Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Republican Party prefers Democrats to be in charge. 1994 was first time in 40 years that GOP controlled the House. In 34 of 40 years from 1954 through 1994, Democrats controlled both House and Senate. Sabotage Republicans ensure the GOP never becomes real opposition party to Democrats

The Republican Party prefers to be in the minority. 

that Republicans controlled the House.

From 1955-1980, (25 years) Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.

In 34 of 40 years from 1954 through 1994 Democrats controlled both House and Senate.


Added: Then came 2016 which would be nullified. As the Ruling Class reminded us, it’s a class war, you stupid people.

1/3/17, "Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016." CNBC, Jake Novak


Added: The Sabotage Republicans ensure that the Republican Party never becomes a real opposition party to the Democrats: 

"Not much has been made of the long, disgraceful trait of Establishment Republicans to demand party unity--unless they lose a primary or a convention. In which case they simply refuse to unite behind the winning conservative. And deliberately, with malice aforethought-- actively seek to sabotage that conservative....

Sabotaging conservatives is built into the DNA of the GOP Establishment. Unable to win themselves a considerable bit of the time and then continuing to move the country left when they do win, just not as fast and so much better managed don’t you know — they have never ever changed....That is the Republican Party’s real problem. And it’s a big one."


Added: The Democrat win in Alabama is credited to six term Alabama Establishment Republican Senator Richard Shelby who promoted writing in a Republican candidate other than Moore:

12/13/17, "GOP's Shelby played a key role in Alabama Democrat's victory," AP, Matthew Daly 

"Credit six-term Republican Sen. Richard Shelby for Democrat Doug Jones’ shocking win in Alabama, senators from both parties said Wednesday. 

Shelby, Alabama’s senior senator and the state’s most influential official, publicly opposed GOP nominee Roy Moore and declared before the election that ”the state of Alabama deserves better” than a former judge accused of sexual contact with teenage girls decades ago. 

A former Democrat, Shelby, 83, announced weeks before the election that he had already cast an absentee ballot for another, unspecified Republican, even as President Donald Trump and other prominent state Republicans stood up for Moore. 

“I give the Alabama voters a lot of credit for the courage in rejecting Roy Moore’s candidacy and I think Sen. Shelby deserves a lot of credit for speaking out and encouraging people to write-in a Republican candidate” other than Moore, said Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who also opposed Moore.... 

Jones beat Moore by more than 20,000 votes in a race in which some 22,000 write-in votes were cast. 

Shelby deflected any credit, telling reporters there was no way to measure the impact of his write-in effort.

"I just did what I thought I needed to do," he said.... 

Voters in the solidly Republican state had to choose whether to back Moore or send Jones to Washington, narrowing the GOP's already precarious majority in the Senate.... 

Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., said Shelby's call to write-in someone other than Moore played a key role in the outcome. 

"Sen. Shelby's an icon in Alabama, as he is in the Senate," Perdue said. "When he speaks, people listen." 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said Shelby and Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake - who made a $100 donation to Jones - "showed extraordinary courage in what they did. And I think history will treat them well." 

Shelby shrugged off the accolades..."...


Added: GOP E wants "the president's agenda to fail and the only way to really achieve that is to suddenly become the minority:"

12/12/17, "Tammy Bruce: Republican Establishment wants to lose Senate Majority so Trump's agenda fails," Real Clear Politics, Ian Schwartz

"Conservative commentator Tammy Bruce, in a discussion about Alabama Republican candidate for Senate Roy Moore, said the Republican establishment want the party to lose the majority in the Senate so the Trump agenda fails. Bruce cited Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who announced he did not vote for Moore, and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who donated to the Democratic candidate Doug Jones, as examples. 

"This is a test for the president," Bruce said Tuesday on FOX News' Hannity. "I think what you've seen with Shelby going against it. Jeff Flake, giving money to this guy. I think the Republicans in the Senate want to lose the Senate. I think they want the president's agenda to fail and the only way to really achieve that is to suddenly become the minority."...

"The fact is that future of the country is at stake. This is larger than Roy Moore. It's about our families and the future. But this is also a sign of how awful things have become under the establishment...."...Bruce said."


Added: It fell on Alabama and Roy Moore to be the focus of a pivotal effort to detach the Republican Party from the Bipartisan Ruling Class--Angelo Codevilla: 

11/21/2017, "As the Ruling Class reminds us, it’s a class war, you stupid people." Angelo M. Codevilla, American Spectator

"The argument has little to do with Roy Moore, and even less with what is acceptable behavior. It is about what Lenin succinctly called “who, whom?” — who can do what to whom or, as Amos ’n Andy used to say, who’s gonna be the “do-er” and who the “do-ee,” neither more nor less. The reason why the bipartisan ruling class of officials, corporate executives, educators, the media, entertainment, etc. demand Roy Moore’s political scalp is that
it fell on Moore to be the focus of a pivotal effort to detach the Republican Party from that ruling class. It has nothing to do with what he may have done four decades ago, and everything with the threat that his election now poses to their power to run the country while de-legitimizing the rest of Americans and their culture. Had it been anyone else, the degree of hostility would have been the same, the charges possibly different but just as fiery and equally beside the point: which sector of the population shall have its power enhanced, and which diminished? 

By precisely the same token, crediting the 2016 election’s outcome to Russia or/and “the resistance” thereto to concerns with Donald Trump’s personal proclivities bespeaks willful detachment from reality.

Focusing on the ruling class’s hypocrisy, its sordid history of approving behavior by its members far worse than that with which it charges Roy Moore, crying “tu qoque!” not only lends unwarranted credence to its charges on Moore. It diverts attention from the most important reason for that approval, namely the key function of partisan solidarity. Lenin explained partiinost, party spirit, most succinctly. Asked in the Duma whether one of his decrees was in accordance with justice, he answered: “Justice? For what class?”...

