The Wiki-Leaks “Dump” pre-dated when Roger Stone supposedly told Trump. In other words… the information about the dump was already publicized BEFORE Roger Stone “told” Trump. While I do not agree with everything below, it is humorously pointed out that Congress and the media are clueless about htis simple fact.
Dennis Prager invited Andrew McCarthy on his radio program to discuss his (McCarthy’s) article entitled, “Stone Indictment Makes Clear There Was No Trump-Russia Conspiracy”. Key to the article is this short paragraph:
- It is very simple. If the Trump campaign had been in an espionage conspiracy with Russia to hack Democratic email accounts, why would the campaign have needed Stone to try to figure out what stolen information WikiLeaks had and when it would release that information?
Yep. There you have it. Unless it’s as bad as Sidney Powell thinks it may be if Andrew Weissmann writes the report for Mueller (), McCarthy may be right that Trump will be vindicated.
NOTE: During the interview Andrew McCarthy responded, “Yes, I think…” which reminded me of a Boogie Down Productions song, “My Philosophy” — so I spliced it in.
Sean Hannity interviews Jerome Corsi. I first want to say that I am not a fan of Jerome – at all. BUT, the interview sheds a lot of light on the entire case, and he (if this is true) should win his case easily. But discussion about Roger Stone and Julian Assange add some substance to the case[s]. Good stuff, I hope it helps fill-in holes for the listener. Here is more information:
- Could Jerome Corsi’s Lawsuit Destroy The Mueller Investigation? (American Thinker)
- Judge Denies Mueller Request for Delay in Corsi Case (NewsMax)
- So The FBI Staged Quite The Show In Arresting Roger Stone (HotAir)
- Stone Indictment Follows Concerning Mueller Pattern (The Hill)
HOT AIR reports on this:
- “…Trump’s White House has pursued what is arguably the harshest set of policies toward Russia since the fall of Communism…” | Vanity Fair
Larry Elder reads from a Vanity Fair article that is entitled, “Is This It? A Trump-Hater’s Guide To Mueller Skepticism.” The “Sage” also plays a recent interview on CNN of Jerry Nadler by Jake Tapper.
Here is one of the powerful paragraphs from the article:
- Certainly, Trump’s ethical standards are low, but if sleaziness were a crime then many more people from our ruling class would be in jail. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to try to find out in advance what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to take a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer promising a dossier of dirt on Clinton. (Just as, it should be mentioned, it is sleazy, but not criminal, to pay a guy to go to Russia to put together a dossier of dirt on Trump. This is one reason why the Clinton campaign lied about its connection to the Steele dossier, albeit without the disadvantage of being under oath.) It is sleazy, but not criminal, to pursue a business deal while you’re running for president. Mueller has nailed people for trying to prevaricate about their sleaze, so we already have a couple of guilty pleas over perjury, with more believed to be on the way. But the purpose of the investigation was to address suspicions of underlying conspiracy—that is, a plan by Trump staffers to get Russian help on a criminal effort. Despite countless man-hours of digging, this conspiracy theory, the one that’s been paying the bills at Maddow for a couple of years now, has come no closer to being borne out.
BTW, to be clear, I am neither a fan or Corsi or Stone. I think both men are wacko conspiracy guys (one of my stated issues with Trump and his going on the Alex Jones Show). But that aside, we will see in the end where Corsi’s refusals lead… to the truth? This upload may disappear at some point (not because of a conspiracy, but because of copyright issues.) Good analysis starts at the 30-minute mark.
Mark Levin slams the choice by Tom Perez to sue the Trump admin. This opens up soo much legalities (counter lawsuits, discovery, depositions, and the like) that will allow the Republicans and the Trump administration to focus on the Clinton Foundation, the Steele Dossier, and all the other avenues that Democrats used to try and stop Trump from being nominated (and their attempts to impeach him) — even Bernie Sanders.
Because the Democrats are soo reactionary and trying to please their base…. this action was not thought through well. Which is a political plus for our side.
UPDATE! via THE DAILY CALLER and the NYTs:
Larry Elder discusses in the following clips some of the hypocritical positions the Democrats have in regard to accepting or rejecting intelligent agencies positions — selective outrage in other words. The above audio includes a partial interview with Ed Klein as well (interview begins at the 6:28 mark). Mr. Klein’s books and more can be found here: http://edwardklein.com/
I believe this line about 17-intelligence agencies saying the “Russians” did it is still the same evidence as when I posted this: “NO, 17-U.S. AGENCIES DID NOT SAY RUSSIA HACKED DEM E-MAILS.”
But many issues have still negated the narrative by the Democrats in this regard…see:
The bottom line is that even if the Russian’s have an involvement, it didn’t change the outcome of the election. Whatsoever. And the leaks from Podesta’s emails and the DNC were from insiders, not Russians.
Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:
- There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
- The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
- Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
- Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
- What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.
Unfortunately, Russia being behind the hacks is more conjecture than fact. Some have been leaked by Democrats themselves, others may have been leaked by NSA officials getting back at Hillary for the death of some intelligence agency employee’s and the worry that her reckless behavior with State Secrets would continue in the White House. Annnd may some were done by Wikileaks. The funny thing is however that Hillary denies her emails were at the same time she blames Russia.
Don’t forget that some are saying that a portion of these WIkiLeaks came from a Democrat operative, that dies in the nick of time:
Larry Elder dives into the media bias surrounding collusion with the Hillary campaign in getting he elected. As Larry notes, this is not the first time collusion like this has been discovered, remember “Journolist“? Of course this is not new news, but it is instructive to hear it once in a while.
Hillary’s campaign director, Robby Mook, get’s pressed on the issue of comparison.