From my childhood the term “racist” was someone who thought “negroes” weren’t as good as whites. As time passed the usage of the word “racist” has expanded and become associated with someone who holds this same inferior/superior view of many different races. The dictionary definition is: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
So… stigmatizing a whole social group or category is considered racist.
I have discovered I am a racist. I do feel those individuals who belong to the group that constantly uses the term RACIST as a weapon to denigrate people with opinions other than their own are truly lesser individuals than those that use facts and consider others opinions. I call these people the elitists. They believe that their views are the right views and disrespect any views that differ from theirs.
We are all capable of thought and our opinions and views are often different based on our knowledge and the experiences we have. There is a clear difference in those that see differing views as a different perspective and those who view an opinion that’s differs from theirs as a “wrong opinion”
But how do you argue that someone else’s view on a subject is wrong…to do that you might have to use “facts” which often aren’t available…much easier is labeling them racist…a term that most of us abhor, and thereby eliminating their view or opinion as invalid
So yes, IM a racist…I believe those people incapable of considering others opinions and consider themselves and their opinions as superior and therefore above consideration of others views are in fact inferior and deserving of my disdain
Hope this headline got your attention or at least pissed you off. The University of California, as part of the UC system, was designed, as most state University systems are, to provide quality education to the residents of the state. As an alternative to a private University education, which in many cases is prohibitively expensive, the state University systems are heavily subsidized by their state governments and hopefully prepare the states college population with an education for them to compete for jobs and enhance their lifestyle.
Not so at UC Irvine…statistics show that approximately 50% of students are Asian and another 25% Hispanic…Many of whom are not California residents. While the UCI website says 90% of undergraduates are California residents, anyone who has ever been to the Universities location or surrounding areas knows by mere observation this is NOT close to the truth.
I was not aware that the UC system was primarily charged with educating foreign students, who after graduation, to a large part return to their native country. The argument goes that out of state (or in this case out of country attendees) pay a larger fee…numbers don’t lie…there are 33,000 UCI students…In state students pay 15K tuition and out of state pay 41K…or 26K more per student….if ½ the students are out of state (I suggest this is a very low estimate) the tuition difference is over 400 million.
The argument is that increased school income allows for attraction of the best faculty…However this “BEST” faculty is being used to educate non Californians, and in the case of UCI mostly Asian students who return to their homeland after receiving their education and use those skills to compete with our American students, who are rejected from UCI cause the schools if full of foreign students. So while the schools budgets are larger due to out of state fees, those funds are not being used to educate our California kids.
The end result is that a large number of California kids do not get to benefit from the supposed increase in quality of education created by higher paid professors (I really question this assumption) as they are blocked from admission by higher fee paying out of staters. You might argue that these out of state or out of country students have higher credentials, which may be true, but isn’t the University of California systems charter to provide the best education possible to our CALIFORNIA students…
Chancellor Gillman and his administration lie about the ethnic and country of origin…Many, Many foreign students create a residency in California by having a temporary residence…the vast majority of local residence know this is the case. Deceiving the residents of California by reporting statistics that are manipulated is disingenuous and the ill informed (Stupid) populace of California who allow our VERY high tax dollars to be used to educate our future potential competitors assures our next generations will not have the lifestyle our next generations deserve.
Its beyond tiresome to listen to all the Trump haters and their inability to discuss the policies of the government due to their blind hatred for the man…The lack of understanding that there were (or are) a similiar number of Americans who felt the same deep distain for Obama is seated in the elitist arrogence that they “are right” vs “they have an opinion” Personally I would much rather have someone call me names then allow me to be robbed, threatened or not earn an income…Feel anyway you want about Trump but keep those feelings out of our public discourse and lets focus on our nations policies and what we want the USA to be going forward….
Newt Gingrich: Trump (and his success) continues to baffle our country’s elites. What’s going on?
It’s been nearly 14 months since President Trump took office, but the media and Washington establishment still don’t understand our nation’s 45th president. They continue to criticize, distort, discredit and ignore his actions and accomplishments – while making little to no effort to actually understand what he’s doing and the way he operates.