The reason why Republicans even more than Democrats try to destroy Roy Moore is that, for the moment, his campaign is the spear-point of a movement first to peel away Republicans from business as it is being done in Washington, and then to destroy that business model. How it got to be that is worth keeping in mind.

Franklin D. Roosevelt made the Democrats the party of big government. Naturally, Americans who disagreed with, felt burdened by growing government, gravitated to the Republicans, then led by Robert A. Taft. But the Party was always anchored by officials and donors tied to big business, who disdained ordinary Americans as much or more than Democrats. Beginning with Barry Goldwater’s movement in 1960, and culminating in Ronald Reagan’s 1981-89 presidency, the Party became an advocate for liberty vis-à-vis government and a defender of American culture — at least rhetorically and at the local level. But in Washington, under the Bush dynasty, ever-bigger government tied Republican officials ever more tightly to Democrats and their agendas. Ever since 2006, Republican voters have been trying to take back the Party, or to find another political vehicle for their needs. 

In 2016, voters chose Donald Trump because he presented himself as opposed to the Republican as well as the Democratic wings of the ruling class. But his election by no means dissolved the business relationships between Republicans and Democrats in Washington, of which Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is emblematic. When Alabama’s Republican leaders appointed Luther Strange, an ally of McConnell’s, to fill the seat vacated by Trump’s choice for U.S. Attorney General, voters rebelled. They nominated Roy Moore, defeating Strange by ten points despite the entire Republican establishment’s efforts on his behalf, the expenditure of over $30 million, and even Donald Trump’s appearance on his behalf. 

Roy Moore’s victory over all that raised the prospect that candidates who appeal to the sentiments that had elected Trump in 2016 and nominated Moore in 2017 would sweep establishment Republicans out of their cushy places. To put this specter off a little while longer, the Washington Post published allegations — wholly unsubstantiated — that, some forty years ago, Moore had engaged in consensual sexual activity with minors. 

The ruling class piled on. Perhaps enough conservative voters would view the accusations as defenses of youthful virginity. But such objections to Roy Moore, coming from such as Mitch McConnell and Hillary Clinton, recall voters to reality and might well count as reasons to vote for him."

Added: How much it cost the Ruling Class to defeat Mississippi Republican voters in 2014,


Added: In the 2014 Mississippi (open) GOP primary, the GOP E recruited 40,000 Democrat votes. Dr. Codevilla's recap of 2014 Mississippi Republican primary and runoff including NY Times quote from a black Democrat paid by the Republican Establishment campaign as part of its effort to recruit some forty thousand Democrats to vote in the open GOP primary runoff for the Ruling Class Republican candidate, Thad Cochran:

6/30/2014, "The Ruling Class Went Down to Mississippi," Angelo M. Codevilla, Liberty Law site

"The mass of GOP and independent voters, having come to see themselves as disadvantaged and insulted by the ruling class, have increasingly supported anti-establishment candidates to challenge it in Republican primaries. Accurately, the Republican establishment sees this as a greater threat to themselves than any Democrats could be.

In the Mississippi primary, Republican establishmentarians from around the country solicited votes from Democrats to defeat the insurgent challenge to Senator Thad Cochran. Their arguments were the same ones used by the bipartisan ruling class that has ruled America for a generation:

The role of government is to generate benefits for its clients, and those who object are bad people.

They paid many Democrat voters (nearly all black) so called “walking around money” for their votes, and have refused in many counties to let McDaniel aides examine the voter roles to see whether these voters were eligible to cast ballots.

The retail corruption is much less remarkable than the acquiescence therein of the establishment’s leadership – such as Karl Rove and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. This is very remarkable. Rove’s super-PAC, “Conservative Victory Project,” which played a leading role in recruiting Democrats for Cochran, exists explicitly to defeat insurgent Republicans everywhere.

The Journal’s editorial page, whose editorials and featured columnists mobilized opinion against the Mississippi insurgency, had done the same throughout this and previous years’ primaries. Rove’s post election commentary glossed over the vote-buying as if it had not happened, while the Journal’s Jason Riley endorsed it cynically as “minority outreach.” To Republican and independent voters who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, the conflict between the pretenses and the actions of such as Rove and of the Journal added insult to injury. The Journal, for example, never loses an opportunity to declare itself the mortal enemy of “crony capitalism” as it decries the direction in which America has been headed, while the word “conservative” as part of the title of Rove’s super-PAC intentionally evokes the complex of sentiments of voters angry at the ruling class’s characterization of them as, well, the litany: “racist, greedy, stupid,” etc.

Indeed, the Republican Party’s very identity, the one, sole, argument it makes to persuade voters to vote Republican rather than Democrat, is that it will take the country in a direction different from the one in which it has been going.

But, in the Mississippi primary, the Republican Establishment’s campaign was by and for crony capitalism, and employed the classic themes by which the ruling class has beaten down the rest of America.

To Mississippians white and black, the establishment’s message was: All this Tea Party talk about dangerous deficits and the need to cut spending is a threat to responsible officials’ capacity to bring you the jobs and federal assistance on which your prosperity depends.

Orchestrating that message was Haley Barbour, former governor of Mississippi, former national chairman of the Republican Party, and arguably Washington’s biggest lobbyist.
Day to day operations were run by Stuart Stevens, formerly chief strategist in Mitt Romney’s 2012 national campaign, along with Henry and Austin Barbour, Haley’s nephews. There could be few better personifications of crony capitalism.

To the blacks, who, according to The New York Times’ provided some forty thousand votes, the message was:

"Don’t be intimidated by the Tea Party....Mississippi cannot and will not return to the bygone era of intimidating black Mississippians from voting. We must rise up on Tuesday and have our voices heard on who will represent Mississippi in the U.S. Senate. VOTE THAD COCHRAN." 

