Loading...
Title : A few things
link : A few things
A few things
That was on FOX? Shep Smith offers a surprisingly good exposure of the right's many lies about the Uranium One deal. But he left out one important fact:If Trump were really concerned about Rosatom's ownership of an American uranium mine, he could force a divestiture.
One Executive Order. That's all it would take. This fact alone proves that the whole charge is bogus.
Scandal, nothingburger, or trap? I'm suspicious of Jason Leopold's latest.
On Aug. 3 of last year, just as the US presidential election was entering its final, heated phase, the Russian foreign ministry sent nearly $30,000 to its embassy in Washington. The wire transfer, which came from a Kremlin-backed Russian bank, landed in one of the embassy’s Citibank accounts and contained a remarkable memo line: “to finance election campaign of 2016.”That's not a lot of money. Why on earth would Russia label the transfers "to finance election campaign of 2016"? That's akin to a gang of bank robbers spray-painting the words "GETAWAY CAR" on their getaway car.
That wire transfer is one of more than 60 now being scrutinized by the FBI and other federal agencies investigating Russian involvement in the US election. The transactions, which moved through Citibank accounts and totaled more than $380,000, each came from the Russian foreign ministry and most contained a memo line referencing the financing of the 2016 election.
The money wound up at Russian embassies in almost 60 countries from Afghanistan to Nigeria between Aug. 3 and Sept. 20, 2016. It is not clear how the funds were used. At least one transaction that came into the US originated with VTB Bank, a financial institution that is majority-owned by the Kremlin.
Anyone wishing to pump that kind of money into the Trump campaign -- or any other campaign -- need merely donate 50 bucks at a time. Absolutely no-one keeps track of the small donors. Ding ding ding, over and over again. A computer program could do it. It's a nearly fool-proof method.
So what's the deal with those transfers? I have a theory.
By August 3, the media was already talking about the Trump/Russia connection. It would have made sense for Russia to make a modest donation to the Clinton campaign in order to besmirch her. This is, in fact, a classic Roger Stone tactic -- arranging for an enemy candidate to receive "donations" rom a group disliked by the general public. In 1972, George McGovern got money from an organization called "Gays for McGovern."
Speaking of dirty tricks...
"Believe Women" is already being used against Bill Clinton. Check out Caitlan Flanagan's scurrilous piece in The Atlantic...
Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.This is crap.
It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.
Bill Clinton was not given any kind of a free pass. He was subjected to a tireless, ruthless inquisition by enemies who were utterly ruthless and extremely well-funded.
Flanagan refuses to offer her readers a glimpse at any of the evidence that these women lied, and that their stories transmogrified when the payout became apparent. Flanagan's deceptive account of the Broaddrick story is particularly infuriating: There's a damned good reason why even the National Fucking Enquirer wouldn't touch her story (and that reason is not because the National Enquirer is part of the Evil Penismonster Conspiracy Against Women.)
I too say that we must believe the women. Not all women: Women are just as likely as men to be corruptible, bribe-able, and blackmailable -- and by the way, they are just as likely to go bonkers. But some women are superbly resistant to corruption.
In fact, some women are downright heroic.
You know I believe? Susan McDougal. She was imprisoned on bullshit charges and assured that she would walk -- and no doubt prosper, financially -- if she recited the script that the Republicans wanted her to recite.
I also believe Julie Hiatt Steele, the brave woman who proved Kathleen Willey a liar. Please note that propagandists like Caitlan Flanagan refuse to mention Steele. (So where do you get the best borscht in St. Petersburg, Caitlan?) The younger generation is not being told her story. The following was published in March of 2001:
Julie Hiatt Steele, hounded and prosecuted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment campaign of 1998-99, is facing severe financial and personal difficulties arising from Starr's vendetta against her.Here's a recent tweet from Julie Hiatt Steele:
Steele hasn't worked since February 1998, when she submitted an affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case undermining the credibility of Kathleen Willey, a one-time Clinton supporter who achieved notoriety by going on the Sixty Minutes television program in March 1998 and accusing Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances.