This has been the elites’ pattern since Donald Trump first announced his bid for the White House. It’s what prompted me last year to write my No. 1 New York Times bestselling book “Understanding Trump,” which was released in paperback this week.
When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, the elites could not see how breaking with these bad agreements could possibly be good for Americans. After all, some of the Washington elites had helped draft these deals – which in the minds of the liberal media meant these deals must be good.
When President Trump imposed direct trade measures on some foreign products – including solar panels, steel, and aluminum – to protect U.S. industries that were being undercut, the elites reflexively questioned his political-trade-foreign relations acumen. Seemingly none of them stopped to consider that President Trump’s decades of success in international business may provide him with an informed opinion and worldview counter to their own.
As we have seen President Trump make changes to his Cabinet and personal staff, the elites in Washington and the national media have insisted that these decisions are a sign of dangerous instability in the White House. Never mind that the best business leaders and managers routinely make tough staffing decisions to improve their organizations’ long-run initiatives or mission.
It seems the elites simply refuse to think about the Trump presidency through any lens other than that of traditional Washington – despite the fact that President Trump has never been a part of (and represents a departure from) the traditional establishment. This confused, square peg-round hole analytical approach is made worse by the fact that the elites then try to use Washington jargon to define and attack the president.
In the minds of the elite, President Trump doesn’t fit the post-World War II international mold that regards the United States as the world’s only real superpower that can afford to prop up all its allies – and even some of its enemies. For that, the elites claim President Trump is an isolationist.
The president doesn’t fit the traditional Republican free-trader mold because he demands that Americans must benefit from trade agreements. Therefore, according to the elites, he must be a protectionist.
President Trump didn’t enter office with a team of politicos and policy wonks who had been with him through a decades-long political career, so to the elites insist the Trump administration is inexperienced.
Finally, the president is not afraid to take decisive action when he’s made up his mind about something, so the elites claim he is unstable.
However, many Americans hear these Washington words (isolationist, protectionist, inexperienced, unstable) and see no relationship to their president or his administration.
Many Americans – who for years watched factories close and American prosperity dwindle as a result of bad multinational agreements and unfair trade deals – regard President Trump’s decision to get out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement as necessary and long overdue. To them, the president has been working to break away from deals that help other countries at the expense of U.S. success – just as any good business executive would.
Similarly, millions of Americans see the president taking actions to stop foreign countries that are cheating at trade as a sign that he is defending the interests of our country abroad. That’s also what good business leaders do.
When President Trump replaces one of his team members with someone more in-tune with his vision, most Americans see him acting as a typical, goal-oriented executive.
In “Understanding Trump,” I point out that our president defeated the media and Washington elite largely because they simply refused to understand him as a candidate. Further, they were profoundly wrong about the 2016 election because they couldn’t comprehend that the American people wanted something other than the traditional Washington elites’ idea of a president.
It seems the elites didn’t read my book – or they didn’t take its lessons to heart – because they haven’t changed a bit. They still don’t understand Trump.
Stop pretending that there is overwhelming evidence regarding collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and yet there isnt even a shred of evidence regarding misdeeds on the part of the FBI and the DOJ…What are you afraid to find out? Why not a really independent investigation..if there is nothing there…all the better and if there are misdeeds, why not penalize those responsible who have done wrong to our countries top law agencies..The excuses are shallow and make Muellers work look like nothing more than hatred of Trump. The vast majority of us believe that Russia and for that matter a number of other countries have tried to impact our elections. that isnt the issue, it’s whether Trump and his campaign staff were working in COLLUSION with Russia to throw the election in his favor…Russia working in their interests to change our election results are a very different issue than Trump working with Russia to throw the eletion. The latter charge of COLLUSION is worthy of investigation. In the same light, so is an investigation of those in the DOJ, FBI and even withing the Obama administration who may have used their positions to sway the results of the same election process…Dont pretend they are not the same…THEY ARE…and your protests only make our believe that something is being hidden, greater…the following article should be of interest and concern to those of you who are honest enough to want to really know the truth, regardless of where that investigation may take us….Do you really want to know the truth or are you simply interested in distroying Trump and his Presidenc
Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.
In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.
