaign. In that context, a $9 million payment to an obscure opposition research outfit was peanuts. Why would I be expected to have any knowledge of it?"
Well, there were a series of progressively desperate tweets from the candidate starting in August 2016 and periodically repeated up to October 31 querying the absence of media coverage of Trump's supposed collusion with Russia to rig the election. Despite Hillary's efforts, though, media outlets refused to publish any of the dossier's content on the grounds that the charges couldn't be independently verified.
Editors at the Los Angeles Times—one of the 99% of newspapers that endorsed Clinton for president—dismissed the question of who paid for the smear, saying that "who paid is not as pertinent as the seriousness of the charges made in the dossier." As for the lack of corroboration of any of the "serious" charges, the Times editors asserted that "the leveling of even false allegations in a political campaign is protected freedom of speech. The media must bear a large share of the responsibility for its refusal to go public with the dossier's details when it could have made a difference in the election's outcome. A finicky aversion to publish allegations out of an overwrought fear that they might later be proven untrue may have saddled the nation with a man unfit to hold the office of president."
Obama's former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attempted to rescue the situation by arguing that "the absence of evidence behind the dossier's claims doesn't preclude the possibility that they might be true. I mean, no one's produced definitive evidence verifying the existence of 'big foot,' but that doesn't prove the creature doesn't exist. Our spying on Trump and his associates was never 24/7. They had unobserved moments where they could've done the things the dossier said they did. Until they come forward with a persuasive accounting for every minute of their time over the last few years I think we have to assume they've got something to hide."
Former Clinton spokesperson and current CNN contributor Brian Fallon called the "latest kerfuffle over whether the dossier is factual is irrelevant. The more important thing about these types of campaign documents is 'are they effective.' If I had known about it before the election I would've shouted it to the rooftops. The campaign's failure to do that exhibited a timidity unbecoming of someone who truly wants to wield political power. In my book, you use every weapon you have to win. After you win no one will dare question whether your tactics were dirty. And if they do, you'll have numerous tools you can use to make them regret raising the issue."
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the recent turn of events "ironic. The scheming of the Democrats reminds me of the whole Watergate affair. Rather than take their issues to voters as President Trump did, they put their energy into concocting a false narrative aimed at muddying up their opponent. Nixon paid 'plumbers' to spy on his 1972 election opponent. Even though he was heavily favored to win and did win, his underhanded tactics eventually brought him down. While Mrs. Clinton's underhanded tactics didn't win her the election, they may yet bring her down to a worse place than merely being an 'also ran.'"
In related news, Sen. John McCain (R-Az) strove to minimize his role in hyping the dossier, reminding everyone that, "I had a brain tumor when I did that. Who knows what I was thinking or why I did what I did?"
UK Law Enforcement Shift Spurs Soaring Crime Rate
The shift of law-enforcement focus from "ordinary crimes" to "hate crimes" has coincided with a surge of 19% in violent crime, 22% in rapes, and, surprisingly, given the country's strict gun-control laws, 27% in crimes committed by firearm-toting thugs. While budgetary concerns have had a role in the reduced arrest records (down 48% over the last nine years) the shift of emphasis toward cracking down on "hate crimes" is also a factor.
In London, arrests for "offensive comments" are up by 53% in the last year. A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police explained that "in our view, a hateful comment is a more serious matter than the run-of-the-mill crimes committed by ordinary criminals. Hateful comments spring from hateful thoughts. If we don't take the initiative to suppress hateful thoughts they could lead to a wider social break down."
A particular focus of the anti-hate crime effort has been "the noxious animus against people of Asian descent. The clash of cultures between white values and foreign values adds an ugly racist taint to the ways long-term residents perceive newer arrivals. The Mayor has emphasized that we must spare no effort in nipping this in the bud."
While "nipping" hateful thought in the bud has shifted police from patrolling the streets to perusing Facebook and Twitter in search of hateful words, Muslim immigrants have played a significant part in the rise of ordinary crimes—attacking "unbelievers" and sexually assaulting "loose women" in emulation of the Prophet and as prescribed in their holy Quran.
In related news, Sweden issued an ultimatum demanding that "all European Union countries must take more refugees, or else." Prime Minister Stefan Löfven contends that "xenophobia is a major threat to Europe" and that "the best way to combat this threat is to speed our transition to Islam. The sooner we all join the umma, the sooner the terrorism will stop. Surely it is better to simulate the required five daily prayers than to endure the constant risk of being killed for our resistance."
Evidence Obama Administration Discriminated Against Conservatives
This week evidence of a comprehensive policy of illegal discrimination by the Obama Administration against conservatives emerged on two fronts.
First was the discovery of an internal IRS email outlining an intentional plan to obstruct Tea Party organizations from obtaining tax-exempt status for educational activities. An April 1, 2011 email from Elizabeth Kastenberg, an official in the agency's exempt organizations division, confirmed that "these cases are held back primarily because of their political party affiliation rather than specifically any political activities." The IRS also illegally colluded with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to crack down on conservative nonprofits during the 2012 election cycle.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen tried to brush off the email as "an obvious 'April fool' joke. Look at the date on the email. To say this is a 'smoking gun' is absurd." Koskinen's contention is rebutted by the demonstrated pattern of discrimination and harassment conservative groups faced from the IRS in the post-2011 period.
Second was a Department of Justice scheme to ensure that nearly a billion dollars in settlements from businesses sued by the Obama Administration would be donated exclusively to left-wing political organizations. Records obtained from the Obama era Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG) and the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) revealed a conscious intent to exclude conservative or non-partisan groups from receiving any of the settlement money.
With respect to the settlement scheme, current Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterized the scheme as "essentially, political extortion. Under the threat of prolonged and expensive litigation, the previous DOJ allowed targeted businesses to opt out by agreeing to accept a plea and pay a fine. The money obtained from those fines was used as a 'slush fund' to aid left-wing interest groups like National Council of La Raza, Urban League and National Community Reinvestment Coalition." Sessions ordered an end to the policy, saying that "if real damages are incurred due to torts committed by any defendants payments should be paid to the injured parties not politically favored pressure groups."
With respect to the IRS discrimination, it has be announced that Koskinen will be replaced by the Treasury Department''s assistant secretary for tax policy, David Kautter as acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service beginning November 12.
Obama Briefed on Uranium One Scandal
The confidential informant recently released from the non-disclosure agreement forced on him by the Obama Administration Department of Justice passed on evidence that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering to his FBI superiors for inclusion in President Obama's daily briefing. A $500,000 share of the bribes went into the pocket of former President Bill Clinton as a "speaking fee" and $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation in the form of "donations" from principals who profited from the sale of 20% of the US uranium supply to a firm owned by the Russian government.
Obama professed to "have no recollection of the matter. As my successor can attest, these briefings are boring and repetitive. My mind may have wandered during the briefing where this uranium thing was mentioned. I was probably thinking about the NCAA basketball tournament and how my brackets were holding up."
Rep. Louie Gomert (R-Tex) dismissed the ex-President's lame excuse as "par for course. I'm more interested in the role the FBI superiors have played in this whole affair. Mueller was the Director at that time. Rosenstein was a high-ranking official. It was Rosenstein who subsequently appointed Mueller as special counsel in charge of investigating supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians. The involvement of these men in what now has the appearance of a massive attempt to divert attention away from this earlier real collusion raises serious concerns of a cover-up to protect the guilty with a ploy to implicate the innocent."