As the most of the media points all fingers at Russia over Hillary Clinton's loss, a few have come up with creative blame:
Slate:
[Charles] Delavan, 29, has achieved a measure of infamy among politicos and security wonks as the IT guy who assured John Podesta that a phishing email intended to steal his Gmail password was “a legitimate email.” The detail emerged in an October WikiLeaks dump and was reported as a stunning example of incompetence on the part of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s tech team. Podesta or one of its aides, it seemed, had initially been suspicious of the email but went ahead and opened the fateful link after Delavan vouched for its authenticity.The article goes on to explain what happened. However, I find it amazing that Democrats in the media would stoop to blaming the IT guy. This is a new low, especially when it might not have involved Russia at all:
Daily Mail:
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.Unlike MSM reports of a secret CIA document (which may be based on innuendo and hearsay) leaked by unnamed government sources, this news story actually has a name attached to it.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
In addition:
[Wikileaks founder Julian] Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.While it is possible that Assange and Murray might both be lying, are they any less credible than unnamed sources within the U.S. government?
'The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,' Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.
'Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.'
Sorry folks, the whole "Russia did it" narrative, from the same folks who brought us Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, no longer carries any credibility. They need to start naming their sources if they want to be believed.
Keep in mind, the motive for CIA lying is pretty obvious here. Highly placed sources in the U.S. government are likely Democrats (we do have a Democratic president) who are trying to paint Trump as being complicit with the Russians. While this isn't beyond credible, as Trump has shown respect, if not admiration, for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and he even has business dealings in Russia, that does NOT mean Trump worked with the Russians to "steal" the U.S. presidential election. That would be a great narrative for the Democrats to believe, except the accounts from Julian Assange and Craig Murray prove it isn't true.
The Democratic mainstream media will have to do better than using unnamed sources inside the Democratic-controlled U.S. government if they want their libel to be believed.
Speaking of Democrats...
Fox News:
Senate Democrats have been scrambling to prevent two of their members from taking a post in the Trump administration, trying to prevent any defection that could bolster Republicans’ control of the chamber.Considering all the venom against Trump by Democrats, he clearly doesn't have any problem with having them in his government. He also appointed former General and registered Democrat Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor.
They recently launched a “full court press” to retain Sens. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota, after each met with Republican President-elect Donald Trump, one senior Senate Democrat told Fox News.
Manchin now appears less likely to bolt -- after saying he wants to remain in the Senate and being passed over for Energy secretary -- which puts the focus squarely on Heitkamp.
The first-term lawmaker, who faces reelection in 2018 in a conservative state, still appears in the running for the Agriculture secretary post.
On the question of Trump's appointees...
Talking Points Memo:
Multiple Democratic senators have called on President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Education, Betsy DeVos, to pay more than $5 million in fines and late fees owed by a now-inactive school choice organization which violated Ohio's campaign finance law.Note the fine was levied by the state of Ohio and NOT the federal government.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) sent DeVos a letter Monday “to express significant concerns” about $5.3 million in fines and late fees owed by All Children Matter PAC to the state of Ohio. In 2008, the group donated $870,000 from its federal account in Virginia to an Ohio affiliate even after the Ohio Elections Commission told the PAC, then headed by DeVos, that any transfer of more than $10,000 would be illegal.
The election commission fined DeVos’ PAC $2.6 million at the time, a penalty which increased to $5.3 million including late fees after the PAC refused to pay.
“Rather than pay the fines for violating the law, the All Children Matter PAC simply ceased operation and never paid the significant sum it owed to the state of Ohio,” the senators’ letter says.
While the fine does seem a bit excessive, also note that DeVos was only a director of the PAC, which no longer operates in Ohio.
On top of that:
A former spokesman for DeVos argued that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling made such limitations on PACs illegal.So she wasn't named in the lawsuit, but she is somehow responsible for what is an arbitrary and excessive fine that has since been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court? This sounds like a non-story started by Democratic Party partisans for political gain.
"Ms. DeVos was never a party of the All Children Matter lawsuit and as a matter of fact the Ohio state trial court ruled that neither the officers nor board members of the organization could be held liable for the judgement,” Matt Frendewey, now the communications director for the American Federation for Children, wrote in part. “The United States Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case renders this case against a now defunct PAC moot.”
Speaking of silly partisanship, remember all those people claiming abuse against Muslims after the election? One has been debunked:
New York Daily News;
A Muslim student who said she was harassed on the subway by drunken, hate-spewing white men shouting “Donald Trump!” lied to police because she broke her curfew, law enforcement sources said Wednesday.How convenient! Not to mention it fits a Democratic Party narrative about how racist America is...except when it isn't true.
Yasmin Seweid, 18, joined a growing list of local and national alleged hate-crime victims when she told cops she was taunted Dec. 1 on the No. 6 train by three men who called her a terrorist and tried to snatch her hijab off her head while straphangers did nothing.
But Seweid finally broke down Wednesday and was arrested after she admitted to detectives that it was all a big lie.
...Police sources say Seweid made up the story because she didn’t want to get in trouble for breaking her curfew after being out late drinking with friends.
Ironically, this incident reminds me of New York's Tawana Brawley case, which gave us Al Sharpton, and the occupation of "race hustler". Thanks New York!
And in other Trump news...
The Hill:
A spokesperson for President-elect Donald Trump is pushing back on a report that Ivanka Trump will get an office in the space typically reserved for the first lady.It is not unprecedented for someone other than the president's wife to serve as "first lady". In fact, the title was first used on an "active" first lady when Harriet Lane, the niece of President James Buchanan (who was a lifelong bachelor), served in the role.
"This is false. No decisions regarding Ivanka's involvement have been made," Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told The Hill on Wednesday.
...Instead of moving into the White House in January, the incoming first lady, Melania Trump, will continue to live in New York City with her son Barron as he finishes the school year.
Some have speculated that Ivanka, one of the president-elect's daughters, will fill a role similar to first lady's during her father's presidency. The New York Times reported this month that she may be one of the most powerful first daughters in history.
As the father of a daughter, I can appreciate why Donald Trump might entrust such a role to his own daughter. There is nobody in the world I would trust more than my own daughter.
No comments:
Post a Comment