I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.
The Case of the Clinton Emails
The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.
Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.
One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.
Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.
Comey claims he negotiated the immunity deals because of his concern about time. Yet the investigation was opened in the summer of 2015, nearly a year before he cut these deals. Compare this to the DOJ’s handling of four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, who pleaded guilty in October 2016 to a false statement about leaking classified information to The New York Times. In that case, the DOJ bragged about its use of subpoenas and search warrants.
Not only was there no grand jury, the FBI never issued a search warrant—something it does when there is concern a person will destroy evidence. Clinton deleted half her emails and then claimed, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over to the government all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related. The FBI later found email chains classified as “secret” or “confidential” that she had not turned over. Still no search warrant was issued.
Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:
- Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.
- After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.
- Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.
- Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.
- Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.
- Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed. He justified his actions saying that he no longer trusted Attorney General Lynch after her June 27, 2016, meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. This meeting took place at the height of the so-called investigation—just days before Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton on July 2. Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. We also know that the FBI’s reaction to the impropriety of the tarmac meeting was not disgust, but rather anger at the person who leaked the fact of the meeting. “We need to find that guy” and bring him before a supervisor, stated one (name redacted) FBI agent. Another argued that the source should be banned from working security details. Not one email expressed concern over the meeting. An FBI director who truly had his trust shaken would have questioned the members of Lynch’s FBI security detail for the Arizona trip about how the meeting came to be. Comey didn’t bother.
Comey described Clinton’s handling of classified information as “extremely careless,” a clumsy attempt to avoid the legal language of “gross negligence” for criminal mishandling of classified information—and we later learned that Peter Strzok, again, was responsible for editing this language in Comey’s statement. But practically speaking, the terms are synonymous. Any judge would instruct a jury to consider “gross negligence” as “extremely careless” conduct.
Comey claimed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case against Clinton. I have spent many years investigating federal crimes, and I can tell you that a reasonable prosecutor would have utilized a grand jury, issued subpoenas and search warrants, and followed standard DOJ procedures for federal prosecutions. In short, Comey threw the case. He should have been fired long before he was.
In late spring 2016, just weeks prior to Comey’s July 5 press conference clearing Clinton of any crime, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI agents in New York to shut down their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Their objections were overruled. Sources have told me that McCabe also shut down an additional Clinton investigation. This is the McCabe who, while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, had a wife running for the Virginia State Senate and receiving more than $460,000 in campaign contributions from a longtime Clinton loyalist, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Moreover, it was only after the news of Clinton’s private server became public in The New York Times that McAuliffe recruited McCabe’s wife to run for office. McCabe eventually recused himself from the Clinton probe, but that was one week before the 2016 election, after the decisions to clear Clinton and to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had already been made. So his recusal was meaningless.
In clearing legal impediments from Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination, Comey and his senior staff thought they had helped Clinton clinch the presidency. Their actions put an end to a decades-long tradition of non-political federal law enforcement.
The Case of Trump-Russia Collusion
Rumors of collusion with Russia by Trump or the Trump campaign surfaced during the primaries in 2015, but gained in strength soon after Trump secured the Republican nomination in July 2016. Thanks to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, we now know that high-level FBI officials were involved in promoting these rumors. Among Horowitz’s discoveries were text messages between FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest an illegal plan to utilize law enforcement to frame Trump. The most revealing exchange we know of took place on August 15, 2016. Concerned about the outcome of the election, Strzok wrote:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.
No amount of sugar coating or post hoc explanation of this and other texts can conceal the couple’s animus against Trump and support for Clinton. Strzok’s messages illustrate his commitment to Clinton’s victory and Trump’s defeat or, if Trump won, to an “insurance policy.”
The term “insurance policy” obviously refers to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which to this day remains a probe with no underlying crime. This is not the talk of professional investigators, but of corrupt agents who have created two standards of justice based on their political leanings. It looks like a reprise of the schemes undertaken during an earlier era, under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, that led to the creation of the Church Committee—a committee on which I served, and which tried to reform the FBI to prevent it from meddling in domestic politics.
