Star editor Mike Fannin’s second DUI mugshot
When you unleash a seriously good expose, you shouldn’t need to engage in behind-the-scenes manipulations for affirmation…
Yet that appears to be exactly what the Kansas City Star’s been doing ever since its attempted “bust” of newly elected Missouri senator Josh Hawley went down right before the election last October.
The newspaper used last minute, spoon fed information alleging Hawley’s wrongful use of political consultants to try and save Star -backed candidate Claire McCaskill‘s failing campaign.
A few days after its “scoop” failed to attain liftoff, the Star doubled down by trotting out disgraced editor Mike Fannin to try and breath life into it.
“We have the story documented,” Fannin argued. “Those documents spell out clearly what happened: That Hawley turned over management of his office to consultants almost immediately after being elected and contrary to what he told the public. This is an easy story to stand by. The sourcing and reporting are unimpeachable.”
Unimpeachable or not, McCaskill took an election day bullet and the Star continued for weeks to try and get Hawley in trouble.
Which brings us to today…
“State Opens Hawley Inquiry,” shouts the newspaper’s front page headline alongside an unflattering pic of Hawley.
So now here’s how the journalism game is being played…
The Star is reporting that a legitimate-sounding group called the American Democracy Legal Fund has sparked an investigation by the Missouri Attorney General’s office into Hawley based largely on Fannin’s Star story.
“This constitutes a misuse of public funds,” the group’s complaint reads.
Conveniently, the Star somehow “obtained” a copy of the attorney general’s confirmation to the ADLF of an investigation into Hawley.
In other words, unable to spark the investigation based solely on its reporting, the newspaper succeeded in siccing a faux “nonprofit” on Hawley that Wikipedia notes “has been accused of existing solely to create ‘a steady stream of lawsuits accusing Republicans of ethics and campaign finance violations.”
The National Review has called the dude behind the group, a “right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin”
Cozy.
Now let’s follow the bouncing ball.
A pro McCaskill-anti Hawley group feeds the Star some “dirt” on Hawley right before the election, then uses the newspaper’s “news story” to file a complaint against him, and then feeds the newspaper the Missouri attorney general’s letter confirming an investigation into the complaint.
Talk about manufacturing news…
Unbiased journalism at its finest by what’s left of Kansas City’s newspaper of record.
“Talk about manufacturing the news…”
– and crimes as the lyin’ liberal left/mueller et al are trying (and failing) to do; KC or DC, liberalism is a disease – Hawley and the Teflon Don ride on!
😎
Sounds like the “Dossier” all over again.
American Democracy Legal Fund. David Brock. Snort.No longer even a pretense of legitimate journalism.
Au contraire…
The KC Star doesn’t mind the pretender as long as it helpful to their reporting.
Here is Hawley’s twitter response.
“This complaint about my work as AG by Hillary Clinton henchman David Brock is totally absurd. This is the SEVENTH legal complaint Democrats have launched against me in last 18 months. All frivolous. All political. Not one has succeeded. Election is over and Dems lost. Get over it”
So what are the SPECIFIC statutory prohibitions to “outside consultants” “contributing” to AG Hawley’s campaign. What defines “Contribute”, when did they “Contribute” what did they “Contribute” and how will that be determined?
It’s all bullshit from David Brock, a Democratic hit-man-assassin in the employ of Progressives who with the assistance of the K.C. Red Star will do and say anything to destroy Hawley. After all, they (Progressives) are far more virtuous and moral than you are and stand, every day, as they roll out of bed in Mission Hills, on the high ground. Now shut up and get back to work in your disappearing middle class miasma while we hold our noses and shit once more into some tall cotton made possible by the vibrancy of the Obama Economy.
All I ask from the national and local media is that they be somewhat consistent. If you’re going to aggressively go after people of one political party (see the first 2 years of Jackass Trump), do the same for both. If you’re going to be a lapdog in your political coverage of one party (see the 8 years of His Majesty King Nothing Obama), then be a useless flunky towards both parties.
But when a media outlet chooses one of those approaches for when one letter is next to the name, and the other tact for when the other letter is next to the name, that simply ain’t “journalism” under the plain meaning that term has always held. Rather, it’s advocacy, propaganda, partisan ideologue group-think, and not worth paying an ounce of attention to or money for (sorry in advance to my old leftist friend Jeeves for ending a sentence on a couple of prepositions).
Which is why, in an already highly challenging era for newspapers, the “Star” has an extremely limited shelf life and future as a going business concern, methinks.
Your use of Fannin’s mugshot is the tawdriest, sleaziest, yellowist form of journalistic ‘payback’ yet in a continuing obsession over The Star’s efforts to hold public servants accountable. The Star, whom you’d run back to in a second with just the snap of a finger, has a different political lodestar than you and that makes you barking mad.
