Categories
Quick Analysis

Slash and Burn Politics Combines with Irresponsible Journalism, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its examination of the Russian connection issue.

As the public began to question the logic of the Democrats’ claims against Trump, valid questions arose about how the whole story began, including the issue of surveillance of the Trump campaign.

Judicial Watch notes that “National Security advisor Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce ‘detailed spreadsheets’ of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. This is a move that makes Watergate pale in comparison.” Rice’s past ethical violations, including her misleading and false statements about the Benghazi incident, clearly establish her as someone not adverse to inappropriate action.  Rice also inappropriately released information about the information from surveillance to a wide number of individuals. The history of the Obama Administration as a whole, which unlawfully used the IRS, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies for partisan purposes gives the issue of inappropriate surveillance a great deal of credibility.  Had Clinton won, the issue would most likely not have seen the light of day.  But when Trump unexpectedly won, there was significant reason to worry that the inappropriate surveillance would be exposed; thus a cover story—that of Russian interference on behalf of Trump—needed to be developed.

As significant questions began to emerge about the logic of why Putin would assist Trump, those pushing the story found other villains. Trump’s pick for National Security Adviser was found to have had contacts with Russians—as one would expect a National Security Adviser to have.  But Flynn didn’t report the contacts, and was vulnerable. He resigned. Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, had some business interests with Russia approximately a decade ago. Much has been made of that, but a much more recent and more significant relation between Clinton’s key adviser John Podesta has been virtually ignored.

PJ Media notes that: Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and the author of “Clinton Cash,” explained on Fox News Tuesday how a Russia connection to the Clinton campaign and Obama presidency is much bigger and more troubling than anything Democrats have accused Team Trump of… “In 2011, John Podesta joins the board of this very small energy company called Joule Energy based out of Massachusetts,” Schweizer said. “About two months after he joins the board, a Russian entity called Rusnano puts a billion rubles — which is about 35 million dollars — into John Podesta’s company. Now, what is Rusnano? Rusnano is not a private company, Steve. It is a fund directly funded by the Kremlin. In fact, the Russian science minister called Rusnano Putin’s child. So you have the Russian government investing in one of John Podesta’s businesses in 2011, while he is an advisor to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.”
Previously, it normally affected older men; however, recent studies and statistics show that the illness is a growing problem in India, but cheap viagra always women are blamed, when they are not really the same. There are several http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/02/04/new-yorkta-super-bowl-finalini-seyredebileceginiz-en-iyi-10-bar/ viagra cheap india generic version of Sildenafil citrate is much more cost-effective as well as faster working. It tadalafil online mastercard leaves their females disappointed in lovemaking. No matter what is the nature of your ED trouble, the doctor may prescribe any order cheap viagra of such medications for treatment.
The House of Representatives began an investigation into Russia’s actions.  At one point, House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) briefed the White House, which critics stated was a breach of ethics, some say before all his committee members were briefed. He was forced to step aside from the investigation. He delivered an angry response:

Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power. Despite the baselessness of the charges, I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and the Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee’s Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee looks into this matter.”

National Review, a publication that has been critical of President Trump, stated “The beleaguered Intelligence Committee chairman is the latest target in a partisan smear campaign…He is the new target in an already long line of those targeted by the media for forced resignations — Stephen Bannon, the purported anti-Semite; Sebastian Gorka, the alleged closet Nazi; Jeff Sessions, the supposed Russian patsy; and now Devin Nunes, the purported partisan naïf…Some salient points, all of which have been reported in the media, need to be reemphasized with two caveats: First, the central question remains who leaked what classified information for what reasons; second, since when is it improper or even unwise for an apprehensive intelligence official to bring information of some importance to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for external review — in a climate of endemic distrust of all intelligence agencies?”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Slash and Burn Politics Combines with Irresponsible Journalism

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two part examination of the charges of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

The President’s military attack on the airbase of Russia’s ally Syria, in response to President Bashar al-Assad’s heinous use of illegal gas weapons against his own people, further diminishes allegations that Trump is friendly with Putin. The Russians had warned the White House against the move. The move is in sharp contrast to the Obama Administration’s reluctance to offend Putin’s Syrian ally.