The Times reported the effect: Roger Smith, a black Democrat who said he was being paid to organize for Mr. Cochran, said, ‘I don’t know too much about [Cochran’s opponent] McDaniel other than what McDaniel is saying:

that he’s Tea Party, he’s against Obama, he don’t like black people.

In short, those who oppose the way things are done in America are racists. You ought to hate them as they hate you.

Why do such things? Cui bono? Clearly such behavior by the Republican establishment has nothing to do with the role it claims for itself of opposition to the direction on which America has been taken in recent decades, never mind with anything “conservative.”

It has everything to do with maintaining its status, and that of its clients, within the ruling class.

The Mississippi primary
confirmed yet again that, if America is to go in a direction other than the one of which some three fourths of American disapprove, it is compelled to do so with a vehicle other than the Republican Party." Image above, Haley Barbour.


"Angelo M. Codevilla professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. He served as a U.S. Senate Staff member dealing with oversight of the intelligence services. His new book Peace Among Ourselves and With All Nations was published by Hoover Institution Press." Photo in article from Liberty Law site.


Added: The Ruling Class plays the race card. To defeat the Mississippi Republican insurgent in 2014 the GOP E enticed black Democrats to vote in the open GOP primary by saying the insurgent was racist: 

6/30/2014, "Yes, There Were Flyers and Robocalls [from the GOP E] That Accused the Tea Party of Racism," Patterico 

"John Fund asked if this was the flyer that got Thad Cochran elected:"... 


(image from Patterico)


Added: From NY Times article linked in Codevilla piece, NY Ruling Class billionaire Mike Bloomberg gave as much as $500,000 to support the GOP Establishment candidate in 2014 Mississippi GOP primary:

6/24/2014, "Cochran Holds Off Tea Party Challenger in Mississippi," NY Times, Jonathan Weisman

"A center-right super PAC, Defending Main Street, which contributed over $150,000 to Mr. Cochran during the runoff, received $250,000 from Michael Bloomberg in the same period, according to a source close to the former New York City mayor.

Mr. Bloomberg also contributed $250,000 to Mr Cochran’s super PAC, Mississippi Conservatives, before the primary."...


Added from Codevilla: The US has only one functioning political party, the UniParty:

"So long as the UniParty exists, mere voters will have no way of affecting what the government does."

12/15/2013, "Breaking The UniParty," Angelo Codevilla,


From 2010 Codevilla article: The US political class usually dismisses voter opposition to it "as mere 'anger and frustration'-an imputation of stupidity": 

July-August 2010, "America’s Ruling Class--And the Perils of Revolution," Angelo M. Codevilla, American Spectator 

US Ruling Class

"The Country Class"...(9th subhead)

"Nothing has set the country class apart, defined much as the ruling class's insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class's dismissal of opposition as mere "anger and frustration"--an imputation of stupidity--while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class's bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?" (5th parag. of subhead)

"The Political Divide"... (first subhead)

"While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust,

the American people's realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. 
But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008."...(begins 3rd parag. in subhead). Image of US Ruling Class from American Spectator


Added: But in 2008, 'angry, anxious,' Americans seeking "change" were considered important and exciting as the premise of Obama's campaign-Boston Globe, 7/20/2008
page 2, parag. 5: "Unerring faith in the premise of the Obama candidacy that many Americans are angry, anxious, and engaged as never before in the political process because they want change."...
7/20/2008, "Obama's paid staff dwarfing McCain's," Boston Globe, Brian C. Moone


More on 2017 from Codevilla:

June 4, 2017, "Punishing The Real Russia Crime: Leaking," Angelo Codevilla, American Greatness

"These legal and pseudo-legal proceedings abstract from the patently obvious felonies that U.S intelligence officials have committed each and every time they have informed reporters of the Washington Post and New York Times about the...results of U.S communications intelligence....Since the number of those who possessed the information in question is small, ascertaining the identity of those who divulged it poses no problem to serious investigators. Since Messrs Schmidt and Entous could not help but know that communications intelligence is protected by a strict liability statute, they could also be held responsible for their participation in the crime....

Numerous intelligence officials have claimed to know who supplied the-mails to Wikileaks. No one has given evidence on the record. A minor defensive maneuver at the time, the “Russia interference in the elections” narrative grew into the Democratic Party’s main explanation for the massive electoral rejection at all levels it ended up suffering on November 8, 2016."... 


Added: From Rush Limbaugh on enduring the assaults:

"You’ve got to win the election and then you have to implement the agenda.... You have to withstand all of the assaults that are going to come your way in the process....Many on the right, the Republican Party…haven't wanted to endure the assaults....So they’ve been pragmatists or compromisers....Enter Trump into all of this, and now we've got action." 

2/24/17, "What Is Conservatism in the Age of Trump?"

"Many people who thought that they were the modern-day leaders of conservatism, in fact found themselves in a new category called Never Trumpers. They were the group of people that thought no matter what, Trump should not win....

And many of those people are still there. And they are still active in what I call the academic or intellectual side of conservatism.... 

But I don't think it's had a leader in a long time. I don’t think there’s any one person that can tell you what it is and have other conservatives agree with it....Conservatism, largely, became an academic exercise. It became a movement that wasn’t really fraught with much action. It was a lot of philosophizing....

So enter Trump into all of this, and now we've got action....Whether by design or by accident where Trump is concerned, we have action against the left, and this is what it looks like. And it’s always going to be ugly and it’s always going to be upsetting — and it’s not going to get better....

