The Democrats and the MSM have gotten bolder about lying
So far, part of the approach of the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) to the whistleblower/Ukraine story is to indicate that the whistleblower’s interpretation of the Trump/Zelensky phone call is the truth and the transcript of the phone call is a lie. It reminds me of their approach to Rathergate: “fake, but accurate.” That was one of the reasons for Adam Schiff’s odd performance, in which he made up fictitious content for Trump’s phone call that agreed with the whistleblower account rather than the actual transcript.
Why would the Democrats think this would be effective? And why would they think the public will buy their statements that, if Trump doesn’t co-operate with their “inquiry” and letters of request for testimony, he is obstructing justice?
I believe the reason is that the Democrats assume that the majority of the public knows little to nothing about due process or the way government is supposed to work, or why the protections are built into the Constitution as they are. So they believe that they can say that Trump’s completely constitutional refusals to respond to the non-subpeonas is obstruction of justice, and that much of the public will buy it. After all, you have to know law, civics, and the Constitution to realize that what they’re saying is incorrect. And when the talking heads of the MSM solemnly intone the same line as the Democrats, it underscores the perception that these people must be right.
When I was young, the Democrats (and it wasn’t just Democrats, either) used to think people were more well-informed and would be onto a game like that if they tried to play it. So they weren’t as bold, because they thought there would be consequences at the voting booth. They also had some fear that the press might turn on them and be critical of them for something so egregious, and that would hurt them as well. So the whole thing might backfire, and that helped to keep such activity in better check.
But no more; that’s all over. The Democrats know that the press will come forward with explanations that back up and amplify the Democrats’ lies no matter what they say and how preposterously wrong it might be, and so they have no fear. And they have no fear of the few pundits or newspeople who are trying to tell the public what’s what – such as Andrew McCarthy, for example – because the Democrats know that these people’s work appears almost entirely in venues on the right, and they know that the people who read those sites are mostly those who are already on the right.
The combination of the takeover of our educational system by the left and a press that is completely dedicated to being political rather than telling the truth allows the Democrats to feel invulnerable.
Oh, and one more thing. Democrats used to think that the other side would do it to them if they ever got into power, which happened periodically. But the left has come to believe that will never happen again if they are successful in making the power moves they are attempting. So they feel bolder about exhibiting their power (or at least some of it) now, including their takeover of government agencies that used to be more bipartisan. They don’t fear their moves coming back to haunt them from the other side, in part because they are making it their business to make sure that other side never gets power, in part because they know that the press will back them up and attack the other side for whatever the it does, and in part because although Democrats continually say how ruthless the right is they know that the right actually has been much more inclined to play nice than the left.
Trump doesn’t play nice, which is still another reason the left is out to get him.
Oh so true the words you have written. And I am very afraid that they will take the power back in 2020. I won’t say more.
Well, yeah. Democrats “used to think people were more well-informed and would be onto a game like that if they tried to play it”. But now they can be pretty confident that most people don’t know anything about the constitution, civics, or due process, because the Democrats have been in sole charge of the education system for the past 50 years and have made damn sure that these subjects are either not taught, or are taught from a left-wing perspective. I’m seriously concerned that the USA is circling the drain.
Boy, I’m sure embarrassed to have been a leftist, progressive and a Democrat for most of my life!
I used to think we were the good guys.
Liberal license, semantic progression, brown matter… They’re Pro-Choice, a selective, opportunistic (i.e. politically congruent) quasi-religious/moral (“ethical”) philosophy. That said, beware overlapping and converging special and peculiar interests.
“The Democrats know that the press will come forward with explanations that back up and amplify the Democrats’ lies no matter what they say …”
It’s worse than that. Tucker Carlson very recently said something to the effect, “Is there a shortage of creative writers out there? The media talking heads keep repeating the exact same old tired tag lines and talking points that the Dem leadership feeds them.”
He implied that it would at least seem more “organic” if different news/opinion desks used slightly different verbiage. This is Tucker’s form of ridicule because I’m sure he knows the effectiveness of “staying on message” and drilling those identical tag lines into people’s brains.
_____
“… and they know that the people who read those sites are mostly those who are already on the right.”
Neo said roughly the same thing about the not new Ukraine investigation of Burisma. I checked it out on Bing. There were lots of articles about when that investigation started on the first 2 or 3 search pages, but … they were almost all “right wing” sites. The search query was “Ukraine investigating Burisma”
Honestly, this stuff would be more concerning if the Democrats were a more homogeneous political group, like Republicans. It’s impossible to limit the use of these kind of tactics to just “the other side,” so even if they win it will only set off internal Democratic struggles like you cannot believe.
In case anyone has forgotten, the single most important group in the Democratic Party is white men. There’s still a lot of them and they’ve got all the money and all the status. The next most important group is white woman, who don’t have as much money and status but have even greater numbers. Wait until the white Democratic power structure tries to pull this stuff to keep the minority segment of the party in line.
