Posted on 10/25/2017 10:17:43 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
Journalists are downplaying news that the DNC and Clinton campaign were behind the funding of a salacious dossier alleging Trump ties to Russia, which The Washington Post revealed Tuesday.
According to WaPo, Marc E. Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and DNC, and his law firm, Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS last April to investigate Trump with the help of Christopher Steele, a former British spy. The Steele dossier was reportedly used by the FBI to form part of its investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. The most salacious details in the dossier remain unconfirmed, and the partisan backing of the document raises questions about its credibility. But, journalists are now redirecting the conversation away from who paid for its contents and spreading mistruths in the process.
Dan Gillmor, a journalism professor, tweeted that “GOP started” the funding for the dossier, which is inaccurate. An anonymous GOP donor paid Fusion GPS for standard opposition research, but bowed out before Fusion ever hired Steele to create the dossier alleging Trump ties to Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Still trying to shovel dirt over the Obama/Clinton administrations crimes and corruption.
The most revealing fact in this mess is that the DNC continued to pay Fusion GPS for this smear AFTER the election. This was clearly to sabotage the newly elected president and to remove him from office. This is a slap in the face to the Constitution and the laws of our country.
On CBS this morning, Nora O’Donnell sure looked like she was eating sour cow cud when she reported this news. Her eyes looked wounded and her hair was flat.
Charlie Rose couldn’t say a word. My condo neighbor complained that “Barb was hollering at the TV news again.”
Leftists in general are loudly proclaiming this is no big deal, dossier is true, etc.
“last April” doesn’t make sense since Comey showed it to Trump and Obama in January. April before last?
My wife came to me today to say, I think Hillary may be in trouble about this Russian scandal. I explained that I have been reading it all weekend. And I have been trying to find information that I did not know for 9 months. I could not find anything other than two points. First, this is the first time the Washington Post said anything. Court documents are about to be released that will prove that the DNC and Clinton campaign lied about paying for the Russian/Trump document. And more importantly, Hillary has retained most of her top staff. So, the reality, is that some people want Hillary gone before she can soak up money for the next election. The democrats want their party back. The republicans kicked big money out. Now the democrats want to do the same. And the Clintons own big money right now. So, this is a fight between democrats.
The Democratic Party should be required to pay for the cost of this fraudulent investigation.
Yes, that’s pretty much hat another report implied. Current DNC head [since Feb 2017] wants her out of the way.
The San Francisco wing of the party, which is (pro college professor, pro ethnic, pro gay/lesbian) is trying to take over the party. The swing groups that are not really all in, are Women, Jews and Unions. Their leaders are in with the democrats, but not their people. The democrats have lost a large share of those groups to the republicans (not a necessarily a majority in all cases). And even Hillary couldn’t get them back. The next stand is to get a women or a Joe six-pack guy to run as a democrat and stop Trump. But the base of the party is becoming so offensive to most Americans that the San Francisco democrats may take control of the party and lose the elections they think they should win.
And this is news why?.....
Skating again.
If the SF Dems take over, black turnout goes down.
The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.And the revolution can only be the overthrow of the Democrat Party - that is, the overthrow of “the mainstream media.”
The issue is the overthrow of cynicism.
Cynicism can be defined in various ways, but one approach is to say what it is not: “cynicism” is an antonym for “faith.” But I propose an excellent, IMHO, direct definition of “cynicism,” to wit: “the conceit that negativity is objectivity.” And that is the nexus between journalism and cynicism: journalists know (they will tell anyone that “If it bleeds, it leads”) that they are negative. And yet journalists also claim to be objective. Which is it? Are they objective, or are they negative? They are negative - and their claims of objectivity convict them of being not merely negative, but cynical.
- From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
- There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Democrat politics is quite literally socialist politics. Like “cynicism,” socialism has unsatisfactory definitions like “government ownership of the means of production.” But I propose a different and IMHO much more definition: “socialism” is cynicism toward society combined with combined with faith/naiveté toward government. Thomas Paine sheds light on that combination of cynicism and naiveté in the opening paragraphs of Common Sense:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.In sum, Paine points out that society is a blessing, and government (far from being a synonym for society) is an evil which is seen to be necessary precisely to the extent that skepticism toward society is seen to be justified. Obviously, cynicism toward society is the limiting case of skepticism toward society, and faith/naiveté toward government is the limiting case of belief in the necessity of government. Thus, cynicism toward society and naiveté toward government are two sides of the same coin. And that coin, I submit, is “socialism.”Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
No one should be surprised that a cynic would do such a thing as to have "so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them” when in fact they are not synonyms but, most nearly, antonyms. Nor that a cynic would invert the meaning of the term “liberalism” - as was done (as Safire’s New Political Dictionary confirms) in the 1920s. Nor that a cynic would claim that those who oppose progress (AGW fraud, anyone?) are “progressive.”
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.