At the heart of the Russia collusion scheme is the FBI’s utilization of a document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Called the Steele Dossier because it was written by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele, this document contains unsubstantiated information designed to taint Trump and his presidency. While Clinton partisans point out that candidate Clinton never referred to the Steele Dossier in her speeches, the fact is that she did not have to—the FBI hierarchy was doing it for her! Indeed, FBI General Counsel James Baker was recently reassigned because of his having leaked information about the Steele Dossier to the magazine Mother Jones.
Not one claim concerning Trump in the Steele Dossier has ever been verified by the FBI, according to Andrew McCabe himself in recent testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. The only confirmed fact is unsurprising: former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page traveled to Moscow on his own dime and met with various Russians—all perfectly legal.
Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan laundered the Steele Dossier through the U.S. intelligence community to give it an aura of credibility and get it to the press. It was also used by the FBI and senior DOJ officials to secure wiretap warrants from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Then its contents, via court-authorized FISA warrants, were used to justify the illegal unmasking of the identities of wiretapped Trump officials. The contents of these National Security Agency intercepts were put on spreadsheets and presented to members of President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC)—specifically Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes—and subsequently leaked to the press. According to former NSC staff, President Obama himself read the FISA intercepts of Trump campaign personnel. Unsurprisingly, there was no request for a leak investigation from either the FBI or the DOJ.
In sum, the FBI and DOJ employed unverified salacious allegations contained in a political opposition research document to obtain court-sanctioned wiretaps, and then leaked the contents of the wiretaps and the identities of political opponents. This was a complex criminal plot worthy of Jason Bourne.
The Pall Over the Special Counsel and the FBI
Layered over this debacle is a special counsel investigation unfettered by rules or law. Not surprisingly, James Comey triggered the special counsel’s appointment—and he did so by design. According to Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, having been fired on May 9, 2017, he leaked official documents to his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, with the specific intent that Richman would leak them to the press. Reportage on that leak is what led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller—a former FBI director and Comey’s good friend—as special counsel to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.
Mueller’s reputation has been damaged by a series of decisions that violate the ethical rules of appearances. For instance, he hired Democratic partisans as lawyers for the probe: Andrew Weissmann, who donated to Clinton and praised Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for disobeying Trump’s lawful Presidential Order regarding a travel ban for residents of certain nations that harbor terrorists; Jeannie Rhee, who donated to Clinton and represented Ben Rhodes in the email probe and the Clinton Foundation investigation; and Aaron Zebley, who represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper in the email server probe.
Mueller also staged a pre-dawn raid with weapons drawn on the home of Paul Manafort, rousing Manafort and his wife from their bed—a tactic customarily reserved for terrorists and drug dealers. Manafort has subsequently been indicted for financial crimes that antedate his campaign work for Trump and that have nothing to do with Russia collusion.
Then there’s the fact that when Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation in July 2017, he didn’t tell anyone. The removal and its causes were uncovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Why was such vital information concealed from the public? It is not, as is often claimed now, that Strzok was a minor figure. All the major decisions regarding both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia collusion investigations had been made under Strzok.
Significantly, Strzok also led the interview of General Michael Flynn that ended in Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI. It is important to recall that Flynn’s FBI interview was not conducted under the authority of the special counsel, but under that of Comey and McCabe. It took place during Inauguration week in January 2017. Flynn had met with the same agents the day before regarding security clearances. McCabe called Flynn and asked if agents could come to the White House. Flynn agreed, assuming it was about personnel. It was not.
Flynn had been overheard on a FISA wiretap talking to Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. There was nothing criminal or even unusual about the fact of such discussion. Flynn was on the Trump transition team and was a federal employee as the President-Elect’s national security advisor. It was his job to be talking to foreign leaders. Flynn was not charged with regard to anything said during his conversation with Kislyak. So why was the FBI interrogating Flynn about legal conduct? What more did the FBI need to know? I am told by sources that when Flynn’s indictment was announced, McCabe was on a video conference call—cheering!
Compare the FBI’s treatment of Flynn to its treatment of Paul Combetta, the technician who used a program called BleachBit to destroy thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton’s computer. This destruction of evidence took place after a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issued letters directing that all emails be preserved and subpoenaing them. Combetta first lied to the FBI, claiming he did not recall deleting anything. After being rewarded with immunity, Combetta recalled destroying the emails—but he could not recall anyone directing him to do so.