Mike
Huxley,
For all of my adult life the left (I refuse to call them progressives for they are regressives) has never been the good guys. The good guys believe in individual liberty, not the hive mind. The good guys and gals believe in the rule of law, not make it up as circumstances dictate to further an agend. The good gals and guys believe in limited government, the left favors big daddy and mommy ruling every aspect of our daily lives, except their own lives, that’s for the peasantry.
Glad you ‘saw the light’.
MBunge,
There is a very good playbook that the Leftists follow. They keep all the various factions happy with giveaways. Whatever it takes to keep everyone quiet, they do. They finance it all through deficit spending. By the time “other people’s money” starts to run out, they will have already subborned all the institutions and the military. And by the time those various interests groups all realize they are not getting what they were promised, it will be too late. The Opposition will have been marginalized and they will have confiscated all the private weapons.
They have pulled it off again and again throughout the world. And, they are always refining the playbook.
parker,
Well said!
Huxley,
As parker said, welcome to the light. But don’t feel too bad. The “playbook” I talked about above is very effective and what they offer as bait looks and sounds attractive. I am glad you identified the barbs before it was too late for you.
In 2000, when the Florida recount mess was underway, a professor (political science, I think) at NC State actually said that the exit polls were more accurate than the vote count. In this case, Democrats actually think people will believe that the White House transcript is fake and their “whistleblower” has it right.
It’s theater.
And who has ever begrudged the poets their tall-tale telling license? Theater is worship. Theater is politics. Born in the city’s devotional festivities celebrating the god(s); expressing pieties and hopes; prayers and pleadings for the city’s salvation; ringed round with sacrifices and humiliations before the awesome powers that be.
Folks may betimes call these proceedings a circus, but no.
It’s theater.
For all of my adult life the left (I refuse to call them progressives for they are regressives) has never been the good guys. The good guys believe in individual liberty, not the hive mind.
parker: Lots of the leftists, progressives and Democrats I knew believed in individual liberty.
I certainly believed in individual liberty and still do.
I date the ferocious tilt to the hive mind to the 2000 election problems, 9-11 and the Iraq War. That’s when the people I knew got crazy and thought me crazy.
For a government to be charitable with money that they took from you by threat of force is not individual liberty.
In any society there is, of course, a balance. We give up some liberty in exchange for security and other common public benefits. But, when our government becomes overly large and intrusive, as well as paternalistic, that is not individual liberty.
Is it possible that one of the reasons that liberals are getting bolder at lying is that they are getting even more arrogant than they use to be?
Neo,
A couple points. It was quite clear to me that Schiff was using parody about the transcript of the call.
Newsweek reported: “Schiff attempted to parody the president’s comments in the call during a hearing on the whistleblower’s complaint …”
Schiff started by saying: “”This is the essence of what the president communicates,” and he ends by saying: “”This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate….” His interpretation could be wrong and he should have just read the transcript out loud but it seemed pretty obvious he was not reading exact phrasing from the transcript [which as you know are not verbatim].
Frankly, the transcript by itself is enough to warrant an investigation in my opinion. But I would not vote to impeach until the investigation reveals more.
Next, about due process in the impeachment process there is not a consensus. Many legal scholars and lawyers say that due process is not part of the process until after the impeachment and the start of the Senate trial. Stanford law professor David Sklansky says: “It is only after charges have been filed and the case has reached the trial stage that criminal defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, have access to evidence, and have counsel present. The role of the House of Representatives in an impeachment proceeding is to investigate and charge, not to try. The trial comes later, in the Senate.”
The House has sole discretion on how it conducts the investigation per the Constitution. Perhaps that should change but note that the one time The Supreme Court was asked [in 1993] they said essentially: It was a matter not to be resolved by the courts.
Is it possible that one of the reasons that liberals are getting bolder at lying is that they are getting even more arrogant than they use to be?
Matthew: I read a great deal of desperation behind the arrogance.
However, I also see the boldness and arrogance as “Hey, we got away with A, B, and C. Why not go for D, E, and F? For we have the moral high ground.”
It was quite clear to me that Schiff was using parody about the transcript of the call….
Schiff started by saying: “”This is the essence of what the president communicates,” and he ends by saying: “”This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate….” His interpretation could be wrong and he should have just read the transcript out loud but it seemed pretty obvious it was his interpretation.
Montage: I can’t cut Schiff any slack here. He was addressing Congress about the grave matter of impeaching the President. It was not the time for parody. It was the time for the utmost precision and honesty. Instead Schiff chose to be a weasel.
sdferr:
It may be theater, but the actors are leaping off the stage to cut your and others’ throats.
I have posted my pessimism about the American future here several times, and it is bleak, baby. In fact, constitutional America is in its death throes. Trump, though valiant and remarkably untiring, cannot right this listing Ship of State, not when its crew is boring more holes into the hull.
