Frederica ’empty guns, no hat’ Wilson gets schooled by honor and an honorable man.
Because there is none, that’s why. There is a long and detailed explanation on why this is the case. The first is that the Democrats never took security measures to keep their data secure. It is astonishing we’d ever trust another Democrat to lead security as a result of their airless malfeasance:
Around this time the DNC hired cybersecurity consultants from Good Harbor Security Risk Management, which provided a list of recommendations for improving DNC cybersecurity. The DNC failed to take action on any of the consultants’ recommendations. Further, although Russian hackers were allegedly already in the DNC network at the time, Good Harbor did not discover any hackers in its review.
The private organization Crowdstrike, has most likely lied about Russia too, which the media could care less in reporting because they love the narrative as it skewers the Republicans, whom they loathe:
According to former FBI Director James Comey, the FBI made “multiple requests at different levels” to examine the DNC servers, but the DNC refused. Ultimately, the FBI reached an agreement with the DNC that, in Comey’s words, a “highly respected private company” would report to the FBI what it found in the DNC servers.CrowdStrike has also been wrong about Russian hacking in the past.
This is odd. Checking out the DNC servers, especially with an election and U.S. national security on the line, should be the FBI’s job. Next, CrowdStrike had incentives that might conflict with an honest assessment. Because CrowdStrike was being paid by the DNC, not taxpayers, it had a clear incentive to report whatever the DNC wanted it to report. The DNC had a political incentive to blame the hacking on Russia, which allowed the Clinton team to first falsely claim that the documents were heavily doctored or even wholly manufactured, then pivot to attacking Trump as a Putin stooge whenever WikiLeaks material came up.
Most important, CrowdStrike has a monetary incentive to find something big when skunking out hackers—the better to get its name in the public domain and go on to bigger and better contracts. In the words of Jeffrey Carr, a cybersecurity consultant who has lectured at the U.S. Army War College: “The only things that pay in the cybersecurity world are claims of attribution. Which foreign government attacked you? If you are critical of the attack, you make zero money. CrowdStrike is the poster child for companies that operate like this.”
The media knows all this, and yet still lied to the public about the questionable source material. Crowdstrike’s assertions have never been verified.
There is a lot more to digest, and we highly recommend this piece.
Chris Buskirk writes an excellent piece at The Hill drawing our attention to the things that matter most–the heart and soul of the Republic.
Trump is not the cause of crisis, in fact he is a corrective:
Trump haters come in all shapes and sizes but one belief they all seem to hold in common is that the temerity of the American people in electing Donald Trump will lead, as night follows day, to a constitutional crisis.
What they missed is that the crisis is already here and it’s been brewing for years. It’s just not the one they’re looking for and, contrary to what Left wing commentators would say, Trump isn’t the cause of the crisis, he is the response to it.
The fundamental issue confronting us is that the elites do not want the people to rule, thus striking at the idea of consent of the governed:
That’s the nub of the real political crisis: Elections. They’re messy and somebody has to lose. That doesn’t sit well in a society that gives kids participant trophies rather than teaching them how to lose with grace, which is why the attacks on Trump — which are also an attack on the 63 million Americans who voted for him — are nothing but a tantrum. It is a dangerous tantrum that threatens to further alienate voters who already think the game is rigged against them. At some point that alienation threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the regime itself.
The fundamental question of politics is always, who rules? Will it be voters acting in their constitutional majority or will it be ruling class elites who seem content to abide by election results only when they ratify the predetermined outcomes?
The attacks on Trump have not only that aim, but to stop his agenda:
The attacks on Trump aren’t about any real or imagined crimes, they are about gaining political advantage to stop the implementation of his agenda. In other words, they are politics by any means necessary: Burn it down, salt the earth, just don’t let Republicans enact their policy goals. And he wonders why voters turned on Hillary, turned on establishment Republicans and elected a man who promised to drain the swamp.
Yet all the allegations made by predominantly Democrats, are really projection of what they are doing:
And what of recent disclosures that Fusion GPS, the firm that created the so-called Trump dossier that was chock full of scandalous but wholly unsubstantiated allegations, was not only working for Trump’s domestic political opponents, but also for the Russians? For the past year we’ve been harangued with breathless claims that the president and his associates had struck a corrupt bargain with “the Russians” but so far the only evidence of an American-Russian alliance in political dirty tricks points to the Democrats. Funny that. But it is more evidence that the American Left has mastered and what psychiatrists call projection: If you want to know what Democrats are really doing, just look at the allegations they make against Republicans.
In the end, the people ought to rule by politics and right. Trump’s success hinges on making sure the people’s choice wins out, and all of the allegations against him are turned on the real perpetrators.
One of the only truthful members of Congress is Devin Nunez (R-CA) who was vocal that there was no evidence Trump colluded, and who noted he was not under investigation. For his truthfulness, the Left and MoveOn decided to try to have him sidelined because they wanted to overthrow the election and thwart the will of the people. What Nunez said is instructive:
I said, “OK, I don’t think there’s any collusion here.” And what happened to me? All the major papers in the country did a total character assassination on me. Why? Because I was telling the truth, that there was never any collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians.