Whether you claim to be politically conservative or not, we are in a mess that has been made by wanton liberalism — liberalism which has not been opposed much, and certainly not at all in the last eight years. It’s gotten its lip service. But the actual warrior aspect of conservatism? That’s what everybody’s wondering: “Where is that? Where is the warrior-conservative movement?” Yeah, we know we’ve got a lot of brainiacs that sit up there and they think and they write and they publish and all. But where are the warriors?"


Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Former CIA official Mike Morell didn't think Russia was so bad in 2015 when he went on Russian tv channel RT to promote his book, "The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS"

May 19, 2015, RT America 

RT text from You Tube page: 

"Drones are “the most effective” weapon the US has in the war against terrorism, and while collateral damage does occur, “propaganda” makes it seem far worse than it actually is, according to former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell. Discussing a wide range of national security issues, including Iraqi WMDs and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the former spy told RT’s Ben Swann that UAVs are more accurate than any other weapon the US could be using, and their use is an unfortunate necessity."

Morell's 2015 book about "CIA's Fight": 

"The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS," by Mike Morell and Bill Harlow

More on Michael Morell: "This (Michael Morell) is a man who on the one hand described "Russia's hacking is the political equivalent of 9/11" and constantly hyped "Russian propaganda", while on the other he went on a lengthy RT News segment [in May 2015] in order to promote his newly published book." Dec. 11, 2017, "Ex-Spy Chief Admits Role In 'Deep State' Intelligence War On Trump," zero hedge



Former CIA official Michael Morell says he believes some foreign intel agencies have contents of Hillary's private server. "The good ones have everything on any unclassified network the government uses"-May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015, "Michael Morell: Foreign Governments have Hillary's email," Politico, Adam B. Lerner 

"Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell said that he believes some foreign intelligence agencies possess the contents of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. 

I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses,” Morell said Friday in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show. 

I don’t think that was a very good judgment,” he added of Clinton’s decision to use the private server for official State Department business. “I don’t know who gave her that advice, but it was not good advice.”

 “She’s paying a price for it now,” Morell said of the server. “It was not good.”

Morell appeared on the program to promote his new book, “The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight Against Terrorism — From al Qa’ida to ISIS,” which contains a passage on what happened in Benghazi before and after the attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. 

A version of the passage was published this week by POLITICO Magazine."



Cooking fire at homeless camp-not global warming-sparked blaze in Bel-Air California that destroyed 6 homes and 400 acres. Portable stove and fuel cannisters remained. Homeless population in LA County is up 23% in past year-LA Times, 12/12/17

12/12/17, "Cooking fire at a homeless encampment sparked Bel-Air blaze that destroyed homes, officials say," LA Times, Laura J. Nelson, David Zahniser 

"The blaze that swept through the hills of Bel-Air last week, destroying six homes and damaging a dozen others, was sparked by a cooking fire at a homeless encampment in a nearby ravine, Los Angeles officials said Tuesday.

The encampment was nestled in a canyon several hundred feet from Sepulveda Boulevard and the 405 Freeway, hidden from passing cars. For several years, it had been home to an unknown number of people, officials said.

Investigators said the fire had not been set deliberately and they have not found any of the people who lived there. The camp — one of scores of makeshift communities that have grown along freeways, rivers and open space across Los Angeles — was largely destroyed in the fire, leaving authorities with little evidence.

News that one of Los Angeles’ most affluent neighborhoods was damaged in a fire sparked by some of the city’s poorest residents added a sober note to the incident, with some officials saying it underscores the need to do more to house the homeless.

This “makes a tragic event even more tragic,” said Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz, whose district includes Bel-Air. “The saddest thing is that we have so many homeless people. And they are everywhere in the city. And that sometimes causes serious problems.”

A new task force for fire prevention will tackle some of those questions, officials said. The panel will consider mandatory evacuations of hillside and brush area encampments during days or seasons of high fire risk, and education campaigns to discourage outdoor fires when winds pick up.

“But given the topography of… all the hills in our city, we could do that 24 hours a day and still miss a lot of people,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said. “Just like ramping up efforts to try to anticipate terrorist incidents, you can never get to zero risk. And I think it would be a mistake to think we could.”

Nickie Miner, vice president of the Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council, said residents had long worried about the fire hazard from hillside homeless encampments, but “all the agencies’ hands seemed to be tied.

“We knew it was only going to be a matter of time before something horrible happened,” Miner said.

Miner said she was skeptical of the proposed campaign to educate homeless people about fire risks. Los Angeles needs a massive regulatory overhaul like the one that followed the 1961 Bel-Air fire, she said, which should include eliminating hillside encampments.

Humans are usually the cause of fires in Southern California, including sparks from car crashes, farm equipment, cigarette butts or camping fires, officials said.

Debate about camps and the fire danger come as Los Angeles is struggling with a rise in the homeless population. An annual count in May found that the homeless population of Los Angeles County had soared 23% to nearly 58,000 people in the last year. The homeless population in the West L.A. service area — including Bel-Air and Brentwood — rose 18% from 4,659 to 5,511 in the same time period, the count found.

Photos taken of the Sepulveda encampment in September and shared with The Times showed a cluster of green and olive tarpaulins stretched across a canyon and camouflaged by treetops and brush....

Fire investigators found evidence that people had been cooking and sleeping there, but did not find anyone to interview, Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Peter Sanders said. The department has no suspects. The size of the encampment before the fire was unclear, because the area was so badly burned.

All that remained Tuesday was a scorched portable stove, a pot, a cheese grater, several fuel canisters and the remnants of a boombox. Burned pages of the Children’s Illustrated Encyclopedia littered the charred brush and rocks in the canyon.

The Skirball fire erupted early last Wednesday, scorching chaparral-covered hillsides east of the 405. The blaze closed the highway during morning rush hour and forced the evacuations of a large swath of Bel-Air, one of the most affluent neighborhoods in the country.

