Tag Archives: 2016 election

The FBI and Hillary, Again, by Andrew P. Napolitano

Andrew P. Napolitano asks some disturbing questions about the behavior of James Comey and the FBI during the election. From Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

Last weekend, The New York Times published a long piece about the effect the FBI had on the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign. As we all know, Donald Trump won a comfortable victory in the Electoral College while falling about 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.

I believe that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who failed to energize the Democratic Party base and who failed to deliver to the electorate a principled reason to vote for her. Yet when the Times reporters asked her why she believes she lost the race, she gave several answers, the first of which was the involvement of the FBI. She may be right.

Here is the back story.

In 2015, a committee of the House of Representatives that was investigating the deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, learned that the State Department had no copies of any emails sent or received by Clinton during her four years as secretary of state. When committee investigators pursued this — at the same time that attorneys involved with civil lawsuits brought against the State Department seeking the Clinton emails were pursuing it — it was revealed that Clinton had used her own home servers for her emails and bypassed the State Department servers.

Because many of her emails obviously contained government secrets and because the removal of government secrets to any non-secure venue constitutes espionage, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, which passed it on to the FBI. A congressionally issued criminal referral means that some members of Congress who have seen some evidence think that some crime may have been committed. The DOJ is free to reject the referral, yet it accepted this one.

To continue reading: The FBI and Hillary, Again

Advertisements

U.S. Intelligence Agencies Have No Clothes, by Michael Krieger

Like the naked emperor, the US intelligence agencies have existentially embarrassed themselves. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

The true patriotism, the only rational patriotism is loyalty to the nation all the time, loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

– Mark Twain, The Czar’s Soliloquy”

At this point, pretty much everyone in America has seen the results of Hillary Clinton media pet, John Harwood’s recent Twitter poll.

Who do you believe America?

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) January 6, 2017

The significance of the above cannot be overstated. U.S. intelligence agencies, like so many other national institutions, have lost nearly all credibility in the eyes of the American public. The list is long, but includes economists, politicians, the mainstream media, central bankers, the financial system, and a lot more. The loss in credibility is well deserved and has nothing to do with Russia. Rather, it’s a function of a disastrous 21st century outcome for U.S. citizens both at home and abroad. A result that was achieved under eight years of Republican rule and then eight years of Democratic rule. The results were the same whether a donkey or elephant was in charge, because the people determining policy behind the scenes never really changed (same economists, central bankers, intelligence officials, etc), and the people selling the catastrophic policies to the public definitely never changes (mainstream media and its worthless pundits).

So here we stand at a moment where trust in essentially all U.S. institutions is at a well deserved all-time low, and the best the establishment can come up with is to blame Russia. Even worse, those pushing the whole “Putin is to blame for everything” conspiracy theories, consistently refuse to back up their assertions with any evidence whatsoever. In fact, with each passing week the case looks increasingly flimsy, with the latest declassified document issued Friday being particularly suspect. Even many of those largely convinced of Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election admit the most recent report was pathetic, embarrassing and proved absolutely nothing.

To continue reading: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Have No Clothes

Understanding the Trump Phenomenon, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Donald Trump won the election because of Middle American Radicals. From Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. at mises.org:

Amid all the hysteria surrounding Donald Trump, clear and sober analyses of who he is and what to expect have been few and far between.

I’ve already seen numerous progressives warning that Trump intends to eviscerate entitlements. It’s as if facts never enter the progressive consciousness. Their opponents are an undifferentiated blob and hold what progressives take to be generically right-wing positions.

Only this robotic approach to politics can account for why progressives seem to think Donald Trump, by far the most pro-LGBT GOP nominee in history, intends to harm homosexuals, or that despite his repeated assurances that he wants nothing more than to shore up entitlements, he intends to cut them sharply.

As anyone who isn’t tone deaf when it comes to American politics knows, nobody in public life favors cutting back entitlements. What the left has to worry about isn’t budget-cutting Republicans. It’s making complete fools of themselves with hysterical predictions anyone in his right mind knows will never come true.

For one thing, to think Trump’s aim is to eviscerate entitlements is to misunderstand the Trump phenomenon altogether.

During the presidential campaign, a number of observers, trying to understand the Trump phenomenon, suddenly discovered the work of Sam Francis, an author and newspaper columnist, from 25 years earlier. Francis wrote about what he called Middle American Radicals (MARs).

The MARs hold political correctness in precisely the same contempt that Hollywood, the media, and the political class hold them. They are not rigidly ideological, nor even ideological at all. While in general, they support private property and the US Constitution, they are not philosophically opposed to business regulation, they believe free trade has made them worse off, and they have no interest at all in cutting Social Security and Medicare. And they are anti-globalist.

At the time Francis wrote about them, his analysis seemed off: if these people existed in the numbers he suggested, how were people like Bob Dole getting the GOP nomination?

The 2016 election, at last, vindicated the Francis analysis. The MARs came out in droves, despite the most relentless attack on their candidate by the media and cultural elite anyone can remember.

To continue reading: Understanding the Trump Phenomenon

Did the Russians Hack Hillary? by Andrew P. Napolitano

The infamous Democratic emails weren’t hacked, by Wikileaks, the Russians, or anyone else, they were leaked. From Andrew P. Napolitano at antiwar.com:

Earlier this week, leaders of the Democratic National Committee and former officials of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign made the startling allegation that the Russian government hacked into Clinton’s colleagues’ email accounts to tilt the presidential election toward Donald Trump. They even pointed to statements made by CIA officials backing their allegations.

President-elect Trump has characterized these claims as “ridiculous” and just an “excuse” to justify the Clinton defeat, saying they’re also intended to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He pointed to FBI conclusions that the CIA is wrong. Who’s right?