TheDemocrats just don’t care. They want to keep this thing going with their masters in the media in order to try to undermine the republic of the fountain of its authority–the people.
Bernie Sanders reverts back to his imprudent rhetoric:
Sanders was responding to a question about what average citizens can do to stop and fight the proposed Republican health care bill.
“We’ve got to stand up and fight back,” Sanders said. “We’ve got to be involved in the political process in a way that we’ve never been before.”
Sanders went on to criticize Republicans for their health care bill and the secrecy
“So you have got to, Mary, act in an unprecedented way, think big, get involved in every way that you can,” Sanders said. “So, Mary, stand up and fight back in every way that you can.”
Never seen before? Sanders must either be tone deaf or he knows exactly what he is doing.
As long as they engage on sectional campaigns, they will never win the White house. See this as somewhat an explanation:
But there are a lot of small towns in America, and as Sean Trende and David Byler recently demonstrated, those small towns are redder than ever. Effectively, the Democratic coalition has self-gerrymandered into a small number of places where they can turn out an impressive number of feet on the ground, but not enough votes to win the House. Certainly not enough to win the Senate or the Electoral College, which both favor sparsely populated states and discount the increasingly dense parts of the nation.
As noted here:
“We have two centrist parties right now, and the Democratic Party has become — not as much as the Republicans — but very much the party of corporate America and Wall Street,” said Press, adding, “I think Bernie’s mission is to win the presidency, but also to push the progressive agenda and get the Democratic Party to adopt the progressive agenda.”
Indeed, all of the “Bernie or Bust” voters who talked to Yahoo News said they voted for Obama in 2008 and have been disappointed that his administration has proved not to be sufficiently progressive.
“I voted for him twice, and I respect the man, and I think he was in some ways a splendid president, but he didn’t end the Bush doctrine and the terrible war on terror,” Scolari said of Obama. “In fact, he expanded drone warfare in a way I find shameful and shocking. … He didn’t get Guantánamo closed.”
Kirn, the cinematographer, said he believed he was supporting someone like Sanders when he voted for Obama in 2008.
“We were thinking we were getting what Bernie is,” Kirn said. “Well, he didn’t follow through.”
Moore, the Sanders campaign volunteer, said he has been drawn to a more activist approach since voting for Obama. That attracted him to Sanders — and it’s also why he won’t follow along if Sanders lines up behind Clinton.
Here comes Elizabeth Warren, who says that she is not—at the moment—running for president. However, rhetorically, she sure sounds like she’s trying to influence who is nominated. What if nobody she likes is nominated? Warren, who was featured in Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story when she was a professor at Harvard, is the consummate voice of the left (some would say the tea party left), and she more than anyone in the Democrat Party poses a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders has not the charisma nor the articulate appeal that Warren does, and he carries the identification of “socialist” around as a proud badge, and that’s immediate disqualification for a majority of the voters in the general.
Warren, however, has a populist appeal that could get her far into the primary, and she appeals to the Democratic base when she is not obligated to do so, particularly among those who believe Obama has betrayed them. As a result, Warren is garnering much attention:
Interviews with more than a dozen attendees, along with comments from panelists, suggest that Clinton — who many on the left view as too hawkish and soft on Wall Street — is still struggling to generate enthusiasm among progressives, even as she’s all but certain to announce a 2016 bid within a few months. The lack of excitement is especially palpable among younger liberals, the set that helped power Barack Obama to the Democratic nod over Clinton in 2008.
Warren keeps saying she is not (in the present) running. But that is true until she says she’s running (and for the record, Hillary is not running either at the moment). In other words, she has not ruled it out:
As NPR’s Steve Inskeep and many other observers have noticed, Warren always answers the presidential query in the present tense and assiduously avoids any deviation that might rule out a future bid.
Warren may not be “running for president” at the moment, but neither is anyone else, for that matter.
Far more relevant is the question that she has repeatedly chooses not to answer: Might she run for president, after the 2016 campaign official kicks off next year?
Can Warren win, as David Brooks recently opined in the affirmative in the NYT? He concludes:
Clinton is obviously tough, but she just can’t speak with a clear voice against Wall Street and Washington insiders. Warren’s wing shows increasing passion and strength, both in opposing certain Obama nominees and in last week’s budget fight.
The history of populist candidates is that they never actually get the nomination. The establishment wins. That’s still likely. But there is something in the air. The fundamental truth is that every structural and historical advantage favors Clinton, but every day more Democrats embrace the emotion and view defined by Warren.
Brooks is too optimistic for the moment, but there is a conceivable path to Warren winning with Clinton’s continued mis-steps and the base’s continued anger at Obama and the prior Clinton administration’s forays into the center.