In less than a day, the blaze destroyed more than 400 acres. Six homes were destroyed and a dozen more were damaged on Moraga Drive, Casiano Road and Linda Flora Drive.

The Skirball fire was 85% contained Tuesday, with 69 firefighters still working to mop up the operation, officials said.

A few miles west of Bel Air, residents of Pacific Palisades have been looking at ways to reduce the risk of fire in homeless camps. 

A community group there, the Pacific Palisades Task Force on Homelessness, persuaded the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to post signs declaring a high fire severity zone along a bluff where homeless people congregated.

The sign allowed authorities to cite and clear homeless people from the area, said Maryam Zar, a member of the group’s board of directors.

"The city as a rule does not sign on to the idea that homelessness is a criminal problem," Zar said. "Our whole strategy is a bundle of different solutions, and for us, it’s working.”"


Monday, December 11, 2017

Deep State Senator Ted Kennedy waited over 9 hours to notify authorities that his pretty, 28 year old companion, Mary Jo Kopechnie, was sitting dead in a car he'd driven into a waterway on 7/19/1969. Not a problem. Grand Jury Foreman: "It was a cover-up. All the authorities were concerned about was protecting Kennedy"-People, 7/24/1989...(Ted remained in the US Senate for 47 years)

7/19/1969, Mary Jo Kopechne removed from Ted Kennedy's sunken car

Image caption: "The removal of Kopechne's body - drowned or suffocated? There was no autopsy."... Image from 9/14/2009 article, "Chappaquiddick: The Pathetic Legacy of Senator Edward Kennedy,", Lyle J. Arnold, Jr.

Above, July 19, 1969, Car driven by Ted Kennedy in which Mary Jo Kopechne died after it plunged off a bridge and into the water. Chappaquiddick Island, Martha's Vineyard, Mass., getty image

Added: Tragically for all Americans, Ted Kennedy remained in the US Senate for 47 years. His last name gave him membership in the Permanent Political Class at birth which included immunity from laws imposed on ordinary Americans. He lived a life of privilege and influence which he didn't earn. He was a US Senator until his death in 2009 (from natural causes):

Mary Jo Kopechne

Grand Jury Foreman: "“It was a cover-up,” says Leslie Leland, foreman of the grand jury that considered the case. "All [the authorities] were concerned about was protecting Kennedy.""

7/24/1989, "Frustrated Grand Jurors Say It Was No Accident Ted Kennedy Got Off Easy,", James S. Kunen, Dirk Mathison, S. Avery Brown, and Tom Nugent

"Dike Bridge marked the end of the road for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s presidential chances, and the end of life for a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne.
It was 20 years ago [1969], on the hot, humid night of July 18, 1969, that Kennedy’s black Oldsmobile hurtled off the bridge, the car’s momentum carrying it 23 feet before it sank upside down in six feet of swirling, dark water. Kennedy somehow got out of the car; Kopechne did not. Kennedy did not report the accident until some nine hours later. Why he did not, and exactly what happened that night, has never been adequately explained. 

And the passage of time has only increased the bitterness of those who feel the truth was hidden. Some of them have begun to speak out. “It was a cover-up,” says Leslie Leland, foreman of the grand jury that considered the case. All [the authorities] were concerned about was protecting Kennedy.

Kopechne, an attractive, blond 28-year-old, had been at a party with five other young women—all veterans of Robert Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign—and Ted Kennedy and five other men. 

She and Kennedy apparently left some time before midnight. In the written statement he gave to police the next day, Kennedy claimed they had been driving to the ferry that crosses the channel to Edgartown on Martha’s Vineyard when he made a wrong turn off the paved highway and down the dirt road to Dike Bridge. He said he dived repeatedly to try to save Mary Jo, but then left the scene “exhausted and in a state of shock.” He said he walked the mile and a quarter back to the cottage where the party was still on and “asked for someone” to take him to Edgartown. 

“When I fully realized what had happened this morning,” he wrote, “I immediately contacted the police.”

Six days later, in a nationally televised speech, Kennedy changed his account. This time he made no mention of asking someone at the party to take him to Edgartown. He said instead that he had taken his friends Joe Gargan and Paul Markham and returned to the bridge. After they too were unable to extricate Kopechne, Kennedy said, they drove him to the ferry dock, where he dived into the channel and swam the 250 yards to Edgartown....

On the day of the speech, Kennedy had pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and had received a two-month suspended sentence. After an inquest held the following January, Edgartown District Court Judge James A. Boyle concluded that there was probable cause to believe Kennedy’s negligent driving had “contributed to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne,” but Dukes County District Attorney Edmund S. Dinis chose not to seek the manslaughter indictment that such a finding might have supported.

Kennedy never explained how he could have mistakenly taken a sharp right turn off the island’s only paved road onto a dirt road. Nor why he walked past four houses without bothering to call for help. Nor why he put on dry clothes and exchanged pleasantries with the desk clerk at his motel in Edgartown at 2 in the morning."...Image above of Mary Jo Kopechne via

Added: At his lavish 2009 funeral, Ted Kennedy was praised by fellow Deep State members from around the world:

"Mr Obama described Senator Kennedy as a ‘lion of the senate and the soul of the Democratic Party’....'We weep because we loved this kind and tender hero who persevered through pain and tragedy – not for the sake of ambition or vanity; not for wealth or power; but only for the people and the country he loved.’"... 

8/31/2009,  "Obama's tears for Ted Kennedy as 'greatest senator of our time' is laid to rest alongside assassinated brothers," Daily Mail, William Lowther

"After a funeral attended by four Presidents – and watched by millions on live TV across America – Teddy Kennedy was laid to rest last night in Washington near his assassinated brothers, Jack and Bobby.
Earlier, at a lavish funeral Mass in Boston, President Barack Obama stood alongside Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter and paid tribute to Senator Kennedy, describing him as the ‘greatest legislator of our time.’...