The word in Washington is that Flynn pleaded guilty to take pressure off his son, who was also a subject of Mueller’s investigation. Always the soldier. But those who questioned Flynn that day did not cover themselves with law enforcement glory. Led by Strzok, they grilled Flynn about facts that they already knew and that they knew did not constitute a crime. They besmirched the reputation of federal law enforcement by their role in a scheme to destroy a duly elected president and his appointees.
A pall hangs over Mueller, and a pall hangs over the DOJ. But the darkest pall hangs over the FBI, America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, which since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover has been steadfast in steering clear of politics. Even during L. Patrick Gray’s brief tenure as acting director during Watergate, it was not the FBI but Gray personally who was implicated. The current scandal pervades the Bureau. It spans from Director Comey to Deputy Director McCabe to General Counsel Baker. It spread to counterintelligence via Peter Strzok. When line agents complained about the misconduct, McCabe retaliated by placing them under investigation for leaking information.
From the outset of this scandal, I have considered Comey a dirty cop. His unfailing commitment to himself above all else is of a pattern. Throughout his career, Comey has continually portrayed himself as Thomas Becket, fighting against institutional corruption—even where none exists. Stories abound of his routine retort to anyone who disagreed with him (not an unusual happening when lawyers gather) during his tenure as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Your moral compass is askew,” he would say. This self-righteousness led agents to refer to him as “The Cardinal.” Comey is no Thomas Becket—he is Henry II.
A great disservice has been done to the dedicated men and women of the FBI by Comey and his seventh floor henchmen. A grand jury probe is long overdue. Inspector General Horowitz is an honest man, but he cannot convene a grand jury. We need one now. We need our FBI back.
THE CLINTON DOSSIER GANG THAT KNEW NOTHING
They don’t know anything. Not a thing.
Share to Facebook169Share to TwitterShare to More190Share to P
“I know nothing,” isn’t just the motto of Sergeant Schultz. It’s also the Clinton motto. And Christopher Steele, the Brit whom the Clinton campaign hired to find out things for them, also knows nothing.
Or at least that’s the theme of the sprawling New Yorker profile of Steele, his dossier and his associates.
Steele, Jane Mayer, its authoress, tells us, is a brilliant researcher and we should take his word about all his allegations involving President Trump. Even the ones that aren’t true and don’t make any sense.
But he doesn’t know anything.
Take the Cody Shearer memo, the document authored by a Clinton plumber and which Steele passed along to the FBI as confirmation of his claims. The existence of the Shearer memo raised serious questions about whether the Clintons weren’t just paying Steele to dig up dirt, but were providing it. Some have speculated that Shearer’s smears were the original basis for Steele’s dossier.
But wait a minute.
Steele knew nothing. The New Yorker asks us to believe that their brilliant and trustworthy researcher passed along Shearer’s smears to the FBI without knowing who he was. ”Steele wasn’t aware that Shearer had longtime ties to the Clintons,” Mayer tells us, “as did Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton ally, who had given Shearer’s report to Winer.”
How could Steele ever be expected to know anything about the men whose material he was passing on to the FBI? Assuming, quite improbably, that Steele didn’t recognize the name of a close adviser to a former Secretary of State who had recently been involved in a foreign policy scandal, it would have taken him all of 60 seconds on Google to discover who Shearer and Blumenthal were.
Steele’s Sergeant Schultz routine betrays incompetence or dishonesty.
Either Steele was so ridiculously incompetent that he sent intelligence materials to the FBI from random people whose names he never checked. Or he’s obscuring his connections to the Clintons the way that Clintonworld is obscuring its links to Steele and the dossier that it paid for, but knew nothing about.
Mayer’s New Yorker profile insists that, “Steele turned out to be a secret kept from the campaign”. John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chair, only found out about his own campaign’s opposition research, from the media. Robby Mook was just as clueless. Not only did Steele not know whose opposition research he was passing to the FBI, but the Clinton campaign didn’t know anything about its own opposition research.
