It should not be a shock, that the press right to speech does not include illegal acts or injurious speech. Comey is kind of dumbstruck.
It should not be a shock, that the press right to speech does not include illegal acts or injurious speech. Comey is kind of dumbstruck.
This places Comey in the hot seat for obstruction of justice, especially if he is covering up a surveillance against the law, and without approval. It also appears Comey is uninterested in law breakers who placed national security behind political interests.
See Grabien here.
Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under U.S. government surveillance following November’s presidential election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday.
Nunes said the surveillance appeared to be legal but that he was concerned because it was not related to the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and was widely disseminated across the intelligence community.
Rep. Nunes is suggesting that the FBI surveilled Trump and his associates. There is no question now that Trump was at least partly right that he was “tapped.” Nunez says this had nothing to do with Russia. If so, then this is possibly illegal and the next question is who ordered it.
Further, the FBI is not being cooperative, which means that the FBI under Comey is not opening himself up for an investigation and obstruction.
We all welcome the creation of a new quarterly journal which fits the times, and has a mission that will grow with developments–American Affairs. It is a worthwhile endeavor, and together with the online magazine American Greatness, should satisfy many right leaning and presently homeless intellectuals and consumers looking for smart and more insightful commentary on current events.
As those who follow know, I have been optimistic about Trump making inroads into the black community to bring them back “home” to the party antithetical to racism. Here is a big reason why he has done that and the Clinton camp is spending the week not in contested states, but in blue states shoring up the base.
Trump may get 20% of that vote.
Editorial Note: This post is NSFW. If we are going to have an honest discussion about sex and marriage in relation to Trump, then it needs to be done in full honesty. So, for all the negative unmanly ninnies in the so called conservative movement (that means you National Review, the unimaginatively named Erick Erickson, this is your trigger warning, and the Weekly Standard, especially the presently gleeful Stephen F. Hayes).
Late last night we found out that Trump spoke in a private moment about a woman he lusted over when he was single, in 2005. What did he say? Well, this [unedited]:
I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
I received many messages about the shock that I had nothing to say about it. Well, that was because of this small thing called a hurricane, but why quibble. The moral cowardice of some on the “right” is palpable. Many others sent me notes saying “it’s over” and “Trump will lose now.”
Why? Because we already knew this about Trump 1), and 2) because Hillary—an obtuse candidate as ever in my lifetime—just strolled into Trump’s playing field. Thank you Hillary! However, the smiling “conservatives” on TV, and Fox in particular, have outed themselves for the moral cretins they are. I agree with Decius: there will be no reconciliation for many. I will go one step further as to why. Because you who claim we are friends have no shame and will do anything including throwing over your “friends” to maintain your position. Aristotle speaks of friendship in books 9 and 10 of the Ethics, and in it he notes that an imperfect friendship is one that is one sided, based on some sort of interest or advantage to oneself. Those friendships often fail because one is using the other. That’s you, well many of you, who did not seek a friendship based on an equal station, so to speak.
A real friendship should bear “good will.” This absence is what most on the right have revealed about themselves. These “friends” used to, at least so I thought, understand many of the things we learned together or discussed from afar, about the human condition. Alas….
These “friends” also do not particularly like America or believe in its Idea. Now, I see you no different from the Clinton Crime Family in your political acts and writings because you are propping them up. And because you accept the left’s hypocritical position on sex and marriage even while in places like WS and NR you defended Silvio Berlusconi, former prime minister of Italy who dealt in porn and led a lifestyle far more extravagant than Trump. Classy.
Hillary wrote about Trump’s tape: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” Jeb Bush mustered enough energy to post to her wall how much he agreed. Newsflash to Hillary Clinton: some people actually like sex (more on that below). Since Hillary commented on the story that her campaign had no doubt planted, then game on.
Hillary called disabled children “fucking retards.” She, as I know from my personal discussion with Dick Morris, drained an entire kitchen of its dishes and plates, and assaulted Dick and Bill, while throwing shards of glass at them for…does it really matter what for? She’s violent. She publicly took on a case and, in a laughing recounting, noted how she slut shamed a 12 year old, then blamed said 12 year old for wanting to be raped. Then she praised herself for getting the rapist off with time served: two months. We could go on and on about how she called Monica Lewinsky a Narcissistic looney toon, how some believe their life is in jeopardy, hence living in fear. Sally Miller is another of those.
Then of course, Bill Clinton is fair game in all of this because she says she wants him to be in her administration. She wants him to hold a position of power again. It’s germane folks, sorry and no “Bill has nothing to do with this” blather is persuasive because, you see, Bill will be back and one of her partners in the new government. Given these facts, then, what about his rape of Juanita Broaddrick? We could go on and on with this. Does Hillary support Bill and his rape and his brutal assault (real assault not fake assault) of his sexual conquests? Trump should ask if she repudiates his presidency in light of her comments about Trump’s private Billy Bush moment.
Then there’s Alicia Machado. Machado the one who threatened to kill a judge and had sex on TV while being engaged to someone else. Hillary supported and applauded her and her “honor.” Then she denied she was in a porn film (and be assured there is another more graphic tape of Machado engaged in anal sex floating around). But let’s not forget Machado objectified men in the most despicable way, again all condoned by Hillary. And what did Machado say…on tape?: “Oh your dick, my love, what a tasty dick. Your dick is divine!” Then of course, she had sex…on tape…with him…praising his body parts and skill. So, do women talk of men in similar terms? Well, the left sure admits they do! How demeaning! And the smiling grinches on the right know this.