It doesn’t matter to me that you’d embrace someone like Roger Stone, a Republican hit-man-assassin who with the assistance of Julian Assange will do and say anything to destroy democracy as long as he took town the local daily paper with it. But you could’ve used a different image – from Linked In maybe? – rather than take the lowest of low roads.
BTW, any serious journalist wouldn’t rely on Wikipedia as a sole source for any accusation whether from the left or right. [The NR, a blatantly partisan outlet only slightly better than, say, Breitbart, doesn’t count.]
Yeah, right.
If we don’t get our information from the “Barking Mad” howling at the moon Lawrence O’Donnell, or MSNBC, than we are uninformed.
“Blatantly Partisan”?
What a fuckin joke.
There is NO, none, zero, nada, nyet, pretense that the local and national media are over 90% LIBERAL. 92% of all coverage of Donald Trump is NEGATIVE.
So excuse me!!!! So sorry!!! Mea fuckin culpa for actually looking at Fox News, or for that matter Breitbart to get a break from the never, never, never ending monotony of negative coverage of the increase from 1% growth to 3.5% growth. The reduction in unemployment. The trade agreements that will reduce the onerous and pernicious imbalance previously shouldered by Americans. The roaring economy, the dramatic consumer confidence increase. Fuck your Progressive Media liars, who ARE THE ENEMY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, who have perfected the “Gaslighting” of the American people.
There is no more cancerous, necrotic force in the free world today, than the cadre of agenda driven “Objective” “Journalists” in the legacy media that continually suppress relative context, obfuscate important facts, emphasize and create lies ex nihilo and gaslight those with only a cursory interest in the truth.
America’s media today, is a replica of 1950’s – Soviet style Pravda and anyone who thinks they are finding the “Truth” on ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, The LA TIMES, the Chicago Tribune, The Kansas City Star et al, should do us all a favor, cleanse the gene pool and suffocate themselves between the varicose veined legs of Joy Bewhore.
“There is NO, none, zero, nada, nyet, pretense that the local and national media are over 90% LIBERAL. 92% of all coverage of Donald Trump is NEGATIVE.”
Dunno where you got those stats, but whatever. Keep believing that if it makes you sleep better. And say hi to S. Curry for me the next time your group discusses how the moon landing was faked.
Or you could check out a copy of “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” by R. Hofstadter. Warning, you might squirm a bit, though.
https://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-Style-American-Politics/dp/0307388441
Dunno, Rick…
Anybody can write a story that you can link to, but when it comes to “news” organizations like the KC Star and CNN, I think it’s fairly obvious that you’re on the losing end of that argument.
How about you find a link for us that proves that 90-plus percent of people living in the Greater Kansas City area hate the Chiefs
It’s not up to me to provide a link. We were told that 90% of the media is liberal with 92% negative towards Trump and I’m still waiting for someone to cite a source to validate those numbers.
And if I’m on the losing end then why did the House flip to the Dems, including KS-03? Trump’s days are numbered, only he (and many on this site) just can’t accept that.
BTW, I had to repeat and refine my msg because I typed the original reply last night on a different computer and you’re too lazy to refresh the comments section. Everything still stands, though. The Hofstadter book is more prescient now than when it was published in the early 60s.
OK, one more time.
It’s not up to me to find a link to anything. We were told that 90% of the media is liberal and 92% of its coverage of Trump is negative. I’m just waiting for someone to cite a source to validate that claim.
And if I’m on the losing side, then why did the House flip to the Dems, including KS-03?
I typed the original reply on a different computer last night and you were too lazy to refresh the comments section so I had to refine and re-send it. Everything still stands, though. The Hofstadter book is just as relevant now as it was when it was published in the early 60s.
“There is NO, none, zero, nada, nyet, pretense that the local and national media are over 90% LIBERAL. 92% of all coverage of Donald Trump is NEGATIVE.”
Dunno how you got those stats, but whatever gets you thru the night; it’s the almighty and influential liberal media that has given us a “Republican” president and his toady Congress (at least for three more weeks).
Say hi from me to S. Curry when your group discusses how the moon landing was faked.
When the winds of change don’t fit your world view, it’s always due to a plot by some nefarious forces and the messenger must be first to be lined up against a wall.
Rick wants to “Gas Light” us as much as the media does.
Anyone with above room temp IQ, knows the Legacy media is OVERWHELMINGLY liberal, but sure, let’s all pretend that it isn’t so Rick can feel better.
By the way, Wikipedia is blatantly Progressive.