As a physician, I have watched more than a few humans die, and it is always sad, never pretty. The struggle at the end for the precious thread of life. The death of America, though worse for humanity, will be less noticed and less mourned because of all the brainwashed, corrupt and ignorant among us.
“They also had some fear that the press might turn on them and be critical of them for something so egregious, and that would hurt them as well. So the whole thing might backfire, and that helped to keep such activity in better check.” – Neo
I had a brief moment of hope, but it passed quickly.
Pelosi sounds very reasonable if you never read any of the responses to this blatant and overt and essentially unchallenged lie.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-exclusive-interview-speaker/story?id=66061278
George then let it drop, but he can point to his attempt to set the record straight, if necessary.
(He has, of course, been a Democrat shill for many years, despite occasionally trying to wear the guise of an impartial journalist. I have watched him do it.
He, like others, is a Candy Crowley School of Journalism alumnus.)
Even Mediaite called her out (paywalled so I can’t read the story itself).
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/nancy-pelosi-falsely-claims-schiff-hearing-remarks-were-trumps-own-words-in-interview-with-stephanopoulos/
However, you will not find any other equivalents of this story on the Left, not even to promote George’s “balance,” because then they would have to point out that Pelosi flat out LIED to the American public, despite the fact that Schiff almost immediately described what he said as NOT the President’s own words, but a “parody” of what it meant IYKWIMAITYD wink-wink.
No other left-leaning site made the front page of my Google search.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/03/what-pelosi-is-claiming-schiff-didnt-make-up-trump-quotes-about-ukraine-call-n2554154
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-nancy-pelosi-schiff
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/03/pelosi-schiff-ukraine-transcript-real/
People working in the media are no longer reporters reporting the news, they are journalists peddling a narrative. As one journalist said about the bogus UVA rape story, mustn’t let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.
AesopFan: Thanks for digging up the specifics.
Huxley,
Belief in individual liberty means respecting freedom of thought. Can you in all honesty say the left you once believed in had respect for the opinions of the right? Can you now admit that the left was more interested in sedition and destruction as opposed to respect for the very concept of a Constitutional Republic?
Personally, long ago I grew tired of being called a racist, fascist, nazi, etc. And I am harkening back to the 1960s. I knew then what I know now. The left is all about squashing the individuals who refuse to join the hive mind.
I hold no hatred for brainwashed individuals of the left, but recognize the dangers of the hive mind. “When you believe in things you don’t understand you suffer (and everyone else). Indoctrination ain’t the way. When the left seeks to disarm me I know they are my worst enemy, far more so than Russia, China, Iran, and the worst players on the geopolitical stage.
Montage:
It was not at all apparent to the vast majority of people that Schiff was offering a parody. And I strongly believe that that was intentional. Plus – as huxley has indicated – a parody under those circumstances (even if it had been made clear that it was a parody, which was not made the least bit clear) would be an insult and a travesty and an outrage.
Schiff’s “parody” that was no parody actually fit quite nicely with the whistleblower’s claim, as well. Funny thing, that, isn’t it? And I don’t mean “funny ha-ha.”
While we are on the subject of lying liars, we need to speak about conservative pundits who refuse to realize that the Democrats don’t read their stories.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/media-cover-for-elizabeth-warren-lies-again/
It certainly is well established among regular NRO readers, but it is far from certain that Americans will dismiss the MSM accounts as propaganda, even though Smith does a good job of summarizing their coverage.
Geraghty gives a more accurate picture of what the rest of the public “reads” —
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-media-bends-over-backward-to-protect-elizabeth-warren-from-the-washington-free-beacons-damaging-scoop/
The defense is, apparently, good enough for the Left, which makes it good enough for nearly half the voters in America — because they believe what their journalists say, even if the actual facts don’t match with their personal truth.
(Of course, this is a mirror image of what the Left claims about Republicans & conservatives, but at least we have to read their media spin — because it can’t be missed — and they have no reason or obligation or desire to compare it to ours.)
Belief in individual liberty means respecting freedom of thought. Can you in all honesty say the left you once believed in had respect for the opinions of the right? Can you now admit that the left was more interested in sedition and destruction as opposed to respect for the very concept of a Constitutional Republic?
parker: I certainly can. It seems we remember things differently. Though I suppose it depends on how you define “the left.” Or “the right” for that matter.
I do remember those on the right calling us “communists” because we backed civil rights, opposed the Vietnam War and smoked grass.
You have to recall that at the rank-and-file level of the left, where my friends and I resided, we weren’t reading Marx or even Alinsky. We were just naive and idealistic and having our say in what we considered an American way.
Neo,
I agree Schiff should have read the actual transcript rather than parody but I would be surprised if anyone took it literally unless they only saw a portion of it. And, yes, maybe he expected that.
But how different is the whistleblowers complaint than the phone call?
Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire said: “I would say that the whistleblower’s complaint is in alignment with what was released yesterday by the president,”
PoliFact says: “the complaint got nearly every detail correct, as the memorandum released by the White House shows.”