The Mass was presided over by seven priests, 11 pallbearers and 29 honorary pallbearers. 

Tenor Placido Domingo sang, while acclaimed cellist Yo-Yo Ma also provided music.

Outside Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica in Boston, where Senator Kennedy was born, thousands lined the streets in the rain, many waving flags and signs which read ‘Kennedy Thanks’.

The Massachusetts senator died on Tuesday aged 77 after a long battle against brain cancer....

Mr Obama added: ‘We do not weep for him today because of the prestige attached to his name or his office. 

'We weep because we loved this kind and tender hero who persevered through pain and tragedy – not for the sake of ambition or vanity; not for wealth or power; but only for the people and the country he loved.’...

His personal flaws and wild lifestyle as a young man – he was a heavy drinker and a womaniserundermined his political ambitions.

Despite all his attributes as a statesman he could never wipe out the stain of Chappaquiddick, the shocking 1969 scandal in which he drove a car off a bridge, leading to the death of his female companion Mary Jo Kopechne. 

He fled the scene of the accident and never fully explained what had happened."...


Is Nikki Haley "incredibly proud" that she was accused of having extra-marital affairs with two different men prior to her 2010 election to South Carolina Governor? Did no one inform Ambassador Haley that Trump's accusers were a top news story 24/7 during the campaign and have most certainly been "heard?"

"Why is the UN Ambassador commenting on this-she should just answer that it’s not in her purview and STFU." Free Republic commenter .....

12/11/17, "Nikki Haley, Diplomat,"

Nikki Haley was elected Governor of South Carolina on Nov. 2, 2010, and re-elected in 2014. On November 22, 2016, president-elect Donald Trump nominated Haley to become US Ambassador to the United Nations. When she was confirmed on Jan. 24, 2017, she stepped down from her job as SC Governor.

"Prior to Haley's election, she was accused of having affairs with two different men, Will Folks, former press secretary for then-South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and Larry Marchant, a political consultant for Haley's opponent, Andre Bauer. Folks said he had an inappropriate physical relationship with Haley several years prior, and Marchant said he and Haley had a one-time sexual encounter. Haley denied the events, saying that she had been faithful to her husband, Michael Haley. In an interview with Columbia's WVOC radio on June 4, 2010, Haley said that if she were elected governor and the claims against her were validated, she would resign....

During the (2016) presidential race, Haley had not been a loyal supporter of Trump, initially campaigning for Marco Rubio and then endorsing Ted Cruz....

By the end of the contentious (2016) campaign, Haley did vote for Trump in the election and celebrated his victory. "The idea that now we can start to really govern — I have never known what it's like to have a Republican president," she said at a gathering of Republican leaders after the election. "I can tell you that the last five years, Washington has been the hardest part of my job. This is a new day."

On November 22, 2016, president-elect Donald Trump picked Haley to become the United States ambassador to the United Nations. She was the first woman to be named as part of his administration. “Governor Haley has a proven track record of bringing people together regardless of background or party affiliation to move critical policies forward for the betterment of her state and our country,” Trump said in a statement. “She will be a great leader representing us on the world stage.”

In accepting the offer, Haley said that she was “honored that the President-elect has asked me to join his team and serve the country we love.’’

"When the President believes you have a major contribution to make to the welfare of our nation, and to our nation's standing in the world, that is a calling that is important to heed," she said. 

On January 24, 2017, Haley was confirmed as U.N. Ambassador by the Senate, 94-6, and she resigned as governor of South Carolina to serve in her new role....

In December 2017, she forcefully defended President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, referring to it as the "will of the American people" and something that would "fastball the peace process going forward."

Around the same time, Haley drew attention for her comments about the sexual harassment issues that had ensnared political colleagues back home. Specifically referring to the women who had accused President Trump of sexual misconduct, she said, “They should be heard, and they should be dealt with. ... And I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up.”"

Comment to Ambassador Haley: Perhaps no one told you, but the election was held in Nov. 2016 and Trump won. His accusers were "heard" countless times around the clock during the 2016 campaign. Ms. Haley, most of us consider you an embarrassment and wrote you off years ago as a Deep State sellout.
Added: UN Ambassador Nikki Haley was on CBS Face the Nation 12/10/17 and said she's "incredibly proud" of women in various walks of life who've come forward to say they've been sexually harassed. Haley also said the women who accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct “should be heard. Ms. Haley seems to think the 2016 presidential election hasn't happened yet, that it's still campaign season and the presidency is up for grabs. Trump's accusers have not only been "heard," they were treated as a major news story with 24/7 coverage during the 2016 election. The election took place, and 63 million Americans were much more concerned about other matters facing this country and elected Trump president.

Among Free Republic comments
to Ambassador Haley's statements on Face the Nation:

"Why is the UN Ambassador commenting on this - she should just answer that it’s not in her purview and STFU." 

16 posted on 12/11/2017, 3:59:52 PM by GnuThere"

"They have been heard, and 63 million voters said time to move on. The accusations I’ve heard about are laughable. 

13 posted on 12/11/2017, 3:56:49 PM by Gahanna Bob"

"We heard them. We did not believe them. I seldom believe Nikki Haley. 

10 posted on 12/11/2017, 3:54:46 PM by Lurkinanloomin"  

"They have been heard and I believe they are making money on the deal. They have been promised much more money later when those juries will surely award them some of DJT’s billions. They believe it or at least think the damage to their reputations is worth the attempt. 

