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

Saturday, August 18, 2018

Conspiracy Theory

The New York Times never ceases to be the laughably predictable protector of and mouthpiece for the Democratic party. It chooses to spin its stories to denigrate the GOP whenever possible. It chooses to tamp down coverage of any legitimate news events and/or scandals that might hurt the Dems or their candidates or elected officials, and most recently, it has embraced full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome as if it is a religious quest.

Those who questioned the Democrat narrative on Benghazi—a slam dunk case of blatant executive level dishonesty and chain of command malfeasance (with copious evidence to support that characterization) were accused by the NYT of being "conspiracy theorists." Those who questioned the Obama administration version of the events leading to the IRS scandal—a slam dunk case of weaponizing a powerful government agency to act against the then-president's opponents (a claim recently vindicated by a lawsuit and government settlement) were again accused by the NYT of being "conspiracy theorists." Just today, a front page story in the NYT entitled, "Embracing Conspiracy Theory, Trump Escalates Attack on Bruce Ohr" again uses "conspiracy theory" to label yet another a slam dunk case of the weaponization of the FBI and intelligence agencies (under Obama) supported by so much irrefutable evidence it is mind-boggling.

Holman Jenkins comments on the media's obsession with protecting the Dems in the latter case when he writes:
... If you are not by now open to the suspicion that the blowhardism of former Obama intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper is aimed at keeping the focus away from their actions during the election, then you haven’t been paying attention. In his New York Times op-ed this week after being stripped of his courtesy, postretirement security clearance, the CIA’s Mr. Brennan finally put his collusion cards on the table: Mr. Trump’s ill-advised remark [it was a joke said with a smile] during the campaign inviting Russia to find the missing Hillary Clinton emails.

Really? This is it? Mr. Trump’s behavior was typically unpresidential in the fashion that we have now become used to, such as referring to a fired White House employee as a dog. But his jibe was at least as much aimed at the media, which he correctly noted would eagerly traffic in the stolen emails even as it deplored Russian meddling.

When Mr. Trump tweets and blurts out so many offhand things, are you really going to build a “treason” case (a term Mr. Brennan has used) out of just another free-form Trump campaign riff of 2016? If that’s all he’s got, the secret knowledge Mr. Brennan keeps hinting at is a fabulous fraud.

Which brings us to the press. The two stories outlined above are of legitimate, pressing interest, but editors and reporters say to themselves: “Might not looking into these matters be construed as pro-Trump? We can’t have that.” Not one U.S. paper, despite lavish coverage of the DOJ inspector general’s report, even noted the existence of a secret appendix. According to reports in his own Washington Post, Bob Woodward’s forthcoming book will be an upmarket “Fire and Fury” looking into the known knowns of Mr. Trump’s chaotic first year in office. Meanwhile, history is screaming at Mr. Woodward to dig into the known unknowns of U.S. intelligence activities in the campaign that elected Mr. Trump.
But every editor and every reporter who has an IQ higher than their golf score knows that 'looking into" anything associated with the actions of the Obama administration during the 2016 campaign, the FBI, the CIA, the Clinton campaign and the DNC, the phony dossier ginned up by smear shop Fusion GPS, and yes, the actions of Bruce Ohr among a cadre of anti-Trump FBI executives, knows deep down that what they find won't be good for the Dems or for Obama's already shredded legacy. So they choose not to look. Instead, they accuse, as the NYT does, those who do look as "conspiracy theorists."

Ya know what? Sometimes,
  • when evidence indicates a clandestine communications by supposedly non-partisan government officials (think: text messages outlined the FBI IG report) aimed at the opponents of the administration;

  • when a chain for facts indicates that 'evidence' was bought and paid for by your opponents and knowingly used by other supposed non-partisan government agencies against a political opponent (think: the Fusion GPS dossier);

  • when the spouses of government employees are bought and paid for by one party (think Andrew McCabe wife's political donations and Bruce Ohr's wife's job working for ... wait for it ... Fusion GPS);

  • when government agencies (e.g., the DoJ and FBI) do everything possible to derail any Congressional inquiry into their action (think: Obama era DoJ types and their slow-walking of important documents);

  • when senior intelligence officials (think: Clapper and Brennan) outright lie to congress about these events),

  • when the person (think: Trump) who was the target of these actions is broadly accused of "collusion" with absolutely no evidence to support that charge, and

  • when the trained hamsters in the main stream media along with far too many Democrat politicians keep accusing anyone who reports these facts as "conspiracy theorists" in an effort to gaslight the public,

  • what you have is clear and compelling evidence of a full-blown CONSPIRACY!

    And if the editors and reporters of the NYT, the Democrats, #NeverTrumpers, and virtually every progressive refuse to see it, that tells us more about their grasp on reality than it does about conspiracy theory.

    The famous line out of the classic movie, Cool Hand Luke, comes to mind: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

    True, but let's add, what we have here is a failure to accept the obvious—during the 2016 presidential campaign and spilling into the presidency of Donald Trump, there was a conspiracy to delegitimize his candidacy and then his presidency. It is ominous in its breath and depth, but far more ominous is the complete and utter failure of the most of the media to even investigate it, much less work to ensure that this cancer within our government never again occurs.