None of this matters, though, in political terms. In fact, this turn of events will fire up the electorate because of the self congratulation and phony moral grandstanding of the media and the useful props on the “right” about sex and marriage that they have no care for when it’s a Democrat in the mix.
But there is something more important here. Men and their desire, their eros, has always been a part of the human condition. With Trump we are talking about private speech about his erotic mind. We are not talking about public acts here in relation to sex. He has not acted against the will of another, like Bill, and like Hillary, to assault or destroy another because he did not get laid, or because someone was standing in the way of his drive for power (drives in the Nietzschean sense here).
Trump is no different from what we KNOW from the ancients.
In the Iliad we hasten to add that Thersites was jealous of Agamemnon because he always got, and was around, “the hottest girls.” Trump in many ways represents in his speech in question, the desire of a younger person to be with an attractive woman. This does not mean that Trump is a moral example, but it does mean he exemplifies something of this life that all men, while they may not talk like that, have in them innately—to be with someone they consider good looking (we are leaving aside here the beauty question, and will for the sake of argument proceed with the incorrect idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder). But the complaint against Agamemnon is that he seems to have it all—bronze, gold, riches, and of course, girls.
The point here is not to equate Trump with Agamemnon (though surely some will ignore that and write I wrote that), but to note, the condition that even the ancients knew was present. The accusers of Agamemnon were jealous and babblers—they wanted what he had, but their position and talent did not afford them this position. At least even Hillary Clinton has noted such.
In book one of the Republic, Plato notes that Cephalus had many “mad masters.” Those masters were what we might call, sexual drives and desires. Cephalus had a sense of being guilty about all he did in his younger days, and he sought to redeem himself in his old age by going to the gods in hopes he would be rewarded in the afterlife.
Trump is now married to Melania. By all intents, he has settled down, and has been domesticated. In at least one interview, Melania speaks about it. And then there’s this one:
Conservatives should rejoice shouldn’t they? I mean, is this not what they praise marriage for doing? Making men responsible, and settling them down?
I guess that only applies to globalist, open border, war prone, candidates. Then, they grew, or saw the light. But it is this failure to recognize that Trump gives you what you have said you always wanted and were open to, that now makes you exposed, for all our “lying eyes” you never meant it.
It should come as no shock the dishonesty that perpetrates the media, especially old media. Jeet Heer wrote a rotund article that misspelled a person’s name who is a part of the Scholars and Writers for Trump, and then misrepresented–that is fabricated–a conclusion to a past event regarding said scholar. As noted in at least two places–PJ Media and the Daily Caller–the “article” can only be concluded as a smear at best, and libel at worst.
Heer wrote (for it could hardly be considered an “argument”) that Christiana Jeffreys (sic) [note he got her first and last name wrong!] was a part of something sinister:
The website American Greatness has compiled a list of “Scholars and Writers for Trump” and there are some very odd names on it, including the historian Christiana Jeffreys. In 1986, Jeffrey had been hired by Ronald Reagan’s Department of Education to review proposed federal funding for a course on the Holocaust. Jeffreys was hostile to the course, arguing in her evaluation that “the program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan.”
This prompted the record to be set straight by David Goldman:
Filling out an evaluation form of a Holocaust studies program, Prof. Jeffreys responded to an inquiry about the “objectivity and balance” of the program ironically. More pointedly, Jeffreys attacked the program in question for not properly explaining the development of Nazism, as the program linked the attempt to exterminate all the world’s Jews with the lynching of blacks in the American South. It’s just a poor representation of history, Prof. Jeffrey argued. For this, she drew ire — and slander — from some liberals.
If Jeet were to do, I dunno, maybe a little investigating he might have found this:
Jeet is not a careful thinker. It’s almost–how to say–comical. After now two full days, he still has not corrected Jeffrey’s name. He has a history of recklessness, however. As noted in First Things, Jeet maligned another scholar:
In the most reflective of these polemics, Canadian writer Jeet Heer concedes that “None of the Straussians so eloquently described the nature of this philosophic friendship as Jaffa.” (Heer claims some familiarity with Straussian scholarship, having studied at the University of Toronto.) But he goes on to make fantastic claims, such as “The famous Straussian division between esoteric and exoteric writing can itself be seen as a metaphor for the closet.”
But Jeet is not the only irresponsible “journalist.” Another, at The Week, decided that the Scholars for Trump were so wrong headed, he posted (before it was deleted) a sinister response that it was “nice to have all their names listed in one place.”
His response? “I don’t want anyone to think that was implied.” What was implied? Something “menacing.” Menacing of course means “threatening.” To that comment he writes that he did not want “anyone to think” that’s what he meant. He did NOT write, that is not what he meant, only that he did not want others to think so.
But what would one think about someone who has a history of this sort of thing? Peas in a pod? Pot meet kettle? Birds of a feather?
Either way, a person was unjustly maligned. One did the maligning; another did the cheering. Shame on them.
This is, as Chris Plante says, “fake journalism.”
We could also call it propoganda.
Addendum: Here is the author at The Week stating that Trump voters are a problem, a problem that should be “solved.”