Steele lost her employment when the affidavit and her refusal to go along with Willey's version of events became public knowledge. Subsequently she became the target of an extraordinary campaign of prosecutorial terror and intimidation by Starr's office.
Steele was dragged before two grand juries. Her daughter and brother, as well as a former lawyer and accountant, were also interrogated. She was forced to turn over tax and bank records, credit reports and telephone records to Starr's investigators. Most despicably, the Office of the Independent Counsel threatened to move against Steele's parental rights, making public the fact that it was looking into the procedures—which were, in fact, entirely legal—by which she had adopted her son in Romania.
Ultimately, in January 1999, Starr indicted Steele on three counts of obstructing justice and one charge of making false statements. She faced the possibility of 35 years in jail and a one million dollar fine. Starr's office pursued its legally baseless and vindictive case against Steele to trial in May 1999. The case ended in a hung jury and mistrial, a humiliating defeat for Starr. His office decided not to pursue a retrial.
Starr's conduct toward Steele was of a piece with his legal attack on other would-be witnesses against the Clintons, including Susan McDougal, whom he kept in prison for 18 months on contempt charges. In both cases, Starr used his legal powers to prosecute and harass people who refused to give testimony that supported his vendetta against Clinton. Both McDougal and Steele assert that Starr and his band of legal toughs persecuted them because they refused to give false testimony as demanded by the Independent Counsel.
Having run through her savings and unable to work for emotional and physical reasons since her trial ended, Steele, a divorced mother of two grown daughters and a 10-year-old son, now faces the loss of her house in Virginia.
Starr wanted us locked up for refusing to lie. Starr, via the OIC, informed me that they needed a Kathleen Willey grope. They said I could pick my own date, it could be consensual or not. Refusal would result in indictment. I refused & indictedIn a later tweet, she says that she was acquitted "but lost everything but our dignity."
"Believe Women"? No. Believe the RIGHT women. Believe the women who don't take the pay-off. Believe the women who act selflessly and with courage. Believe women who would rather lose everything than kowtow to the right-wing manipulators. Believe the women who, when society hands them lined paper, have the courage to write the other way.
Believe Susan McDougal. Believe Julie Hiatt Steele.
Don't believe Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey or Juanita Broaddrick. And in the future, do NOT believe Caitlyn Flanagan.
You've heard the phrase "A wolf in sheep's clothing"? People forget that half of all wolves are female.
The Future. Lest you think that this blog exists purely to defend the Clintons -- with whom I've often disagreed on policy -- let's consider the next election. We don't know yet whom the Dems will choose. If they choose Biden -- well, I know something about Biden that you do not. Let's leave it at that.
As a thought experiment, let's posit that Al Franken jumps into the race (even though he says he won't). Everyone loves Al, right? I'd vote for him. Hell, I'd work for him. But if he got any traction, if he got the nomination -- well, you know damn well what would happen.
He'll be accused of committing acts of sexual abuse during his SNL days.
That's not just a prediction. It's a mortal lock. It's an absolute certainty.
And on cue, right-wing plants in the "liberal" media (why are you squirming, Caitlan?) will tell Dems that we must always Believe Women.
Never forget: The Alt Right has LIMITLESS funds. They can pay millions to make any smear -- however baseless, however inane -- seem credible.
Can you be 100 percent certain that (oh, say) Laraine Newman would refuse an offer of $20 million to tell lies about Franken? Maybe she would. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure that she would. But can you be 100 percent certain that every woman who worked on SNL (both behind the scenes and on camera) during Franken's time on the show would refuse an offer of $20 million? Can you be absolutely certain that all of those women are incorruptible?
Even (oh, say) Victoria Jackson?
Mark my words: The propagandists possess the power to convince half the country that Al Franken had Gilda Radner killed to shut her up. The same people who gave us birtherism and Pizzagate will not shrink from the Gilda Radner Murder Conspiracy.
Shit like that WILL happen. It's a lock. If Franken doesn't run, then any other male Dem will face these accusations. This is the future that the Believe Women movement makes inevitable.
Thus Article A few things
That's an article A few things This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article A few things with the link address https://wordcomes.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-few-things.html
0 Response to "A few things"
Post a Comment