The Unbelievable Truth

Attorney General Bill Barr implied in his confirmation hearings that he didn’t really need the job. He had already done it. He said, “I feel that I’m in a position in life where I can provide the leadership necessary to protect the independence and reputation of the department.” Whether we take that at face value or not, do you think he is oblivious to the fact, either now or then, that one way or the other, the Mueller report’s core issues will find their way into the hands of Congress? Do you doubt he knows this was always meant to be an issue for Congress to take up?

Bill Barr merely wanted to insert himself into US history and will make decisions based on how many chapters of that history in which his name will be mentioned for good or bad.

****

Pete Buttigieg will never be the Democratic presidential nominee because his name is ridiculous and also lends itself to dreadful gay jokes. Dude, really…you should have changed that name years ago. That sucks because he’d make a decent president and an excellent administrator.

Kirsten Gillibrand will never be the Democratic presidential nominee because she doesn’t have a single atom of testosterone in her body. Ironically, the woman best known for women’s rights will be subconsciously snubbed by the masses because she cannot orate or debate without sounding like a shrill, hysterical woman because she’s so goddamn feminine.

Tulsi Gabbard will never be the Democratic presidential nominee because she’s fucking evil.

Corey Booker is a guy you just got to feel is going to run himself into some kind of scandal by the time debates come around.

John Hickenlooper is another guy with a ridiculous name. No.
****

It’s only a matter of days before Donny Trump is alerted to some newly formed “caravan” heading to the border to rape and pillage the land by Fox News. They need it to happen in a bad way, so Fox News will find some group of people to label a “caravan” no matter what.

****

Have you seen the movie The Unbelievable Truth? It’s a small, quirky, cute movie. Budget was like 75k. Here are some hysterical lines from the movie. Adrienne Shelly is the woman on the right of the above picture. She was adorable in the movie… and she was murdered at her office in NY in 2006 by an illegal alien.

Advertisements

AIPAC- the Poster Child for What’s Wrong in Washington

AIPAC’s annual policy conference is a confluence of special interest, money, and lawmakers. If there is any doubt of that, look at its lengthy list of speakers. If there is any doubt as to the intentions of AIPAC, read their mission statement for the policy conference: The conference is a celebration of the U.S.-Israel partnership and the premier opportunity for every attendee to lobby their Congressional office to advance the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Whereas last year’s speech by AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr was primarily about the existential threat of Iran, this year’s speech was about the existential threat of those that would question the intent of U.S. pro-Israel legislation. Without naming any names, mind you. Of course this is once again improperly framed as an attack on Jewish “dual loyalties.”

“The scurrilous charge of dual loyalty is a signal, and that signal, amplified by today’s social media, is now empowering people who have long-opposed our cause, our movement, and frankly, everything we have built. Now we see the intense hatred of the Jewish state is creeping from the margins towards the center of our politics — places where political coalitions are built, places where this nation’s leaders gather to debate and make decisions.”

Howard, why don’t you just say Ilhan Omar?

How about if I make some inferences now, but mine will not be incorrect, as was the framing of Ilhan Omar’s statements about the questionable legislation the US is creating on behalf of Israel and the questionable impact of money on the process of legislation as somehow being anti-Semitic, how about if I do that?

Is the “scurrilous” charge that is a “signal,” is that a dog-whistle call from a “people who have long opposed our cause” such as a Muslim or figurative representative of Palestine “where the nation’s leaders gather” to take up anti-Semitism? Is that what you are saying Howard? Am I misreading your statement? Improperly characterizing it? Perhaps I am quite a bit closer to the mark than any mislabeling of what Ilhan Omar has said.

“If you’ve never donated to a federal campaign this is the year to start. Do all you can and even a little bit more. And don’t wait for others to step up. We are a movement of leaders.

Through the years there have been others who have attacked us, who have attacked our right to make ourselves heard. Each time we have responded as citizens should. We mobilized; we made our case; we made our movement even stronger. That’s what must happen now.

