Posted on 06/04/2017 1:15:30 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The long-awaited de-escalation of Washington’s war with Trump seems finally to be happening. Prior to the president’s trip to the Middle East and Europe, the anti-Trump media was abuzz with intimations of “impeachment territory,” (the ludicrous phrase of David Gergen, who served President Reagan and President Clinton well, but may have contracted some of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy that plagues CNN, where he now comments). While the president was overseas and the tweets were rarer and unexceptionable, it came to light that the likeliest Russian interference in the election apart from Wikileaks, may have been misinformation.
The whole Russian controversy began with the ineffable John Podesta (whose own contacts with the Russians have raised eyebrows). This was followed by the outrageous release by former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid of a letter to the FBI that made public the infamous Steele dossier. This generated the Golden Shower allegation that Trump had orchestrated a group of prostitutes to urinate on a bed in a Moscow hotel room where the Obamas had once allegedly slept. This dossier had been drifting around untouched by any respectable media for months, and is generally presumed to come originally from Russian sources. CNN then exhumed Carl Bernstein, flaccid but imperishable, to try to lend credibility to this fatuous story that it claimed was the result of their great journalistic enterprise. The president’s response was the phrase “fake news,” le mot juste for such nonsense.
While the president was abroad, it emerged that Former FBI director James Comey may have publicly recommended against prosecution of Mrs. Clinton after Russian intelligence falsely alleged the existence of emails showing that then attorney general Loretta Lynch would not recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post, whose desire to see the president cleared of suspicion is not fervent, concluded that Comey was misled by Russian disinformation. There is nothing legally or morally wrong with an honest mistake, but if this line of interpretation has any legs, it will not do any harm to the administration but will discredit all those, mainly Democrats, who have been dispensing venomous innuendos against it as if from an incense pot.
The mandate of Robert Mueller is to examine Russian influence on the election and other “relevant matters,” and the sudden sharp decrease in volume and aggressiveness of the Trumpophobes may reasonably be deduced to be the result of dawning awareness that they may be chasing their own tails toward acute self-embarrassment. Bernstein’s old sidekick in the Watergate lynching, Bob Woodward, became so concerned at the vulnerability of the accusers that he cautioned against Watergate comparisons and against premature references to any possibility of impeachment.
It is always difficult with this president to know when he is hyper-sensitive, or insensitive, or being tactically very sophisticated. I have written elsewhere that the terribly overheated attack on the president’s executive orders about screening and temporarily banning migration from six terrorist-infested countries was designed to incite Trump to ignore the court so his enemies could tune up their charges of authoritarianism and lawlessness. And after vintage huffing and puffing, Trump has proceeded through the courts and should be sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court. If he is, there will be a deafening sound in Washington of the deflation of a giant hot air balloon.
It is not conceivable to me that the president was particularly upset by the Mueller appointment; Senator Schumer, Congressman Schiff, (the incarnation of the political idiocy of Hollywood, which is in his district), and others had shouted themselves hoarse calling for a special prosecutor, by which they clearly meant an Archibald Cox or Lawrence Walsh or Ken Starr-like zealot who would completely immobilize the administration up to the mid-term elections. The engagement of Mueller, an apparently more sober personality than the special prosecutors mentioned, with a mandate to take over the existing well-advanced FBI investigation and lead it within reasonable guidelines as a special counsel, with constrained powers compared to what Schumer and Schiff were hoping for, was a well-placed shot. Comey had already said that Trump was not a suspect; and his deputy, acting director McCabe, had confirmed that the Bureau had not been interfered with or short-changed of resources, contrary to allegations in the New York Times.
The tide is going out and the whole collusion nonsense (which Tom Friedman of the New York Times said was as serious as the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks) is now down to dark murmurings about the president’s son-in-law speaking after the election with the Russian ambassador. Jared Kushner has let it be known that the ambassador called him and that he will be happy to testify under oath to any appropriate congressional committee whenever he is asked.
The rubbish about the president disclosing Israeli intelligence to the Russian ambassador was mocked by the Russians and denied by the Israeli prime minister, even as the anti-Trump leakers within the administration strained the alliance with the United Kingdom by releasing MI5 intelligence about the Manchester suicide bomber while the British were still rounding up suspected accomplices.
Rear guard actions were conducted by Charles Krauthammer, who has kept his head throughout though not a Trump admirer, and others, claiming Trump should have emphasized support of Clause Five of the North Atlantic Treaty. His support of NATO was nonetheless clear and Clause Five is the essence of the alliance, (and as Krauthammer certainly knows, it is tempered by the following clause that says that each alliance member will determine how it wishes to respond to the attack on all). Clause Five has only been invoked once, after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, and that was largely intended to try to restrain the George W. Bush administration from over-reacting against the Muslim world.