18 posted on 12/11/2017, 4:01:18 PM by arthurus (A)"

"Our UN Ambassador has no business commenting on Trump's sex life.

19 posted on 12/11/2017, 4:01:20 PM by Cobra64 "

12/10/17, "Nikki Haley: Trump’s Accusers ‘Should Be Heard’," Breitbart, Pam Key


Sunday, December 10, 2017

Latest 'bombshell' Fake News from CNN, MSNBC, CBS News and others aggressively hyped a spectacularly false story they honestly believed was "proof" that could remove Trump. CBS News even said it had independently "confirmed" CNN's story--Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

The latest round of "bombshell" Fake News by CNN et al may have re-elected Trump: The biggest common denominator among the 6.7 to 9.2 million Obama-Trump voters in 2016 was view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them....These voters were "far more than enough to provide Trump his electoral College victory." 6/8/17, "The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought," NY Times,  Thomas B. Edsall, commentary  

12/9/17, "The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened," The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald
"Friday was one of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened. 

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media. 

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named “Michael J. Erickson” – someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify – to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had “uploaded.” The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online – and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It’s impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it’s necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:

There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story – and then hyped it over and over and over – the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 – which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks – as everyone by then already knew – had publicly promoted. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

How did CNN end up aggressively hyping such a spectacularly false story? They refuse to say. Many hours after their story got exposed as false, the journalist who originally presented it, Congressional reporter Manu Raju, finally posted a tweet noting the correction. CNN’s PR Department then claimed that “multiple sources” had provided CNN with the false date. And Raju went on CNN, in muted tones, to note the correction, explicitly claiming that “two sources” had each given him the false date on the email, while also making clear that CNN did not ever even see the email, but only had sources describe its purported contents:

All of this prompts the glaring, obvious, and critical question – one which CNN refuses to address: how did “multiple sources” all misread the date on this document, in exactly the same way, and toward the same end, and then feed this false information to CNN?

It is, of course, completely plausible that one source might innocently misread a date on a document. But how is it remotely plausible that multiple sources could all innocently and in good faith misread the date in exactly the same way, all to cause to be disseminated a blockbuster revelation about Trump/Russia/WikiLeaks collusion? This is the critical question that CNN simply refuses to answer. In other words, CNN refuses to provide the most minimal transparency to enable the public to understand what happened here.

Why does this matter so much? For so many significant reasons:

To begin with, it’s hard to overstate how fast, far and wide this false story traveled. Democratic Party pundits, operatives and journalists with huge social media platforms predictably jumped on the story immediately, announcing that it proved collusion between Trump and Russia (through WikiLeaks). One tweet from Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, claiming that this proved evidence of criminal collusion, was re-tweeted thousands and thousands of times in just a few hours (Lieu quietly deleted the tweet after I noted its falsity, and long after it went very viral, without ever telling his followers that the CNN story, and therefore his accusation, had been debunked).

Brookings’ [Senior Fellow] Benjamin Wittes, whose star has risen as he has promoted himself as a friend of former FBI Director Jim Comey, not only promoted the CNN story in the morning, but did so with the word “Boom” – which he uses to signal that a major blow has been delivered to Trump on the Russia story – along with a gif of a cannon being detonated:

Incredibly, to this very moment – almost 24 hours after CNN’s story was debunked – Wittes has never noted to his more than 200,000 followers that the story he so excitedly promoted turned out to be utterly false, even though he returned to Twitter long after the story was debunked to tweet about other matters. He just left his false and inflammatory claims uncorrected.

Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall believed the story was so significant that he used an image of an atomic bomb detonating at the top of his article discussing its implications, an article he tweeted to his roughly 250,000 followers. Only at night was an editor’s note finally added noting that the whole thing was false.

It’s hard to quantify exactly how many people were deceived – filled with false news and propaganda – by the CNN story. But thanks to Democratic-loyal journalists and operatives who decree every Trump/Russia claim to be true without seeing any evidence, it’s certainly safe to say that many hundreds of thousands of people, almost certainly millions, were exposed to these false claims.

Surely anyone who has any minimal concerns about journalistic accuracy – which would presumably include all the people who have spent the last year lamenting Fake News, propaganda, Twitter bots and the like – would demand an accounting as to how a major U.S. media outlet ended up filling so many people’s brains with totally false news. That alone should prompt demands from CNN for an explanation about what happened here. No Russian Facebook ad or Twitter bot could possibly have anywhere near the impact as this CNN story had when it comes to deceiving people with blatantly inaccurate information.

Second, the “multiple sources” who fed CNN this false information did not confine themselves to that network. They were apparently very busy eagerly spreading the false information to as many media outlets as they could find. In the middle of the day, CBS News claimed that it had independently “confirmed” CNN’s story about the email, and published its own breathless article discussing the grave implications of this discovered collusion.

Most embarrassing of all was what MSNBC did. You just have to watch this report from its “intelligence and national security correspondent” Ken Dilanian to believe it. Like CBS, Dilanian also claimed that he independently “confirmed” the false CNN report from “two sources with direct knowledge of this.” Dilanian, whose career in the U.S. media continues to flourish the more he is exposed as someone who faithfully parrots what the CIA tells him to say (since that is one of the most coveted and valued attributes in US journalism), spent three minutes mixing evidence-free CIA claims as fact with totally false assertions about what his multiple “sources with direct knowledge” told him about all this. Please watch this – again, not just the content but the tenor and tone of how they “report” – as it is Baghdad-Bob-level embarrassing: [video removed by You Tube]

Think about what this means. It means that at least two – and possibly more – sources, which these media outlets all assessed as credible in terms of having access to sensitive information, all fed the same false information to multiple news outlets at the same time. For multiple reasons, the probability is very high that these sources were Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee (or their high-level staff members), which is the committee that obtained access to Trump Jr.’s emails, although it’s certainly possible that it’s someone else. We won’t know until these news outlets deign to report this crucial information to the public: which “multiple sources” acted jointly to disseminate incredibly inflammatory, false information to the nation’s largest news outlets?

