Opinionated Blogs (1,909)

It’s time to drop the words “fake news,” “hoax,” and any other descriptor short of blatant and purposeful lies, in reference to Hillary Clinton’s engineering, oversight, and final approval of releasing to the sock-puppet media a preposterous fairy tale that even the worst of armchair sleuths could spot as complete bullcrap.

Why do I make such a “bold” statement? When even the Wall Street Journal editorial board publishes a blistering editorial titled Hillary Clinton Did It, in which it calls Clinton’s lies a “dirty trick for the ages,” that is newsworthy. Are you listening, Hillary?

The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon.

Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI. In September 2016, Mr. Sussmann took claims of a secret Trump connection to Russia’s Alfa Bank to the FBI and said he wasn’t acting on behalf of any client. Prosecutors say he was working for the Clinton campaign.

Before we continue, lemme say this. I abhor whataboutism — from both sides of the aisle and everywhere in between. That said, we’re talking about the same lapdog media who, when shown images, transcripts, receipts with signatures, and testimony from former associates of Joe Biden’s wayward son, immediately dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop scandal as “Russian disinformation.” Yet, Hillary’s lies?

Hillary Clinton has always had a sort of Voldemort-like status of she who must not be named in a scandal. The Clintons have really been able to avoid direct responsibility in a series of scandals. And here was her campaign manager [Robby Mook] effectively dropping the dime on his former boss and saying, “Look, she approved it. She knew about it.”

Now, the reason that’s important is that this claim was utterly ridiculous. It didn’t have a basis. It was quickly rejected by people in the government, and it was without any foundation when people looked at it. But the Clinton campaign pushed it anyway. This Alfa Bank story was pushed by Jake Sullivan, now the national security adviser, and by Clinton herself.

But the thing to keep in mind is that President Obama was briefed when he was president, that Hillary Clinton was planning to make a Russian collusion claim against Donald Trump to try to sort of get out of her own email issues during the campaign.

Read more:

The Wall Street Journal ran a scathing editorial on May 20, called "Hillary Clinton Did It".

This editorial began: "The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 was a dirty trick for the ages -- and now we know it came from the top -- candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton." The editorial quickly explained: "That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court [in Washington, D.C.] , and while this news is hardly a surprise, it;s still bracing to find her fingertips on the political weapon." (Also not surprisingly, The May 20 print edition of The New York Times did not include a story on Mook's testimony.)

Mook's testimony was heard at the trial of attorney Michael Sussman, charged with lying to the FBI in calling to their attention a story that Donald J. Trump, by means of connections with Russia's Alfa Bank, was colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The lie at issue was not the false claim about a Trump-Alfa connection, but the charge that Sussman brought this matter to the FBI as a good citizen, and not as a representative of the Clinton campaign.

As the Journal editorial noted: "Prosecutors say was working for the Clinton campaign." The editorial pointed out, "Mr. Mook said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the plan [to call attention to the Trump-Alfa ties] and approved it. A story on the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations thus appeared in Slate, a left-leaning online publication."

After that, the Journal explained how the Clinton campaign used the self-generated news of the investigation and the initial Slate article that came of it, both of which they had planted, as the basis for making tweet after tweet to the press about the Slate report to churn up mass coverage about it in the press and convince the public that the investigation was about something serious.

The concluding paragraphs of the editorial are worth quoting in full:

In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.

Most of the press will ignore this news, but the Russia-Trump narrative that Mrs. Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three-year investigation to nowhere. Vladimir Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage.


The harm done to the United States by the perfidy of the Clintonistas cannot be overemphasized. That "three-year investigation to nowhere" represented the Clinton-Obama attempted takeover of the government. (Call it the COAT campaign.) With congressional Republicans unwilling to prevent the COAT campaign, the Trump administration was blocked from putting U.S.-Russia relations on a rational, mutually beneficial footing, to the point that, under the present Senate leadership, the specter of war with Russia is no longer an unthinkable thought. The COAT campaign succeeded in keeping the Ukraine pot boiling, with the water first heated by Obama's stirring up of anti-Russian feeling in Ukraine, leading to the Maidan revolution that ousted the legitimately elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.

A political opposition ready to lie about Donald J. Trump, supported by a media prepared to believe the worst about Mr. Trump has given us the current reality where the deep state is using NATO as an instrument to humiliate Russia, and Republican leaders in Congress are going along with the plans of the deep state to make the globe an unsafe place except for the globalist hegemony.

Read more:

This life is so full of options/choices for any and almost everything that one can think about or do, that we just expect to be able to exercise that 'power or privilege' whenever, wherever, why ever, however and upon/for whoever we wish. Our choices provide us with options that can impact us and others in either a positive or a negative manner, and for some there's no care given to being altruistic when exercising them.

For example, Putin made the CHOICE to attack Ukraine, even though there were other choices available for dealing with the 'problem(s)' that he perceived. Do you think that he was concerned about how 'real human life' would be affected, or instead, how exerting his 'POWER' would benefit him/further inflate his ego?
It is said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely". I agree.

Power and choice, doesn't always go together though. The Privilege of choice was granted to mankind from Creation, and we've been abusing it ever since. I've said to myself that, if God had granted us the privilege BEFORE we were born, that certainly would have had a great impact on population, as well as other aspects of life (I think). Imagine that one could decide whether or not one wanted to be born into this world depending on what condition it was at the time (e.g. wartime/peacetime, polluted/unpolluted, diseased/healthy, etc), or even whether one was even interested in being born at all.

I, for one, would have had my reservations, regardless of the 'power' or the 'privilege'.

Aimee Arrambide, Executive Director of avow, a Texas-based organization devoted to "Securing unrestricted abortion care and reproductive rights was asked simple questions by Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), listen to her responses.

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party.

But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.

Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold … ??
1:44 PM · May 18, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

Anyone B'lievin' Joe & The 'Crats Are Pro Peace - 12 Minutes That'll Change Y'all's Minds.
Honestly - The 1st Forty-Five SECONDS Oughta Be Enough ...

"US MSM Propaganda is the Envy of Dictators & Warlords around the World."
Dead On Balls Nailed It!! ...

We Were Warned ...

There Were Other Options ...
... Who May've've Won ... even Without the assistance of 2,000 Mules.

Mid-Terms Are A'Comin' - REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!!! ...

Every time a wacko gets a high-power weapon and kills a bunch of people blogs and news media gets saturated with talk about the 2nd amendment. You know, the one from 1791.
Surely they knew back then that common folk would need AK-47's to hunt for food, defend themselves against the British and keep from having savage Native American attacks.

My prediction: For or against, nothing will happen. Nothing will get fixed.

Obama won't take your guns away, the NRA won't fold and the government won't fund programs to identify people who are unstable and likely to need counseling... or more.

This last incident won't be forgotten, but it will fade like the others and people will go back to doing thinks like it was before.

Our Constitution allows any responsible citizen to own a gun for protection.

Our founders of this country had in mind that our protection is as important as our lives.

Some people think it should be changed because it's causing criminals to make killing faster and easier.

Really?

My question is, are these criminals not able to access these guns if this law is changed?
I don't think so.

What about you?