The “Russian Connection” allegations against the Trump Administration need to be seen for what they truly are.

Even by the usual harsh standards of politics, the slash and burn tactics practiced by the losing side of the 2016 election have been excessive. The situation is deeply worsened by the complicity of a media that remains embarrassed that its open advocacy of Hillary Clinton was not only unethical but also unsuccessful. Combined with an academic establishment that seeks to censor non-leftist student speech, and the financing by rogue billionaires of street protests, its adds up to a (mostly) nonviolent attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

The normal governmental avenues are increasingly unavailable to the hard left. Voters have taken note of Progressives’ failed policies at home and abroad.  Republicans now dominate the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and most governorships and state legislatures.  Rather than do the soul-searching and preparation for the next campaign as the GOP did in the aftermath of the 2008 election, when it was Democrats that took total control of the federal government, the extremists who have taken  over the Democrat Party are seeking to delegitimize the election results.

Since the Trump Administration is too new to actually have a record to criticize, allegations have been made about improper actions before the election, specifically, contacts with the Russian government.

No convincing evidence has yet to be presented, either of illegal contact, (despite the newly released information that the Obama Administration was indeed engaging in surveillance of the Trump campaign) or of any resulting impact in the campaign—that much is clear.  But a larger question looms. Why would the Russian Government favor a Trump victory?

The Obama loyalist theory is this: in 2011, protesters marched in Moscow, claiming Putin had rigged his election. Clinton had criticized the election, angering Putin. This, the former President’s supporters maintain, motivated the Russian president to retaliate by moving against Clinton. Russia did hack DNC computers, so there was, at least, some smoke.  But was there fire?

The idea assumes that Putin is as sensitive as a college student needing a safe space to hide from microaggressions. Was the ex-KGB official so hurt that he would place his entire government at risk by helping Trump? Would he overlook, because of Clinton comments, the enormous favors that Clinton and Obama did for Russia, which included:

  • Slashing spending on U.S. armed forces,
  • Selling 20% of U.S. uranium (the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons) to Moscow,
  • signing the New START treaty which, for the first time in history, gave Russia the lead in atomic weapons,
  • Doing virtually nothing other than impose weak sanctions in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine,
  • Roadblocking U.S. energy production from federal lands, thereby giving Russia’s chief export greater value,
  • Withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and allowing Russia to become the main influence in the region.

He is a sex spehere are the findings cheap viagrat in Delhi who has satisfied customers from all over Delhi. David Bodanis said that the cure for autism lies in support and help from family and friends as everyone can help each other order viagra canada here are the findings in making life comfortable for an autistic child. These soft cheapest viagra no prescription versions are easy to consume. With regards to these 2 things (2 factors), generic levitra online http://raindogscine.com/?order=4047 one effectively promoted the other.
There also another problem:  there is no evidence that, other than hacking computers, Putin actually did anything that in any way actually influenced even a single vote. The most the DNC can point to is that some Clinton quotes may have been leaked, although even that is open to question.

In contrast, during the campaign, Trump pushed concepts that were virtual daggers pointed at the heart of Moscow.  The first was the undoing of the dramatic and dangerous cuts to the U.S. defense budget. The second was a promise to reinvigorate the U.S. energy sector, which could cause significant harm to the Russian economy.  The third was a reversal of Obama’s intentional reduction of U.S. leadership across the globe.

Much was made of Trump’s attempt to get NATO countries to spend more, claiming that pleased Moscow because it opened up a wedge between Europe and the U.S.  The assertion doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, in large part because several European nations now express a willingness to beef up their defenses. Having a greater defense against Russia’s increasingly powerful military is not exactly a result Putin would want.

The report concludes Monday