Factcheck says the complaint was similar to the phone call except on one point about the DNC server.
“But how different is the whistleblowers complaint than the phone call?”
You mean the phone call the wishyblower never heard? That phone call?
As different as a third hand story about a climb up an alp and the climb itself.
As different as any fiction one might create about any matter one has no knowledge of and the matter itself.
They didnt see it coming the first time..
and you certainly, despite being told, do not see that this is history repeating
not by accident, but with intention..
NEO: ……is to indicate that the whistleblower’s interpretation of the Trump/Zelensky phone call is the truth and the transcript of the phone call is a lie. It reminds me of their approach to Rathergate: “fake, but accurate.” ………
by the way, this is how i know no one reads my links or almost no one..
Willi Munzenberg set the model of how to pull this off way back then
smithsonian knows
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-reichstag-fire-and-nazis-rise-power-180962240/
get the message you want them to believe out there first
even if wrong, its hard to correct so its best to be first
get articles and books out quickly that purport to know the story, and translate them fast so that the weight of what ‘everyone’ knows to be true, kind of resonates in the population.
The Case For Impeaching Trump: Elizabeth Holtzman
The Case for Impeachment: Allan J. Lichtman
Impeach Donald Trump – The Atlantic
even wiki is already set up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Impeachment
parker on October 10, 2019 at 4:06 pm said: I refuse to call them progressives for they are regressives
they are PROmoting reGRESSIVE policies
see? its correct… they have always loved word games..
its “duping delight”
the more they do the less respect they have for their victims
https://www.paulekman.com/blog/duping-delight/
duping delight, the near irresistible thrill some people feel in taking a risk and getting away with it. Sometimes it includes contempt for the target who is being so ruthlessly and successfully exploited.
sdferr
The whistleblower account is very similar to the memo the White House released of the phone call. If the whistleblower account is a fiction then it certainly doesn’t attempt to be that different than the memo. We know the memo is not verbatim. But I don’t think the White House would release a fake memo. Or maybe they would… but that would only heighten concerns by the left. At this point the [first] whistleblower has not added much of anything new. There is however a second complaint that apparently heard the conversation. Let’s see how different it is than the memo.
People,
Montage is a troll. Specifically a concern troll. He sounds reasonable, but the goal of his “concern” is to distract and to muddy the waters.
Neo,
You should be honored RT, or some other propaganda mill, has assigned such a valuable asset to this blog.
There is small resemblance Montage. There are many errors of fact in the fiction, whereas the conversation as such is the fact of the matter. There are profound misinterpretations in the fiction, misinterpretations of an original conversation between two speech agents in communication with one another. The delusions of reader response theory simply won’t cut it here.
Roy Nathanson on October 10, 2019 at 5:14 pm said:
For a government to be charitable with money that they took from you by threat of force is not individual liberty.
* * *
https://www.whatfinger.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/lifelongdemocratvoter.jpg
Of course, Vox begs to differ – for pretty poor reasons.
Their one example of the superiority of their stance didn’t hold up to examination.
Which pretty much tells you what you need to know about the Democrats and the Left.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/4/9096899/cash-teach-fish
Huxley says,
Had Schiff been on the floor of the House speechifying, waving his arms about, gesticulating and speaking in clearly rhetorical tones, then, and only then, might one reasonably cut him some technical, if not moral, slack.
But he was not. He was sitting as a kind inquisitor, before the cameras … and falsifying ..
This “man” would not last 3 minutes in an honor bound society. He simply could not survive in an environment where tolerating liars and defamers had not come to be accepted as part of the price of a “humane society”; principally by morally weak people who would never themselves be faced (so they imagine) with personally paying that price.
Montage on October 10, 2019 at 6:30 pm said:
Neo,
I agree Schiff should have read the actual transcript rather than parody but I would be surprised if anyone took it literally unless they only saw a portion of it. And, yes, maybe he expected that.
* * *
Someone who took his parody literally was Nancy Pelosi.
See my comment above.
He certainly expected that.
But then, there is no evidence that she has actually read the transcript.
And BTW:
It is not a “memo” – it is a transcript – a written version of a spoken conversation – and was made by people in the room who heard the actual conversation.
Of course, Director Comey’s memo about his conversation with President Trump was NOT a transcript in any way, shape, form, or fashion — but no Democrat that I know of has questioned its veracity.
Artfldgr on October 10, 2019 at 7:07 pm said:
…… they have always loved word games.. [see below]
its “duping delight”
the more they do the less respect they have for their victims
https://www.paulekman.com/blog/duping-delight/
* * *
Ekman’s book on detecting liars is very interesting, and I think the Democrats “in the know” on the various “Duper-gates” exhibit it when they think they are not being observed, and sometimes when they are.
“Let’s go to the transcript, Candy.”
On word games, the workhorse stand-by of the Left, they often cross the line into flat out lying:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/illegal-alien-whats-that.php
It really isn’t that hard to understand.