Just last week, the Washington Post decided – to great applause (including mine) – to expose a source to whom they had promised anonymity and off-the-record protections because they discovered that she was purposely feeding them false information as part of a scheme by Project Veritas to discredit the Post. It’s a well established principle of journalism – one that is rarely followed when it comes to powerful people in DC – that journalists should expose, rather than protect and conceal, sources who purposely feed them false information to be disseminated to the public.

Is that what happened here? Did these “multiple sources” who fed not just CNN but also MSNBC and CBS completely false information do so deliberately and in bad faith? Until these news outlets provide an accounting of what happened – what one might call “minimal journalistic transparency” – it’s impossible to say for certain. But right now, it’s very difficult to imagine a scenario where multiple sources all fed the wrong date to multiple media outlets innocently and in good faith.

If this were, in fact, a deliberate attempt to cause a false and highly inflammatory story to be reported, then these media outlets have an obligation to expose who the culprits are – just as the Washington Post did last week to the woman making false claims about Roy Moore (it was much easier in that case because the source they exposed was a nobody-in-DC, rather than someone on whom they rely for a steady stream of stories, the way CNN and MSNBC rely on Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee). By contrast, if this were just an innocent mistake, then these media outlets should explain how such an implausible sequence of events could possibly have happened.

Thus far, these media corporations are doing the opposite of what journalists ought to do: rather than informing the public about what happened and providing minimal transparency and accountability for themselves and the high-level officials who caused this to happen, they are hiding behind meaningless, obfuscating statements crafted by PR executives and lawyers.

How can journalists and news outlets so flamboyantly act offended when they’re attacked as being “Fake News” when this is the conduct behind which they hide
when they get caught disseminating incredibly consequential false stories?

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them. It is debacles like this – and the subsequent corporate efforts to obfuscate – that have made the U.S. media so disliked and that fuel and empower Trump’s attacks on them.

Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend – one could say a constant – when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential and reckless stories that have been published – and then corrected, rescinded and retracted – by major media outlets when it comes to this story.

All media outlets, of course, will make mistakes. The Intercept certainly has made our share, as have all outlets. And it’s particularly natural, inevitable, for mistakes to be made on a highly complicated, opaque story like the question of the relationship between Trump and the Russians, and questions relating to how WikiLeaks obtained DNC and Podesta emails. That is all to be expected.

But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.

No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.

So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I literally cannot list them all. Just consider the ones from the last week alone, as enumerated by the New York Times yesterday in its news report on CNN’s embarrassment:
It was also yet another prominent reporting error at a time when news organizations are confronting a skeptical public, and a president who delights in attacking the media as “fake news.”
Last Saturday, ABC News suspended a star reporter, Brian Ross, after an inaccurate report that Donald Trump had instructed Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, to contact Russian officials during the presidential race.
The report fueled theories about coordination between the Trump campaign and a foreign power, and stocks dropped after the news. In fact, Mr. Trump’s instruction to Mr. Flynn came after he was president-elect.
Several news outlets, including Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal, also inaccurately reported this week that Deutsche Bank had received a subpoena from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, for President Trump’s financial records.
The president and his circle have not been shy about pointing out the errors.
That’s just the last week alone. Let’s just remind ourselves of how many times major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump/Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walk-backed, or retracted – often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:
  • Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
  • An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
  • WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
  • A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
  • RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
  • Crowdstrike finds Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
  • Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security, 9/28/17)
  • Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)
That really is just a small sample. So continually awful and misleading has this reporting been that even Vladimir Putin’s most devoted critics – such as Russian expatriate Masha Gessen, oppositional Russian journalists, and anti-Kremlin liberal activists in Moscow – are constantly warning that the U.S. media’s unhinged, ignorant, paranoid reporting on Russia is harming their cause in all sorts of ways, in the process destroying the credibility of the U.S. media in the eyes of Putin’s opposition (who — unlike Americans who have been fed a steady news and entertainment propaganda diet for decades about Russia — actually understand the realities of that country).

U.S. media outlets are very good at demanding respect. They love to imply, if not outright state, that being patriotic and a good American means that one must reject efforts to discredit them and their reporting because that’s how one defends press freedom.

But journalists also have the responsibility not just to demand respect and credibility but to earn it. That means that there shouldn’t be such a long list of abject humiliations, in which completely false stories are published to plaudits, traffic and other rewards, only to fall apart upon minimal scrutiny. It certainly means that all of these “errors” shouldn’t be pointing in the same direction, pushing the same political outcome or journalistic conclusion.

But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can’t mean hiding behind PR and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.

At minimum, these networks – CNN, MSNBC and CBS – have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information, or explain how it’s possible that “multiple sources” all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they’re attacked as “Fake News” should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks – the reason those attacks resonate – is themselves and their own conduct."

"(Update: hours after this article was published on Saturday – a full day-and-a-half after his original tweets promoting the false CNN story with a “boom” and a cannon – Benjamin Wittes finally got around to noting that the CNN story he hyped has “serious problems”; needless to say, that acknowledgment received a fraction of re-tweets from his followers as his original tweets hyping the story attracted)."

Glenn Greenwald twitter

Benjamin Wittes twitter



Brookings "Senior Fellow" Benjamin Wittes seems  to have a pyrotechnics fetish. Perhaps it's a Neocon thing. In May 2016, Wittes hoped for another Trump ticking bomb (involving his pal Comey which also fizzled out):

Not to worry, just let the "investigation" keep going for a few more years. 



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.