But in that case, why was it paying for opposition research that it didn’t know anything about?
The only Clintonite who knew about it, according to Mayer, was Marc Elias and his knowledge was protected by attorney-client confidentiality. And even he didn’t know anything. When Podesta told Senate Intelligence staffers that he didn’t know anything about the dossier, Marc Elias was right there.
“Podesta and Mook have maintained that they had no idea a former foreign intelligence officer was on the Democrats’ payroll until the Mother Jones article appeared,” the New Yorker profile tells us.
Podesta met with Senate Intelligence Committee staff members on Nov 18, 2017. On Monday, he denied it. On Tuesday, the Washington Post conveniently reported that the Clinton campaign had funded the dossier. That was perfect timing. Podesta could claim to have found out about his own opposition research the day after he claimed not to have known about it. That’s some real collusion.
But the Mother Jones article linked to by the profile is dated Oct 31, 2016. Even accounting for some really late deliveries, it would appear that Podesta did know what he claimed not to have known.
Not only are we being asked to believe that Christopher Steele knows everything that goes on in Moscow, but has no idea whose memo he was passing along to the FBI, but we’re being told that the Clinton campaign was spending money on opposition research that it didn’t even know about. This opposition research was then passed around to the media and the FBI without them ever knowing it.
The Clinton campaign was also far too noble to actually use the “sex stuff” in the opposition research that it didn’t know about. According to Fusion GPS boss Glenn Simpson, “Sex stuff is kind of worthless in a campaign.” That’s the same campaign whose backers were offering Trump accusers up to $750K.
The Clinton campaign thought the sex stuff was worthless even as Clinton associates Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal were using the State Department’s Jonathan Winer to pass a “sex stuff” memo to Steele, who then passed it to the FBI. And Shearer and Blumenthal somehow came up with the same material as Steele, without ever having seen his dossier. But if they came up with it independently, why was the Clinton campaign paying all that money to a British former intelligence agent to produce it?
The Clinton campaign had no idea what Steele was doing. Steele had no idea what the Clinton campaign was doing. None of them knew anything even when they were very clearly coordinating.
After spending much of the article trying to immunize the Clinton campaign and Steele from accusations that they were coordinating, Jane Mayer is forced to report her own attendance at a Steele event. “These encounters were surely sanctioned in some way by Fusion’s client, the Clinton campaign,” she mentions. It’s a strange note in an article dedicated to arguing the exact opposite. Why mention it? Because it’s quite likely that Mayer knew of a Clinton link to the briefing and is immunizing herself.
That’s how the game is played.
So the Clinton campaign “sanctioned” Steele’s briefings to the media in “late summer”, yet the Clinton campaign knew nothing about Steele or the meetings about his dossier that it was sanctioning.
Sergeant Schultz, please email your private server.
But meanwhile everyone except the Clinton campaign knew about its Steele dossier. Steele passed the dossier to Jonathan Winer, a State Department employee, who then passed Shearer’s material to Steele. How did Winer get to be in the dossier and memo business? He worked for the Clintons in the government and for a lobbying firm linked to the Clintons.
But we’re expected to believe that he got into this on his own without any campaign involvement.
Steele and Winer trade opposition research. Winer passes the Clinton opposition research that Steele gives him to State. And Steele passes the Clinton opposition research from Winer to the FBI. Two versions of opposition research from the same source were being laundered through the government by two apparatchiks who traded the opposition research that they were laundering to muddy the trail.
Winer dragged in Victoria Nuland and then John Kerry. But they also knew nothing. “The State Department officials didn’t know who was funding Steele’s research, but they could see how politically explosive it was,” Mayer writes. It’s the fall of 2016. Who could they have thought was funding opposition research? Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or John Kasich? Winer was passing along material from Sidney Blumenthal, yet he had no clue which campaign Hillary’s “old friend” could be associated with?
“I know nothing.”
Steele didn’t know where the Clinton opposition research he was passing along was coming from. The Clinton campaign didn’t know anything about the opposition research it was paying for. And the State Department officials who were routing Clinton opposition research to Steele and Steele’s Clinton dossier to the FBI had no idea which campaign might be involved in all. They all knew nothing.