Hinderaker calls this “an astonishing instance of journalistic ignorance” but he is wrong.
I’m both surprised and somewhat dismayed that a man of his education and abilities is so constantly duped by the Left, but I suppose it speaks to his integrity, because he would never do such a thing himself, and still finds it difficult to believe that there are educated and able people who do.
And, of course, journalists today are ignorant and lazy, but leaving an inherently false, as well as debunked, post alive is malice per se.
Knaves or fools?
Embrace the power of “and.”
sdferr
I’ll agree it’s about interpretations or misinterpretations. But this will likely always be the case. Too bad we don’t have actual tape recordings of the conversations. But the lessons of Nixon taught us that that isn’t a good idea either.
AesopFan
Yes, I agree that Nancy’s take on Schiff’s act was bad. She’s playing to win.
The phone call that the White House released is titled: ‘Memorandum of telephone conversation’. On the same page it says ‘a memorandum is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.” So I take that to mean that a memo is not verbatim while a transcript is.
Roy Nathanson
The waters are already quite muddy without my imput. I am fairly certain I am not distracting anyone since people can make up their own mind on the issue.
Don’t mince, Montage. None need it. It’s a fucking transcript. Even the most faithful attempts at transcribing recorded speech will occasionally have lacunae or garbles preventing a perfect verbatim. So much the greater difficulty with live speech to written capture.
Wrong and foolish of Pelosi to say Schiff used the “President’s own words”. But doubling-down seems to be everyone’s M.O. these days. Yet another sign of a thoroughly debased culture.
Montage is confusing the transcript and the “my truth” told by Schiff and the first whistleblower. Montage hopes the second whistleblower will have even more conclusive and more persuasive versions of “my truth” to sell to the public. Not to imply that those “truths” will be consistent or corroborate any other facts. That doesn’t matter.
Oh my, “my truths” are slippery things.
Where are Harry and Manju to help Montage when he needs them. Tragic.
“they are making it their business to make sure that other side never gets power…” neo
Should they achieve that goal, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. As, those who make peaceful resolution of grievance impossible, make violent resolution of grievance inevitable.
And, if ultimately Mao was right that, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” then when the rule of law cannot credibly be asserted to exist any longer, then “politics by other means” becomes unavoidable.
The left imagines that overall, the right will go “quietly into the night”, worshiping a then non-existent constitutional governance.
They are setting themselves up for a literally biblical level of disillusionment.
“Lots of the leftists, progressives and Democrats I knew believed in individual liberty.” huxley
Well, they purported to be for individual liberty but their actions since, put the lie to that assertion. Where are the multitudes of liberals who publicly support the “individual liberty” of the “deplorables and irredeemables”?
It’s not possible to be for individual liberty and be a democrat without also being a useful idiot. I cite Alan Dershowitz as a perfect example. His ‘blind spot’ is willful. As, he’s far too intelligent for it not to be…
“I do remember those on the right calling us “communists” because we backed civil rights, opposed the Vietnam War and smoked grass.” huxley
Au Contraire. I was one of those dope smoking backers of civil rights. The right did NOT call us communists because we smoked grass. Degenerates was the label attached to the dope smokers.
Nor did those on the right oppose peaceful demonstrations.
As for opposition to the Vietnam War, the domino theory was NOT convincingly rebutted by the left. Instead the left attacked the morality of the war and those who backed it, as though communist aggression was less of a moral concern than those who argued that we had to stop Communism’s global ambitions. So support for withdrawal was arguably de facto support for the N. Vietnamese COMMUNISTS.
“even if they win it will only set off internal Democratic struggles like you cannot believe.” MBunge
What basis is there for imagining that one faction will not eventually dominate? Has that not been the case with every communist society? And, make no mistake, socialist/progressivism inescapably leads to communism. It’s a matter of when… not if. I cite the EU’s desire for an army answerable only to Merkel and EU bureaucrats and the crushing of free speech across the EU that disputes the government’s PC as evidence.
People think they’ve identified the wishyblower. Maybe, maybe not. It’s still a wait and see sort of deal. That said, here’s a couple of links on the possibility:
FOOL NELSON, Twitter– https://mobile.twitter.com/FOOL_NELSON/status/1182443711353049089
Washington Examiner: https://mobile.twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1182425225721503745
Well Huxley,
They were runnining dogs lackeys for the totalitarians. That is undeniable. You may choose to prevaricate, and that is your rightt, but not underestimate the left. You are the first they come for for they know you have no ability to resist. Easy target. Me, Inhave a slim chance to take down one or two of their thugs before dying.
Yes, you are a traitor to the cause, they will come for you first. Easy targets meet the alligator first. Sad, but repitilian tears are in vane.
I’ll keep it simple:
Giuliani is the smoking gun. He presence demonstrates that Trump is using the machinery of the state to advance his own political interests.
Giuliani is a political operative. He has been investigating the Bidens for a while now. He is all over TV waving his phone around saying that he is working at the direction of the State Department.