Israel’s antagonists have decided to mount a political assault on us. In return, they must get a political response. That response must be large; it must be sweeping; and it must define our movement for years to come. “

Here are some appropriate and truthful statements from Howard. They need more money donated to the cause to fight for what AIPAC believes in on behalf of Israel and to counter-attack the “antagonists”. Fine, have this debate in the realm of politics and not false narratives. The truth is, Israel is not above reproach as Howard would have it. Israel’s motives are not unblemished; it’s history not pure or divine. Israel should be questioned and the motivation of US politics should be questioned and any false narratives met with the truth of the ugliness of the narrative itself as witnessed in this speech by AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr.

We should question how it is that pushing confrontation between Israel and Iran and Palestinians through the administration’s policies is beneficial to any party. We should not only question this legislation- Israel Anti-Boycott Act , we should denounce it as unconstitutional. We should also have a larger debate about the influence of money on US policy and realize that nothing shall ever be as the framers intended until we remove it’s influence altogether. All of this without the demonization of reasonable dissent of the status quo or the mislabeling, misdirection, and pure, talking-head mumbo jumbo of which our current politics and pundits are so fond.


Mueller’s Report was Written for the House of Representatives

Attorney General William Barr’s brief report on “The Special Counsel’s report”:

“confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination…” is in parenthesis implying that either this paraphrasing of “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference…” was offered by Mueller as a subtitle of the complete report, or that it is implicit as an interchangeable title. Is the Mueller report entirely about prosecutions and declinations?

I think the art-of-phrasing was intended to have us infer as much even though the regulations concerning Special Counsel’s report do indeed state: “He or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel,” they do not state that the special counsel shall report exclusively these items. Further, the original Special Counsel regulations stated that the counsel shall report to the US House of Representatives: “any substantial and credible information … that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.”

It’s likely this statement, “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination…,” which is in lowercase, was cherry-picked out of the document as an improper label for the whole of the document, even if in substance the whole of the document could casually adhere to that heading. I feel confident that this document was written fully believing it would end up in the hands of the House one way or the other and therefore is a larger document than merely itemized prosecutions and declinations.

This would be the second quotation from the Mueller report. If in fact this report is intended for the House, then there is a rift between the phrase that Barr attributes to the statement, “…did not find..,” and Mueller’s actual statement, “…did not establish.” To “establish” within Mueller’s mandate would mean to be capable of “proving beyond a reasonable doubt.” He is using this word for Congress, pointing to facts that wrongdoing exist, just not in a case Muller could justify. To “not find” implies the matter was already figuratively adjudicated. Realizing there is an issue beyond the court system in the word, “establish,” implies the underlying behavior is meant for a nonjudicial review. The House would not be leading a criminal prosecution. This leads me to believe this document was crafted for Congress.

“…but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” followed by the third actual quote from Mueller’s report, “…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” In the following paragraph AG Barr inserts the opinion that clearly Mueller intended for Barr to decide on the matter if Trump committed obstruction of justice. We’ve already come to the understanding that Mueller himself believes it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so why would he ask Barr to come to the same conclusion? No.

Mueller offered positions of guilt and innocence so that it may be determined if Trump’s actions are unbecoming of a president, not to conclude he should or shouldn’t be tried for obstruction. Mueller opted to not make a traditional judgment, not with the intent of leaving it to someone else to make a traditional judgment. Duh. This is meant for the House to examine.

It is clear that AG Barr has a very limited view of what information is pertinent for the public’s understanding, or more likely, what he wants us to understand. Barr has reduced this to that which only could possibly directly affect Donald Trump’s legal standing and inserted the ultimate decision that there is no case to be made against Donald Trump either by Mueller’s own words or the “just” decision that Barr himself has made. End of case, as far as Barr is concerned.

Barr goes on to describe how he shall eventually create a report suitable for public consumption after much redacting. He makes no mention of Congress and how a unredacted version could and should be submitted to a House committee…where it belongs.