Everyone in this fictional thriller is always doing things purely on their own initiative.
“On my own, I shared a copy of these notes with Steele,” Winer writes of Shearer’s memo. And then Steele goes off, on his own, and sends the Shearer memo to the FBI. Steele independently contacts the FBI. Winer independently brings in the leadership of the State Department. They don’t know anything and they never coordinate with anyone. Including the people who are paying them.
And even though Steele couldn’t figure out whom a famous Clinton associate might be representing, and the State Department couldn’t figure that out either, and the Clinton campaign couldn’t even find out what was in its own opposition research, we should take all their allegations about Trump seriously.
These same ladies and gentlemen who want us to believe that they couldn’t tie their own shoes expect us to overturn the results of the previous election because while they don’t know a single thing that happens in their own campaigns and departments, they know everything that goes on in Moscow.
Ever civilization in the past has eventually declined, whether Egypt, The Aztecs, Rome, Greece, the Mongols, the British etc..the following article by Dr Amy Wax is more than concerning, its frightening at the rate of decline of the great AMERICAN experiment
Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems?
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Amy L. Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she has received the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. She has a B.S. from Yale College, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She is a former assistant to the United States Solicitor General, and her most recent book is Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century.The following is adapted from a speech delivered on December 12, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with plenty of lip service being paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them. The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on August 9 under the title, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society: Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. We then discussed the “cultural script”—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime. These norms defined a concept of adult responsibility that was, we wrote, “a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.” The fact that the “bourgeois culture” these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s, we argued, largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies. In what became perhaps the most controversial passage, we pointed out that cultures are not equal in terms of preparing people to be productive citizens in a modern technological society, and we gave some examples of cultures less suited to achieve this: The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.
The reactions to this piece raise the question of how unorthodox opinions should be dealt with in academia—and in American society at large.It is well documented that American universities today, more than ever before, are dominated by academics on the left end of the political spectrum. How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their “politically correct” views? The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong. This kind of civil discourse is obviously important at law schools like mine, because law schools are dedicated to teaching students how to think about and argue all sides of a question. But academic institutions in general should also be places where people are free to think and reason about important questions that affect our society and our way of life—something not possible in today’s atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy. What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling. Likewise we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years—and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.
One might respond, of course, that unreasoned slurs and outright condemnations are also speech and must be defended. My recent experience has caused me to rethink this position. In debating others, we should have higher standards. Of course one has the right to hurl labels like “racist,” “sexist,” and “xenophobic” without good reason—but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Hurling such labels doesn’t enlighten, inform, edify, or educate. Indeed, it undermines these goals by discouraging or stifling dissent.So what happened after our op-ed was published last August? A raft of letters, statements, and petitions from students and professors at my university and elsewhere condemned the piece as racist, white supremacist, hate speech, heteropatriarchial, xenophobic, etc. There were demands that I be removed from the classroom and from academic committees. None of these demands even purported to address our arguments in any serious or systematic way. A response published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, and signed by five of my Penn Law School colleagues, charged us with the sin of praising the 1950s—a decade when racial discrimination was openly practiced and opportunities for women were limited. I do not agree with the contention that because a past era is marked by benighted attitudes and practices—attitudes and practices we had acknowledged in our op-ed!—it has nothing to teach us. But at least this response attempted to make an argument. Not so an open letter published in the Daily Pennsylvanian and signed by 33 of my colleagues. This letter quoted random passages from the op-ed and from a subsequent interview I gave to the school newspaper, condemned both, and categorically rejected all of my views. It then invited students, in effect, to monitor me and to report any “stereotyping and bias” they might experience or perceive. This letter contained no argument, no substance, no reasoning, no explanation whatsoever as to how our op-ed was in error.We hear a lot of talk about role models—people to be emulated, who set a positive example for students and others. In my view, the 33 professors who signed this letter are anti-role models. To students and citizens alike I say: don’t emulate them in condemning people for their views without providing a reasoned argument. Reject their example. Not only are they failing to teach you the practice of civil discourse—the sine qua non of liberal education and of democracy—they are sending the message that civil discourse is unnecessary. As Jonathan Haidt of NYU wrote on September 2 on his website Heterodox Academy: “Every open letter you sign to condemn a colleague for his or her words brings us closer to a world in which academic disagreements are resolved by social force and political power, not by argumentation and persuasion.”