As we all should know by now, the US government doesn’t go around proclaiming Americans under criminal investigation guilty as sin. But that’s exactly what Giuliani has been doing.
If there is indeed a DOJ investigation into Biden, then Trump has corrupted justice in order to help himself politically. If there is not, then Trump is using the machinery of the state to investigate his political opponents.
This is how the Democrats control the battlespace in the public’s mind.
That their assertions are hotly contested, and possibly false, is never alluded to in any way.
If you state your opinions as a fact, then all but a few of your readers will accept it as a fact.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/10/10/so-what-if-the-whistleblower-has-a-political-motive/
(quoting an Atlantic piece)
However, it might have been a mistake on the author’s part to reference an article that undercuts the Dem narrative, even to disparage it, because those few readers might actually take a look at it.
Please note that most of Tabibi’s examples occurred under Obama and earlier presidents.
Some blew whistles, some just blew smoke, but otherwise Tabibi’s umbrage at the current partisan gossip-monger is on point, although Tabibi is not a fan of Trump, to put it mildly.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/
Edit is AWOL again; Tabibi should be Taibbi.
Matt Taibbi wrote some interesting stuff during the credit crisis of 2007/2008.
It strikes me that the so called whistleblower is really a leaker, but one who was clever enough to cloak themselves in the whistleblower statutes so as to avoid criminal prosecution. Also, “whistleblower” implies some sort of moral purity compared to some in their professional community.
Maybe we should call him/her a “whistle-leaker.”
An important distinction is the media controls the Democrats rather than vice-versa. They are in willing collusion with each other, but consider this:
Every major news outlet is a small part of a vast media company. Comcast, Viacom, Fox, Disney, etc who make billions worldwide promoting their movies, music, celebrity pablum, tv shows and radio stations. The news is their PR division. It is one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the USA. If you had the public’s eyes and ears, wouldn’t it be natural to promote your industry’s agenda through your news divisions? Wouldn’t it be smart to co-opt one political party to advance your interests? Of course it’s tempting to go along for Democrats, not known for their ethical tendencies ( neither are Republicans).
The number 1 advertiser on media is actually other media. Every late night and daytime talk show is full of promotional content. And then we get the paid, or in-kind promos of upcoming shows, movies trailers etc. Next is pharmaceuticals. That industry has a stake in keeping people drugged, alarmed, full of anxiety and dependent.
Also the media has a vested interest in keeping people lazy, at home and dumbed-down. It’s easier to entertain stupid people than smart ones. Active ambitious self-actualized people don’t watch much tv or consume media drivel.
Hence the alarmism, the political dramas ( now they are using politics like a giant reality show they don’t have to spend anything producing content.)
It’s pure fiction. Like a daily soap opera without having to pay actors or writers. Well, I guess the anchors are actors and they use writers, but the key is keeping people hooked on the storyline. Hence Russia, Russia, and Stormy Daniels etc.
These outlets have also been infiltrated by our wonderful intelligence agencies. Of course, why not? Operation Mockingbird. Look it up.
Beyond the direct propaganda, every ‘journalist ‘ has sources in intelligence agencies, who naturally have their own interests and agendas. The journos and their sources come to share a bond of mutual dependence. They protect each other.
In sum, it’s all fiction and it’s almost impossible to be sure what is actually occurring.
Numbering added:
Manju on October 10, 2019 at 10:08 pm said:
…
(1) As we all should know by now, the US government doesn’t go around proclaiming Americans under criminal investigation guilty as sin.
…
(2) If there is indeed a DOJ investigation into Biden, then Trump has corrupted justice in order to help himself politically. If there is not, then Trump is using the machinery of the state to investigate his political opponents.
* * *
(1) Works only if they are Democrats; of course, the government also tries very hard not to put Democrats who are guilty as sin under criminal investigation.
(2) Heads you win, tails we lose?
Andrew McCarthy with practical punditry, as usual.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/quid-pro-quo-and-extortion-welcome-to-foreign-relations/
Mentioned on Gateway Pundit earlier this week.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/617943.html
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/617820.html
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/10/10/evidence-that-schiff-knew-about-ukrainian-phone-call-long-before-transcript-was-released/
Note who makes the first reply to Schiff’s tweet:
I know many of you read PowerLine regularly, but I was off the grid over the last week-end, and just noticed this one. I don’t always agree with Adams, but I think he has this right in general, at least up to the first ellipsis.
After that, I think he is clearly mistaken in his own “we all agree” assertions.
The right & left leaning media are having trouble agreeing on who is actually president, much less anything more complicated.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/dilberts-rules-of-reading.php
In the Wall Street Journal column “Trump and Ukraine: What We Know,”
(quoting Scott Adams)
Adams is implying that we SHOULD all agree on certain general things, but any brief perusal of the Left’s spokes-persons and media organs will show that they most emphatically do not share any common ground with the Right’s perception of the “facts,” deliberately so.
