The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017


The Democrats opened the door to an investigation of how the Ruskies' nefarious activities somehow caused Hillary Clinton to lose an election she should have won easily. Unfortunately, not a single shred of meaningful evidence has yet surfaced to indicate that Donald Trump colluded with Vlad Putin to defeat Hillary. Not. One. Shred.

How can I be so sure? Because if any evidence, no matter how far-fetched or meaningless, was uncovered it would have been leaked to the media by one of the four constituencies that would like nothing more than to destroy Trump presidency in its first year. Yet ... nothing.

Coincidentally, two real scandals—Uranium One and Fushion GPS—backed by facts, dates, people, monetary transactions, and nefarious activities have emerged, and the Dems ... well ... they are doing what they always do. With the help of their trained hamsters in the media, they are obfuscating when they can and burying the information when they must.

Investor's Business Daily comments:
As of Friday, we couldn't find a single mention of it [the Uranium One scandal] on the websites of ABC News, NBC News, CBS News or CNN or USA Today. MSNBC devoted a few minutes to the story on air on Thursday.

The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post ran a perfunctory AP story that was focused not on The Hill's revelations, but on Trump's tweet about the lack of media coverage. The AP story contained a one paragraph summary of The Hill's new findings.

The Washington Post ran a separate piece, but it was aimed at dismissing the significance of what The Hill had uncovered, while complaining that conservatives were "jumping waaay ahead of the facts."

That complaint is amusing coming from the Washington Post, which has repeatedly jumped waaay ahead of the facts, to the point of repeatedly getting them wrong, on the wafer-thin Trump-Russia "collusion" story.
But something esle is going on as well.

For the past week, a congresswoman from Florida has become a national celebrity by castigating Donald Trump for the "tone" of a sympathy call Trump made to the wife of a special ops soldier who was killed in action in Niger. For days, the media discussed the story, then pivoted to attack former General John Kelly, a gold star parent, who held a meeting with the press on the matter. Now, the media have pivoted to the Niger attack itself, suggesting, without a single shred of evidence to support the claim, that Niger is "Trump's Benghazi."

But here's the thing. I believe that both stories are feints. Their timing was coincidental, to be sure, but the media hysteria over both is a purposeful feint that allows the trained hamsters to claim that their lack of coverage of real scandals (Uranium One and Fushion GPS) was due to the time required to cover the faux "scandals." The Democrat/Media playbook is to try to run out the clock, to obfuscate and stonewall, to misdirect (look, a squirrel!), to deny and accuse, and to use the media as a buffer against actual wrong doing and government corruption. And it works! Very well, in fact.


Victor Davis Hansen comments:
Despite having both an expansive budget and a large legal team, Special Investigator Robert Mueller likely will not find President Trump culpable for any Russian collusion—or at least no court or congressional vote would, even if Mueller recommends an indictment.

That likelihood becomes clearer as the Trump investigators—in Congress, in the Justice Department, and the legions in the media—begin to grow strangely silent about the entire collusion charge, as other scandals mount and crowd out the old empty story. This news boomerang poses the obvious question—was the zeal of the original accusers of felony behavior with the Russian collusion merely an attempt at deflection? Was it designed to protect themselves from being accused of serious crimes?
It's possible that VDH is correct, but I think it's more likely that the Democrats feel bullet proof where scandals are concerned. After the eight years of the Obama administration, it became obvious to them that the media (the primary arbiter of what becomes a scandal) would not thoroughly investigate the Dems because the media is them. Realistically, they're right. Sadly, I suspect that their arrogance will not be their undoing.