No my friends, this report is meant for one of the committees in the House of Representatives. It needs to arrive in it’s whole state; complete in both style and content. Not only is it meant for the House, it is written in the words of Robert Mueller speaking to the House.

Trump’s Justification for Hating on McCain by The Daily Caller

I think it is well worth investigating “The Daily Caller’s” justification for Trump’s recent ugly statements about John McCain. Not because the justification is warranted, but because deep-diving into such claims is the only way to effectively argue with the Trump cult. An argument not merely about the unsubstantiated claim, but a larger argument about how the cult is duped through their own willingness to believe anything that supports their beliefs, as well as the easily exploited trait of needing no more information than the headline or cursory examination of a story’s contents.

The claim: John McCain leaked Christopher Steele’s raw data report later known as “The Steele Dossier,” as proven in David Kramer’s testimony regarding Aleksej Gubarev’s lawsuit against Buzzfeed for their release of the dossier. A case which has been thrown out of court.

It is this characterization upon which Donny Trump presumably later on tweets out this new found info, second or third hand lies and misrepresentations as absorbed into his thick, dull noggin, to be followed up by further ill-advised hate filled statements about John McCain.

These tweets are later buttressed and given full endorsement as a correct portrayal by The Daily Caller.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/19/buzzfeed-mccain-associate-dossier/

“A longtime associate of late Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain provided a copy of the infamous Steele dossier to BuzzFeed News, according to an explosive court filing released Wednesday.”

The implication is that this was at the direction of John McCain. It wasn’t. Not even remotely. Let’s take this apart.

“Longtime associate,” what’s the implication? They are friends? They worked together? They aren’t friends and they never have worked together in any circumstances. David Kramer worked at the McCain Institute for International Leadership- a name designated to this human rights and civic engagement initiative from its base at Arizona State University in Wash DC. It is named in honor of the McCain family, it isn’t/wasn’t run by John McCain. Kramer is no more an employee, associate, or friend of John McCain then a librarian at the Jimmy Carter library is an employee or friend or “associate” of Jimmy Carter.

David Kramer was eventually led to Christopher Steele by Sir Andrew Wood, who similarly made the same bad inference by assuming that since Kramer worked at the McCain Institute, he must be an “associate” of John McCain. Kramer had run into McCain throughout the years at various conferences and during some testimony in Congress and this was in fact the way he would reach out to McCain again, through their slight connection at an annual conference of the Halafax forum unrelated to Kramer’s employment. This arrangement was made through McCain’s staffer Chris Brose. Brose was Kramer’s contact thereafter, not John McCain.

In Kramer’s testimony, McCain is at best a peripheral character. They did not subsequently meet to discuss the dissemination of the dossier; they had virtually no contact whatsoever aside from their eventual meeting in DC where Kramer handed off the dossier to McCain and suggested he give the dossier to the FBI, a suggestion that was probably unnecessary, but Kramer wanted to transmit what Steele had intended. That’s it. That is all. Nothing else transpired between Kramer and McCain. There is zero connection between McCain and Kramer allowing the circumstances under which Buzzfeed took photos of the dossier and later published it. There is no connection between John McCain and the subsequent media outlets with which Kramer discussed the dossier.

It’s all thin implications and innuendo that The Daily Caller wants the cult reader to buy into, if they ever were to read the actual story. Certainly, the inclusion of the actual court testimony by The Daily Caller, is there to lend credence to the implication with the understanding that no cult member will ever read the damn thing.

Related to The Daily Caller’s crappy “reporting” on this subject, is the earlier report regarding the same court proceedings in which they declare:

Christopher Steele’s Deposition Shows How Little Research He Did On Dossier Target” Which is utterly idiotic.

  1. It was raw data that needed verifying this is stated over and over again in congressional testimony and in this court proceeding. NO ONE EVER FUCKING SAID THIS INFORMATION WAS VETTED. That was the point of Kramer’s getting in contact with several news sources, he wanted someone to investigate the data.
  2. Daily Caller’s story- “Christopher Steele acknowledged in a July 2018 court deposition that he relied on a “random” article posted to a CNN website as part of his research for his infamous dossier,” is idiotic cherry picking at it’s worst. Steele said: “I believe the only step I can describe within the bounds of the order is what we could call an open source search.” In other words, the only vetting of the info he can describe in this court setting, relating to this one little fucking piece of info, is the open sourcing (web searches), nothing else will be discussed in this proceeding.