(Scott Adams continued)
This is what I stripped out at the second ellipsis, because I think it makes a point no one I’ve read to date has addressed in anything other than parody and innuendo, but I might have missed one or two substantive posts among the chaff.
IMO, Adams is partially correct; however, in both business and diplomacy, the bosses don’t even talk to each other until the lower levels have done all the prep work.
In this situation — and I am consciously playing Devil’s Advocate here, for Democrat values of the Devil — it is entirely possible that the scenario ran as follows:
Trump’s underlings talked with Zelenskyy’s underlings before the July call and delivered the message that aid was going to be withheld unless Biden was “investigated” and the proper conclusions drawn, nudge-nudge-wink-wink.
The Ukrainians delivered the message to their boss, and Zelenskyy agreed to play ball.
BUT — he wasn’t going to make the effort unless he had assurances from Trump that the deal was sealed: open investigation, find dirt, get aid.
Neither one of them had to mention the details on the “perfect” call itself; that was just the formal handshake.
Of course, there are a few problems with this script.
Since we are being Democrats, we’ll assume that President Trump is lying, about anything and everything, because Orange Man Bad.
BUT
(1) R claim: Zelenskyy has to be publicly lying that there was “no pressure” on him to investigate Burisma & the Bidens. — D Response: all politicians lie if they have something to gain by it.
(2) R claim: Ukraine was not formally apprised that the aid had been withheld, according to some reports. — D Response: the secret informal channels would, of course, be kept secret.
(3) R claim: Ukraine had already reopened the Burisma investigations. — D Response: That was done before the handshake in response to the underlings’ negotiations, as the pro quo for the quid.
(4) R claim: the aid was delivered before any dirt on Biden was delivered. — D Response: Trump is stupid enough to trust Zelenskyy to come through after he gets paid off.
Rebuttal for the Republicans:
(1) No one knows for a fact if anyone involved in anything political is telling the truth unless there is corroborating evidence for one view or the other.
(2) For this scenario to fly, there have to be underlings in both administrations talking to each other — in deep, dark secret — but since they are, presumably, not telepathic, there is going to be a documentable trail somewhere of their conversations. Calling all NSA leakers: here’s your golden opportunity.
(3) https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-solomon-says-new-hunter-biden-related-doc-shows-significant-shift-in-factual-timeline
(4) Donald Trump is a lot of things, but in a business deal of this magnitude, would he really be that trusting? And even if he was, well….
https://www.redstate.com/tladuke/2019/10/08/favor-granted-trump-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-story/
Where Was The “Favor” Granted In The Trump-Ukraine Quid-Pro-Quo Story?
Posted at 6:00 pm on October 8, 2019 by T.LaDuke
The press has always been self interested.
Like everyone.
Now they are corrupt.
I don’t know how we come back from that.
“Yet another sign of a thoroughly debased culture.”
So is trolling, Ann.
Ann, thus:
I don’t see how Ann’s remark is “trolling.” She’s just stating what she observes to be a fact, and prefaces it with an example — and not an example of conservative or “right-wing” general behavior either. It’s perfectly possible that she’s referring specifically to the Lefty/Progressive/Dem culture. Shouldn’t we carefully consider and seriouosly try to nail down exactly what’s meant before we go slinging allegations around?
For the MSM there is always also the lie by omission.
For instance, several years ago, it was a big and long-running news story when Chinese company COSCO was trying to, in effect, buy control over the largest U.S. port on our West coast, at Long Beach, California, the second biggest container port in the U.S.
This in the context of China’s “Belt and Road” Campaign, her expansion world-wide, her control over more and more shipping, and Chinese efforts to buy control over critical ports and maritime shipping choke points—Chinese interests had, around this time, also managed to get control over both ends of the Panama Canal.
Lots of people were worried about this, said it was a bad move to let them get control over this strategic port, but the Obama Administration let them go ahead.
Now, comes the news that, some months ago, the Trump Administration forced the Chinese to sell their controlling interest in the port at Long Beach to an Australian company.
You would think that this was major news, yet, so far, I’ve seen little mention of this development outside of conservative sites.
Julie: History. I find Ann’s sniffing about a “debased culture” more than a tad smug considering her record here.
The public has never been well-informed on such issues in my lifetime. People believed what they were told then as well.
What was different is that other parts of the media were competitive with each other to get the accurate news out in previous eras, and would call each other out on such issues. Today, however, they have to compete so hard abut the appearance, attractiveness, and sparkle of the news that questioning each other is less important. It does still happen, as the various outlets have little love for each other. But they are using a different scale now, more closely related to entertainment and maintaining a certain narrative of life.
Neo,
I don’t think they’ve just gotten bolder about lying.
I think they’ve gotten bolder about telling the truth about their agenda, and the classic examples are the LGBWTF “Town Hall” they had, and Beto’s scream for attention about “Hell, yes, we’re taking your guns away.”