Neither the president nor his son-in-law evince the slightest concern about the strength of their constitutional and legal positions, and the rather besieged air of the first hundred days White House has faded as the rabid nature of the Schumers and Schiffs has also abated. Speaker Paul Ryan was contemptibly unsupportive, declining two weeks ago “to prejudge” the outcome of the president’s travails, not a hint even of presumption of innocence, but the task now is to pull the Republicans together and get healthcare and tax reform adopted. I still think it was the correct move to put healthcare first, as that can be done with bare majorities, and tax reform will require some Democrats in the Senate. It will be harder for Schumer to sandbag the administration if healthcare is in place and if it means voting against tax cuts for lower and middle income families and all businesses, especially if there are no leaks enflaming the dying embers of the collusion myth as Mueller performs his task.
Bttt
BTTT
And thank you Kathy Griffin for your help in the matter.
Uh, could someone explain this to me? At what time was Comey following any lead from “Russian intelligence?” Comey has Hillary's original personal emails on her hard drive, which he turned over to the State Department for ongoing review (never looked at/finished). He also has access to all emails from official government sources. So where are Russian-planted emails in all of this?
The narrative on this one is nonsense to me too. Comey gets information that Lynch is going to scuttle the prosecution of crooked Hillary for crimes relating to the handling of classified information, and Comey, concerned that this information will someday become public, steps in and scuttles the prosecution of crooked Hillary for crimes relating to the handling of classified information.
The narrative bifurcates here. In one branch, Comey believed and based his action on what turns out to be a hoax, so you can't blame him for what he did. I scratch my head over that. In my mind, the offered narrative is that Comey has information suggesting Lynch is obstructing justice, so you can't blame Comey for getting BOTH Lynch and crooked Hillary off the hook.
In the other branch, Comey knew the information was bogus, which in my mind makes the entire narrative pointless. What, Comey gets information he finds untrustworthy, and that triggers a substantial public action on his part?
None of this makes sense to me.
Beautifully written. We’ve almost forgotten what real writing looks like. I miss it
Conrad Black, doing comedy. If Ken Starr had been a true zealot, and done his job effectively, Al Gore would have been President, if only for a little while.
but may have contracted some of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy that plagues CNN,
LOL, YES!
In contrast to full-of-themselves, Never-Trump NR writers like Kevin D. Williamson and Jonah Goldberg.
Who are both very smart - just ask them....
“None of this makes sense to me. “
Having published over fifty 1500 word articles I have, several times, gotten a call from somebody complaining about what I got wrong. I would then read the published article and call the editor. Often they’d say, “Oh, I changed that.” Or, “I didn’t like the way you said that.” Once I said, “But that isn’t correct.” to which the editor said, “nobody’s going to know.” I have seen larger egos, but they are generally possessed by rich people or politicians. The editors I worked with considered it their job to “correct” things so they looked the way the editor thought they should look.
I will say the writing style looks the same, but I raised my eyebrows and reread that paragraph looking for telltale signs of editorial “correction.” You would think this author could control that or the editor would at least go back to him with a question.
If editorial correction isn’t the case then the author’s statement makes no sense.
While editorial license may be in play for the offered quote, the nonsense narrative is the same in all the articles on this subject. That is to say, they all agree on certain facts.
I've read maybe 10 stories on this subject, and none of them makes sense of the agreed underlying facts.
I'm not saying the facts are true either, only that those are the offered facts, and generally used to exonerate Comey for usurping the prosecutor's function and publicizing investigatory findings. Maybe the whole thing is nonsense on top of fiction.
“flaccid but imperishable” — lol
It's all baloney, of course, and mere preening by Comey. I think Comey's story is what makes this hard to follow.
Comey needed to forstall the NYPD in its efforts vis a vis Weiner’s laptop containing all of Hill’s server data. He did so by reopening the case on her emails which he promptly shut down with appropriate mea culpa about finding nothing. This short-circuited the NYPD’s investigation and prevented a deeper look into the tarmac collusion...with a ribbon and a bow.
And, yes, the Russian memo is a red herring.
"CNN exhumed Carl Bernstein, flaccid but imperishable, to try to lend credibility to this fatuous story ........."
I guess the Eternal President---Obama----was too busy keeping track of his vast "federal inheritance" to be of any use to CNN.
Ping. Splendid post. Thanks 2ndDiv.
Great to read the words of a man of high stature and eloquence explaining why the anti-Trump forces are in retreat.
Great article...great writing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.