Topics (1): Examining the latest round of Democratic news cycle attacks on the president.
The current slate of attacks and political maneuvering present in the news cycle represents flimsy re-treads bagged-up with some new flyweight Democratic talking points. As you read, recall that any motivation to prosecute for process crimes (witting or unwitting false testimony to investigators, for example) is a tip of the hand demonstrating a dearth of actual evidence and motivation behind partisan politics.
1. From the WSJ item and as discussed last night - all of the sudden it's a matter of extreme importance that we investigate the president for lack of disclosure following his 5 meetings with Putin. It seems that urgency corresponds with the newly minted House leadership. It seems these meetings garnered little attention or discussion in this particular context until the newly minted House leadership replete with oversight positions and subpoena power. It seems that the Democrats fished an angle out of an ocean with very few fish. FLIMSY.
2. From The Hill item and also previously discussed - polling data? Seriously, polling data - that's your angle? The worry is that Manafort shared polling data with the Ukraine; however, it was originally thought and erroneously reported to be "Russia." Oh, no! Russia! Well, Obama sent $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to the largest state sponsor of terrorism in Iran, which is now allegedly accused of testing ICBM technology under the guise of rocket launches for space travel (hmmm, wonder how they acquired the means to accomplish that, Mr. Obama), by means of 5 different flights on 4 different routes and in the form of cash and foreign currency. Now, all of the sudden, Democrats are worried about matters of national security because of polling data. DISINGENUOUS, PATHETIC AND FLIMSY.
3. Platitudinous rhetoric from partisan hacks motivated in the spirit of self-preservation deriving from The Hill piece:
“Clearly, Manafort was trying to collude with Russian agents and the question is, what did the president know?” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN. “What did Donald Trump know about this exchange of information? Did the Russians end up using this information in their efforts that took place later in the fall?”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), another member of the committee, said the revelation “should set off very big red flags for anyone.”
“It looks an awful lot like the definition of collusion, so I think we need to learn everything we can about that,” Heinrich said.
Translated: they are finding every reason they can to grind it all to a halt with one investigation after another and therefore deflect from the source of actual treason and sedition (see Clintons and Obama's 2 terms.) It's an effective strategy as the MSM will certainly embrace all of these angles while giving little or skewed attention to the truth on matters of importance and gravity. FLIMSY, DISINGENUOUS OBSTRUCTION.
4. Again in The Hill item, it gets ridiculous at a wholesale level; not that the entirety of Mueller isn't ridiculous to the same level, but I digress. The claim is simply that the Russians deployed, "an elaborate plot to use social media to spread divisive political and social content to U.S. audiences with the aim of sowing discord during the election." Well, it's cogent to argue that candidate Clinton and her long and troubled history of exposure to legal jeopardy as improperly investigated by the FBI and to her favor in that endeavor; and as reported in the MSM ad nauseam, had a far greater impact on Americans and their opinions as to whom to elect. Regardless, by doing a simple search, one can glean voluminous information about the extent to which the Russians effectively used social media to impact the 2016 presidential election. Let me save you the trouble. It's essentially the Democrats crying that sea levels are all rising dramatically because Trump and the Russians dumped a glass of water in the Atlantic. Yeah, honestly, it's that ridiculous. The ratio of politically related social media content compared against what the Russians actually did (or did not) do aligns closely with that analogy. BASELESS ARGUMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY DATA OR EVIDENCE.
5. The Hill continues with more already debunked and Democratically engineered propaganda as it relates to, "Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner in Trump Tower in June 2016." Recall that this meeting was a set-up as a larger part of the anti-Trump effort or coup d'etat, if you will, and that Veselnitskaya required special processing by the Obama administration to facilitate her trip to the US for this exact same meeting. The meeting was also scheduled based upon pretext that ended up being false and then rendering the meeting unproductive; except for the fact that now Democrats can now scream, "Look, Don Jr. met with the Russians! Collusion!" FLIMSY RE-TREAD OF A DEFEATED TALKING POINT.
6. The Hill piece hints that we're in it for the long haul; especially now that Mueller has been recently extended another 6 months. "Some reports have suggested Mueller’s final report on his findings could be imminent, while other developments indicate the probe could go on much longer." Further, "Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are planning to revive their investigation into Russian interference, equipped with a newfound majority in the lower chamber that affords them new subpoena and oversight powers as they eye new probes into Trump, his business and administration." AGAIN, FULL OBSTRUCTION MODE HERE.