Here is the back story.

The American intelligence community rarely speaks with one voice. The members of its 17 publicly known intelligence agencies – God only knows the number of secret agencies – have the same biases, prejudices, jealousies, intellectual shortcomings and ideological underpinnings as the public at large.

The raw data these agencies examine is the same. Today America’s spies rarely do their own spying; rather, they rely on the work done by the National Security Agency. We know that from the Edward Snowden revelations. We also know from Snowden that the NSA can monitor and identify all digital communications within the United States, coming into the United States and leaving the United States. Hence, it would be foolhardy and wasteful to duplicate that work. There is quite simply no fiber-optic cable anywhere in the country transmitting digital data to which the NSA does not have full-time and unfettered access.

To continue reading: Did the Russians Hack Hillary?

Why the Democrats Can’t Let Go of Losing, by Charles Hugh Smith

FDR, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale wouldn’t recognize today’s Democrats, and once they did, they wouldn’t have anything to do with them. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

The Democratic Party has become everything it once was against.

Let’s get one thing straight right at the start: criticizing the Democratic Party and its ruling elites is not the same as “supporting Trump.”

The either-or accusation is a classic propaganda technique to silence dissent. During the Vietnam War, for example, anyone dissenting against the official narratives supporting the war was accused of “supporting the Communists.” In other words,criticizing the Powers That Be or their narrative is treason.

This either-or choice was designed to silence dissent by eliminating the possibility that domestic critics had valid reasons to disagree with the war that had nothing to do with Communism and everything to do with America.

Now we hear the same propaganda technique being wielded by Democrats:any criticism of the Democratic Party is “supporting Trump.”

Hogwash. Any institution that can’t accept achingly obvious critiques is doomed. Resilient, confident people and organizations welcome fair criticism, as honest criticism (i.e. intended to improve performance and understanding) is essential to the process of successful adaptation to changing conditions.

So now that we’ve got that straightened out–criticism isn’t necessarily support for “the other side,” it stands or falls on its own merits–let’s nail down why the Democratic Party didn’t live up to expectations in the election.

To continue reading: Why the Democrats Can’t Let Go of Losing

The Conspiracy to Shut Down Truth, Donald Trump, and The American People, by Paul Craig Roberts

There has to be a word, stronger than hypocrisy, for when you act in way that’s not just the opposite of whatever it is you supposedly stand for, but in a way that absolutely repudiates it. On full display by all those trying to subvert the election is just such behavior, whatever you call it. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:

There is circumstantial evidence that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the rest of the presstitute media are part of a conspiracy with the oligarchs, the military/security complex, the Hillary Democrats, and neoconized Republicans to shut down the dissident Internet alternative media and to deny Donald Trump the presidency.

Consider the brand new website PropOrNot and its fake news list of 200 Internet Russian agents. PropOrNot is a website hidden behind multiple screens as would be an offshore tax avoidance scheme. In other words, no known, responsible entity is behind the site, which has libeled 200 other websites, or if it is, it is too ashamed of what it is doing to be associated with it publicly.

Consider the expertise and money required to shield the identity of an organization, whether tax avoidance or website. This is not something that just anyone can do. This type of Klingon cloaking requires real money or the CIA.

As long as it pretends to be a newspaper, the Washington Post is subject to journalistic ethics. But the PropOrNot story by Craig Timberg violated journalistic ethics. Unsupported accusations were leveled against 200 websites, a McCarthyism record.

How did a story, which would have been instantly quashed by editors in my day as a Wall Street Journal editor get past Timberg’s editor?

That is the question.

Here we have the Post committing libel against 200 websites, all of whom can sue for damages. There go Bezos’ billions.

Would a Washington Post editor of any intelligence have published such a libel-inviting story unless the owner, Bezos, gave the OK or the order?

How can the Washington Post feel secure in an act of libel?

To continue reading: The Conspiracy to Shut Down Truth, Donald Trump, and The American People

“Bullet In The Mouth” – Trump Electors Flooded With Death Threats, by Tyler Durden

Disappointed Hillary Clinton voters continue their random acts of graciousness and sensible reactions to Trump’s victory. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Electors around the country are being harassed with a barrage of emails, phone calls, letters and even death threats, in an effort to block Donald Trump from being voted in as president by the Electoral College on Monday. Of course, with the mainstream media and democrats pushing the dangerous narrative that Putin basically usurped our democracy, it’s no wonder that disaffected Hillary snowflakes are growing more “triggered” with each passing day.

According to a report from the New York Post, one Republican elector in Michigan has even received death threats after he refused to change his vote.

For Michael Banerian, a senior at Oakland University in Michigan and a Republican elector, the harassment comes with a dark side.

He said he’s been getting death threats via email, snail mail, Twitter and Facebook.

“Somebody threatened to put a bullet in the back of my mouth,” Banerian, 22, told The Post on Wednesday.

Republican electors from all over the country are being inundated with emails, phone calls and letters on a daily basis, from angry democrats, urging them to switch their votes. One Republican elector in Arizona estimated that she had received 50,000 emails since election day.

The bullying is overwhelming Sharon Geise’s tech devices, but not her resolve to support Trump.

The Mesa, Arizona, grandmother woke up Wednesday morning to more than 1,500 emails demanding she not carry out her legal duty to vote for the president-elect.

“They just keep coming and coming,” Geise told The Post, estimating she’s received more than 50,000 emails since the election. “They’re overpowering my iPad.”

Her answer: mass delete.

Despite the avalanche, she said, her decision to back Trump is stronger than ever.

“Obviously their minds are made up and they’re not going to change. I’m not either,” the soft-spoken Geise said.

To continue reading: “Bullet In The Mouth” – Trump Electors Flooded With Death Threats