Here is one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh…
“White pride is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints.[”
vs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bl…
Black pride is a movement in response to dominant white cultures and ideologies that encourages black people to celebrate black culture and embrace their African heritage
vs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga…
Gay pride or LGBT pride is the positive stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to promote their self-affirmation, dignity, equality rights, increase their visibility as a social group, build community, and celebrate sexual diversity and gender variance.
Fuck Wikipedia.
Hey Rick, could you put in a good word for me in the Progressive Cathedral?
When it was discovered that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was guilty of violations involving nearly $2 million – an amount that dwarfs the $280,000 in Cohen’s case – the Obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute. Instead, the matter was quietly disposed of by a $375,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission.
I’m gonna do 4 years in the pen. Maybe some sympathetic “Pen And Phone” media publications will throw me a metaphorical bone and publish this fact. Then, maybe I will dodge any responsibility for my crimes like Democrats.
Understand the difference between the two and you’ll understand the difference in the punishment/penalty.
More on the “Objective” media.
What a joke.
“The liberal media’s war against President Trump was as fierce as ever during the first four months of 2018, but the onslaught appears to be for naught: In the face of massive and hostile coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC, Trump’s overall job approval rating actually rose, from 37 percent in mid-December to roughly 43 percent at the end of April.
The Media Research Center studied all broadcast evening news coverage of the President from January 1 through April 30, and found 90 percent of the evaluative comments about Trump were negative — precisely the same hostile tone we documented in 2017.
But unlike last year, when the RealClearPolitics average depicted a slow but steady erosion in the President’s job approval numbers, the public has apparently warmed to Trump in 2018, even as the networks are as frosty as ever.
For this report, MRC analysts examined all 1,065 network evening news stories about President Trump and top members of his administration during the first four months of this year. The coverage totalled a whopping 1,774 minutes, or roughly one-third of all evening news airtime.
(For comparison, in 2015 and 2016, coverage of President Obama amounted to just ten percent of all evening news airtime.)
Nearly two-fifths (39%) of the TV coverage we examined focused on Trump scandals and controversies, while 45 percent was devoted to various policy issues. The remaining airtime was spent on controversies involving other top Trump officials, such as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, or did not involve specific topics.
The Russia “collusion” story was given by far the most airtime — 321 minutes, or nearly one-fifth of all Trump administration coverage. The legal battle involving porn star Stormy Daniels, as well as allegations against the President involving other women, ate up another 92 minutes of airtime.
Network coverage of those topics, plus a host of other smaller controversies involving the President, was almost entirely negative: of the 598 statements we tallied about Trump’s personal controversies or scandals, virtually all of them (579, or 97%) were negative.”
But sure, if we all don’t get on the bandwagon and get caught reading an article from a conservative news site, we are “Partisan”.
What a fuckin joke.
“The Star’s efforts to hold public servants accountable.”
Correction. “The Star’s efforts to hold REPUBLICAN public servants accountable.”
And therein lies the reason why no one trusts the media any longer.
Good point…
Now they’re jumping for joy over the Hawley “investigation” – it’s really kinda sad/lame the extent to which they live for affirmation.
Not sure if things have changed that much in recent years – given that 90 percent of the staff has taken a bullet and those who remain do so at their own peril, or…
The ethical reporting standards have just relaxed – or all but gone away – or I just didn’t notice so much when I was there toiling alongside
Geezus Krist you Trump folks are a whiny bunch. It’s as if you think rich, white, christian hypocrites don’t already run this country. The thought of that changing must be a scary thing.
There’s no shortage of “whiny” folks, Jimbo, on what the Stomper likes to call, “both sides of the aisle.
If you doubt that, go back and watch some footage from the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings
No, I get it. I never said it didn’t go both ways. My point is that complaining about Agent Orange getting so much negative coverage is comical. Dude brings 100% of it on himself. He’s a name-calling 12 year old with a Twitter account. His cultists KNOW he lies every time he opens his mouth, but they don’t care. They simply don’t care. Drain the swamp. LOL Mexico will pay for the wall. LOL We’re bringing coal back. LOL I support farmers. LOL I only hire the best people. LOL I didn’t know about the payment to Stormy Daniels. LOL I have no business dealings or anything to do with Russia. LOL I’ll be too busy to play golf. LOL Daddy gave me a small loan to start my business. LOL
Listen, politicians are scumbag liars by profession. ALL of them. But, The Great Pumpkin is in a class by himself. We’ll get past this buffoon eventually and be onto a new buffoon. In the meantime, I’ll continue to call a spade a spade.