It is gratifying to note that the reader comments on the open letter were overwhelmingly critical. The letter has “no counterevidence,” one reader wrote, “no rebuttal to [Wax’s] arguments, just an assertion that she’s wrong. . . . This is embarrassing.” Another wrote: “This letter is an exercise in self-righteous virtue-signaling that utterly fails to deal with the argument so cogently presented by Wax and Alexander. . . . Note to parents, if you want your daughter or son to learn to address an argument, do not send them to Penn Law.”Shortly after the op-ed appeared, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen for a while and asked how his summer was going. He said he’d had a terrible summer, and in saying it he looked so serious I thought someone had died. He then explained that the reason his summer had been ruined was my op-ed, and he accused me of attacking and causing damage to the university, the students, and the faculty. One of my left-leaning friends at Yale Law School found this story funny—who would have guessed an op-ed could ruin someone’s summer? But beyond the absurdity, note the choice of words: “attack” and “damage” are words one uses with one’s enemies, not colleagues or fellow citizens. At the very least, they are not words that encourage the expression of unpopular ideas. They reflect a spirit hostile to such ideas—indeed, a spirit that might seek to punish the expression of such ideas. I had a similar conversation with a deputy dean. She had been unable to sign the open letter because of her official position, but she defended it as having been necessary. It needed to be written to get my attention, she told me, so that I would rethink what I had written and understand the hurt I had inflicted and the damage I had done, so that I wouldn’t do it again. The message was clear: cease the heresy.Only half of my colleagues in the law school signed the open letter. One who didn’t sent me a thoughtful and lawyerly email explaining how and why she disagreed with particular points in the op-ed. We had an amicable email exchange, from which I learned a lot—some of her points stick with me—and we remain cordial colleagues. That is how things should work.Of the 33 who signed the letter, only one came to talk to me about it—and I am grateful for that. About three minutes into our conversation, he admitted that he didn’t categorically reject everything in the op-ed. Bourgeois values aren’t really so bad, he conceded, nor are all cultures equally worthy. Given that those were the main points of the op-ed, I asked him why he had signed the letter. His answer was that he didn’t like my saying, in my interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, that the tendency of global migrants to flock to white European countries indicates the superiority of some cultures. This struck him as “code,” he said, for Nazism. Well, let me state for the record that I don’t endorse Nazism! Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, we can make words mean whatever we want them to mean. And who decides what is code for something else or what qualifies as a dog whistle? Those in power, of course—which in academia means the Left. My 33 colleagues might have believed they were protecting students from being injured by harmful opinions, but they were doing those students no favors. Students need the opposite of protection from diverse arguments and points of view. They need exposure to them. This exposure will teach them how to think. As John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” I have received more than 1,000 emails from around the country in the months since the op-ed was published—mostly supportive, some critical, and for the most part thoughtful and respectful. Many expressed the thought, “You said what we are thinking but are afraid to say”—a sad commentary on the state of civil discourse in our society. Many urged me not to back down, cower, or apologize. And I agree with them that dissenters apologize far too often.Democracy thrives on talk and debate, and it is not for the faint of heart. I read things every day in the media and hear things every day at my job that I find exasperating and insulting, including falsehoods and half-truths about people who are my friends. Offense and upset go with the territory; they are part and parcel of an open society. We should be teaching our young people to get used to these things, but instead we are teaching them the opposite.Disliking, avoiding, and shunning people who don’t share our politics is not good for our country. We live together, and we need to solve our problems together. It is also always possible that people we disagree with have something to offer, something to contribute, something to teach us. We ignore this at our peril. As Heather Mac Donald wrote in National Review on August 29: “What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong . . . and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth? If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable ‘hate speech,’ then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.” In other words, we are at risk of being led astray by received opinion.The American way is to conduct free and open debate in a civil manner. We should return to doing that on our college campuses and in our society at large.