The Daily Caller, runs with this misrepresented exchange about one tiny piece of the dossier as- Therefore the whole dossier is junk.


Yes, Donald Trump is a Racist and Islamophobe

Jeanine Pirro, March 9, 2019:

“Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

This is what an Islamophobic statement looks like. Not to be confused with the statement improperly characterized as anti-Semitic that the referenced Congresswoman Omar made. For this, Pirro appears to be in some unstated limbo with Fox News. She was condemned for the statement and has had one Saturday show “disappeared” from Foxs’ schedule. We know no more than that at this time.

One Week later, on Friday, March 15, 2019, 50 people are murder and at least 50 injured by a white supremacist in New Zealand. The murderer mentions Donald Trump as one of his inspirations and refers to Muslim immigrants as an “invasion” to predominately white nations.

In response to the massacre, Trump issues an ill-considered, hallmark card type tweet of “best wishes”.

Also on March 15, In a make-shift press conference for Trump’s vetoing of the bill to halt his money-grab for his anti-immigrant statement in the useless wall, Trump read a short prepared statement of support for New Zealand. He did not mention Islamophobia, hate crimes, or racism. He did not denounce any type of hate. He did immediately mention after the statement, that he had his “angel parents” with him- referring to those whom had a child murdered by an illegal immigrant, and then continued with a prepared speech regarding the Veto. Trump highlighted the incredible danger pouring in through the southern border in the way of drugs, human trafficking, and wanton murder that immigrants represented.

Now I will highlight the ad-lib, larger portion of his statement, that is the real Donald Trump:

Trump said, “People hate the word ‘invasion,’ but that’s what it is. It’s an invasion of drugs and criminals, and people-we have no idea who they are.” Let’s not pretend for a second that Trump didn’t purposefully present this word with special emphasis.

In reference to asylum seekers in country:

“When you release them (asylum seekers), they come into our society, and in many cases they’re stone cold criminals…and in many cases you have killers coming in and murderers coming in and we’re not going to allow that to happen.”

Trump’s rhetoric is describing all immigrants from the southern border. All of them. There is no differentiation between any of the very few that may have illegally crossed and turned out to be a murderer and those that have legally applied for asylum and are in detention awaiting asylum hearings.

“Changing the asylum laws which are so unfair, changing the visa lottery, chain migration. These laws are just horrendous, I won’t explain them, but everybody standing behind me knows exactly what they are. They’re dangerous for our country,” and right back to the southern border, “The border crisis is the drug crisis…” followed by statements about MS13 and more drug stuff and killers yada yada.

Now we’re getting closer to the truth, aren’t we. Aside from Norwegians, exactly who should be allowed to migrate to this country? This administrations migration policies speak for themselves.

Reporter: “Do White Nationalists pose a rising threat around the world?”

Trump: “I don’t really, I think its a small group of people that have serious problems. I guess if you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case, I don’t know enough about it, they’re just learning about the person and the people involved. but it’s certainly a terrible thing.”

White nationalism isn’t a problem. Trump doesn’t know anything about it; nobody knows anything about it. It’s limited to some outlier events by crazy people. Not a problem. End of story.

Finally, amidst Trump’s bukkake-tweetathon of the last two days:

Trump retweets this because it brings him pleasure:

He shows his solidarity with Tucker’s scumminess/racism and Judge Jeanine’s Islamophobia. Fox shouldn’t bow to being “politically correct,” they should instead “Fight for our country,” by allowing their hosts to present Islamophobic ideas.

Donny retweets this:

It is entirely clear what Donald Trump’s viewpoints are on racism and Islamophobia.

Trump’s history with Islamophobia.