Except for one thing, he has accomplished a number of things; tax reform, renegotiated trade pacts, judges, North Korean and Iranian situations…
It may not be pretty or wildly classy but look at all the stuff that fell between the cracks with the Big O, even though he was far more eloquent, etc
They do. And will for a long time.
People read the KC Star? Seriously, the last time I held a copy was to light the barbeque grill.
That’s cool, Lance…
But was it like a 10 year-old newspaper?
We’ve entered dangerous territory. Democrats no longer think elections are necessary.
Investors Daily agrees Rick. Facts are facts, the blatantly partisan, press pack dogs that make up the lion’s share of the 4th estate are vehemently anti-Trump.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
Here ya go Rick.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/02/liberal-media/
https://www.westernjournal.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/11/meet-the-liberal-press/
https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/
This could go on for days…
From UCLA Not exactly a bastion of conservative thought.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664
Quotes from the MSM journalist’s themselves, admitting liberal bias.
https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-one
“You know, it’s fairly well discussed inside CBS News that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value….They never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party….I didn’t sense any resistance in doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration — by anybody, ever. I have done stories that I perceived were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this [the Obama] administration.”
— Former CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson on CNN’s Reliable Sources, April 20, 2014.
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man….”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed….Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this….When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico’s Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN’s coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
“The mainstream press is liberal….Since the civil rights and women’s movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of ‘new’ or ‘creative’ class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women’s rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt….If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins.”
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, ‘Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.’
“I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo.”
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think….Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?”…
Time’s Mark Halperin: “I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it….If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn’t done the right way.”
— MSNBC’s Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
“From a reporter’s point of view, it’s almost hard to remain objective because it’s infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that.”
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
“If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists.”
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
“I don’t know if it’s 95 percent…[but] there are enough [liberals] in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction….It’s an endemic problem. And again, it’s the reason why for 40 years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake.”
— ABC News political director Mark Halperin appearing on The Hugh Hewitt Show, October 30, 2006.
“The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions….We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.”
— Washington Post “Book World” editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post’s “daily in-house electronic critiques,” as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.
“There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous. That’s different from the media doing it’s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.”
— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.
“I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.”
— Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.
“I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith….I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism….You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.
“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News….But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.
“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS, as quoted by Chris Matthews later that day on MSNBC’s Hardball.
By the way, all of these news organizations, sometimes, to their detriment, repeat their own narratives. Even FOX news. It’s weird.
Here is an example of FOX screwing itself.
Comey’s revelation that the E Mail investigation into Hillary’s server right before the election, was, in NO WAY, an FBI “Untouchable” doing the right thing. Anthony Weiner’s laptop has, to this day, never been fully reviewed by any law enforcement agency, other than the NYPD. After securing the laptop, the NYPD, based on the review of, as I have read, really damaging evidence of sexual impropriety, financial and political malfeasance and criminal behaviour of the Clintons and other Democrats, was going to seat a Grand Jury. Comey, seeing that he couldn’t keep the cat in the bag and knowing that there were not 11, but thousands more of Clinton Emails on the computer, was forced to reopen the investigation. Only, it was an investigation “Light”. 11 emails my ass. Loretta Lynch, called the NYPD and told them, that if they continued to pursue this line of inquiry, that they were going to reopen the Eric Garner investigation and put NYPD cops in jail.
Currently the never ending BS about Mike Flynn and his plea, never mentions, that he was up to his ass in trouble with his dealing with the Turks. That is why he is taking the plea to lying to the FBI, even though he didn’t lie to the FBI. CNN, MSNBC I never hear them mention that, even though it would support their narrative, just like I never hear FOX mention the heat from the DOJ to suppress the laptop evidence. Comey was and still is, taking a bullet for the Democrats over that laptop. He was trying his best, and, in fact did a great job of suppressing evidence that would have been very damaging if not crippling to the Hillary campaign. He was FORCED to reopen the investigation.
My guess, is that after the Mueller report comes out, if it ever does, than directly after that, Trump will declassify everything. Release the Kracken!!
The supremely angry and egotistical (No diss, just the truth.) President will declassify everything up to and including the Kennedy assassination and UFO visits from little green men. The new Attorney General, will do his best Oprah imitation and “You get an indictment! and You get an indictment! and YOU GET AN INDICTMENT!!! Any and all babies and sacred cows will go out with the bathwater and ANYONE who lied to Congress, the FBI, or jaywalked will get an indictment.
It is a cleansing, that the corrupt, venal, partisan and bloated DOJ, FBI, State Department and previous administration is sorely in need of.
Get your tray tables and seats in the upright position, it is going to be a hell of a ride.
Wow, is this a hobby blog now? No posts for two weeks now, averaging about 5 posts a month.