About the former, I have to agree with what Ben Shapiro said: Leftism is a religion; the Leftists are theocrats, and their plan is to outlaw heresy against their dogmas in the U.S. and to shut down non-compliant organizations (e.g. every church and school that doesn’t enthusiastically preach their dogmas).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znm5oOP28QA
And as for the firearms?
Heh. There is no chance that the gun owners of the U.S. will surrender their firearms, especially while the left is waxing censorious floating totalitarian trial-balloons. There will be an awful lot of “unfortunate boating accidents.”
It’s not often that Ancient Greek references become 21st century pop-culture catchphrases, but in the wake of the cravenness of the NBA and the oppression in Hong Kong, coupled with the openly inquisitorial airs of modern Leftism, I expect Molon Labe to be all the rage.
R.C.:
Yes. They’ve gotten bolder about that, too. The two go together, in a way. Their agenda can only be supported by the public swallowing their other lies and being ignorant about the arguments and/or evidence and/or principles to the contrary.
Do people buy the “Trump is the Great Unmasker” theory? Has he provoked these people to simply reveal what they’ve always been or has he, like some sort of spiritual virus, infected these people and made them worse than they were before?
Mike
They were runnining dogs lackeys for the totalitarians. That is undeniable. You may choose to prevaricate, and that is your rightt, but not underestimate the left. You are the first they come for for they know you have no ability to resist. Easy target. Me, Inhave a slim chance to take down one or two of their thugs before dying.
Yes, you are a traitor to the cause, they will come for you first. Easy targets meet the alligator first. Sad, but repitilian tears are in vane.
parker: I’m not at all interested in your characterizations of or advice for me. We disagree, as people often do in these discussions. That ought to be enough.
Your responses remind me very much of how my comrades on the left treated me when I disagreed with them.
Except my comrades didn’t resort to remarks about violence towards others.
Here’s the fireside scene in Easy Rider, where the Jack Nicholson and Dennis Hopper characters discuss freedom.
Nicholson: You know…this used to be a hell of a good country. l can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.
Hopper: Everybody got chicken, that’s what. We can’t even get into a second-rate hotel. I mean, a second-rate motel, you dig? They think we’d cut their throat. They’re scared.
Nicholson: They’re not scared of you. They’re scared of what you represent to them.
Hopper: All we represent to them is somebody who needs a haircut.
Nicholson: Oh, no. What you represent to them…is freedom.
Hopper: Freedom’s what it’s all about.
Nicholson: Oh yeah, that’s right. That’s what it’s all about. But talking about it and being it…that’s two different things. It’s real hard to be free…when you are bought and sold in the marketplace.
But don’t tell anybody that they’re not free, because they’ll get busy, killing and maiming to prove to you that they are. They’re going to talk to you and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it’s going to scare them.
Hopper: Well, it don’t make them running scared.
Nicholson: It makes them dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyaUtnWr8Gw
“Has he provoked these people to simply reveal what they’ve always been or has he, like some sort of spiritual virus, infected these people and made them worse than they were before?”
My two cents: They have never dealt with anything like Trump. First, he’s not a traditional conservative/Republican; he represents – dangerously – how far the left has strayed from the middle. Second, he doesn’t behave like a politician; there are different ways he deals with opposition than a politician generally employs, and he stands as a mirror opposite to most GOPe politicians who are slimy snakes in terms of what they say they stand for and what they say and do after an election.
The left was always going savage any non-Democrat that won the 2016 election. But because it was Trump – barely a Republican to begin with, and someone who almost looks for a fight – and not one of the Republican politicians he was running against, almost from the beginning the attacks had to be more vicious and more reliant upon inventing reality than they otherwise would have had to be.
We’ve NOTICED!
Vietnam was started by LBJ, a Demoncrat piece of work, based on the Gulf of Tonkin incident. A false flag op designed to provoke Americans into some war that would benefit the Federal Reserve and the Deep State. Did it benefit the patriotic veterans? No, they were the cannonfodder, and you, American voters, sent them in. You, the American citizenry, are responsible.
Nixon got a peace deal and got as many POWs as out as mcCain and other traitors allowed, and the Deep State instigated your Satan soul and petty ego “anti communist” urges, but it was the American people that did the deed.
parker: I’m not at all interested in your characterizations of or advice for me. We disagree, as people often do in these discussions. That ought to be enough.
Your responses remind me very much of how my comrades on the left treated me when I disagreed with them.
That’s because the Left back then was afraid of being suppressed by the Leftist secret police as Parker is afraid of the same.
Fear makes men foolish and also reckless.
The angels had to repeat “do not fear” and “do not be afraid” so so many times. Humanity is full of fear. Just look around you. Fear is the enemy of the Holy Spirit.
People can learn a number of things by hating the Leftist alliance, the enemy. They can also learn a number of things by loving their enemies.
But what do they learn by fear? Fear leads to hatred? Such a petty and weak hatred.
I used to think we were the good guys.
Just as Trum supporters think their Red/pill side are the good guys.