Patterico's Pontifications

3/29/2019

Video: Trumpers Cheering for QAnon Conspiracy

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:08 am



Here’s a guy walking around with a sign saying “Make Noise for Q” at a Trump rally. Many do. Some of them show off their own Q symbols.

I know I speak for many when I express the hope that Trump gives the green light to the QAnon conspiracy. Then we’ll get to have Very Serious Discussions about whether there is something to it. Maybe we can get some readers here to say it’s real.

Anticipating your objections, I know: it’s crazy for me to suggest that Trump would actually express support for a bizarre conspiracy theory.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

103 Responses to “Video: Trumpers Cheering for QAnon Conspiracy”

  1. The important thing is not to express contempt for these misunderstood people, but to nod your head seriously and talk about how someone is finally addressing their concerns.

    Their insane, conspiratorial concerns.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Now do the pulitzer committee and the fisa court.

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. Weird. That people would believe in such nonsense.

    Of course, the Democrat Party largely believes in Marx, and now Malthus, so there must be something going around. At least QAnon hasn’t been debunked so repeatedly.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  4. Now do Susan pages scurrilous bush Bio, yes they published after the passing so neither subject could objecg

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. “They may be bastards, but at least they’re our bastards.”

    — Trump supporters

    Gryph (08c844)

  6. Any day now, there will be another deep state conspiracy to claim that Mueller’s report doesn’t completely exonerate the president from any wrongdoing.

    John B Boddie (66f464)

  7. 6. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s a fact. It doesn’t.

    Gryph (08c844)

  8. It’s as much what they go on about, as what they don’t.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. Any day now, there will be another deep state conspiracy to claim that Mueller’s report doesn’t completely exonerate the president from any wrongdoing.
    John B Boddie (66f464) — 3/29/2019 @ 7:52 am

    I daresay that there is no way to “completely exonerate” someone of an accusation, notwithstanding the claims of the president. ‘Twould be analogous to proving a negative, which some claim is impossible, yes?

    However, in light of the failure, despite two years of highly-motivated investigation, to discover any evidence that wrongdoing by the president did take place, what is a better description to use? Acquitted of wrongdoing? Found “not guilty” of wrongdoing? Absolved of wrongdoing? How would you accurately yet succinctly describe the Meuller results specifically with respect to the president?

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  10. To clarify: my comment was not meant to criticize Mr. Boddie’s comment — but if the discussion is based in semantics of how to describe the Mueller conclusions, then I’d like to know a better word or phrase to use than exonerate. If it’s not exoneration of these particular charges against the president, then what better to call it?

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  11. QAnon has the advantage of not being thoroughly debunked, unlike the Trump Russia Collusion conspiracy — which some are still desperately clinging to in one form or another.

    Chuffy McChuff (15281e)

  12. I dont take much stock in quanon, but then again the ‘blank pages’ they have been proferring to the last two years have been extremely flawed.

    Narciso (2e8f38)

  13. I’m out of the loop, I’ve never even heard of this Qanon.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. here’s another they fell for fusion or haklyuts breadcrumbs,

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/29/abc-damages-ukraine-poroshenko-michael-cohen/

    as the telegraph, or the mail have realized that’s an expensive bet,

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. Narciso, do you recall someone commenting as “Q” who tried, last year, to spread that stuff on this site?

    felipe (5b25e2)

  16. actually he was a fan of the blank pages, but there were others,

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/28/usa-today-blacklists-federalist-crime-getting-trump-russia-story-right/

    I call them samizdat publications, with varying degrees of veracity,

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. The person who, two weeks ago, on the night of Wednesday March 13, killed Francesco Cali, the head of the Gambino crime family, in front of his house on Staten Island, after staging a car accident that had damaged his car, is a fan of Donald Trumper and a believer in Q-Anon.

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/man-suspected-of-killing-mob-boss-drew-qanon-symbol-in-court.html

    During the hearing, Comello drew with a blue pen, writing “MAGA Forever” on his hand. It’s a political statement that’s congruous with Staten Island, the only borough that favored Trump in 2016. But Comello’s other sketches — a large “Q” in the middle of his hand, and the phrases “United We Stand” and “Patriots in Charge” — suggest the influence of the bizarre and wholly uncredited QAnon theory.

    Something of an umbrella far-right conspiracy theory, QAnon suggests that there is a deep-state plot against Donald Trump, and that the president actually appointed Robert Mueller to investigate top Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Podesta. Emerging from the message board 4chan, the theory has gained credit among conspiracy-minded factions of the right, including Roseanne Barr and Curt Schilling.

    It’s unclear how much weight should be placed onto Comello’s conspiracist proclivities: Online theories such as QAnon are laced with irony and misdirection, and to take their presence at face value in the courtroom is probably shortsighted. Still, the fact that the story — a young man kills a Sicilian crime boss and shows up in court with conspiracist hand-drawings — was a minor moment on an otherwise normal Monday suggests the irreversible damage that the Trump era has wrought on our understanding of the definition of a “normal” news cycle.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  18. Is the guy who set-up the so-called Trump Tower meeting now talking about it?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. It’s not the first time a goombah has pretended to be a nutjob, Sammy. You had a top one in New York and we had one in Chicago, also a top one. Ours was gunned down by his own paisanos, yours was sent up for … wait for it … obstruction of justice, federal, for fooling the courts, and I don’t know how he died.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. yes but Vincent gigante, had a long record, maybe you’re referring to joey gallo,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. Heard something just in passing on the radio that made it sound like it was news…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Yep, I just googled and read about it on CNN, of all places.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  23. from norman mailer to matt daamon, and those are just the Hollywood crew,

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. Hey! If they could do it with the Chin, why not Trump? What if SDNY can prove that the “It’s only Trump being Trump” defense is just an act?

    nk (dbc370)

  25. when the times had john hashified louise mensch on their editorial page

    http://strategycounsel.blogspot.com/2019/03/russia-trump-mueller-and-endless.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. isn’t that what bandy ‘snapper organs’ lee and jamin ‘I don’t look crazy’ raskin wanted to do?

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Insufficient evidence doesn’t mean no evidence correct? It’s always possible that there’s a report someplace that we haven’t seen yet that would validate some of the qanon speculations. After fall there’s clear evidence right in public view that some pretty hinky stuff is going on.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  28. They were all against him.
    They fought him at every turn.
    Ah, but the strawberries, that’s where he had them…

    Helsinki.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. like henry Blodgett and Andrew Sullivan, yes that’s the hallmark of sanity,

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. who needs fara when the post does in kind contributions,

    https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1111693370454355973

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. @36 – I’m rather surprised and disappointed that Rachel Maddow is considered the worst. Is the American public really that ignorant that they haven’t yet figured out she’s a performance artist doing a parody of a deranged political ideologue and not an actual journalist? I mean, I tried watching her “bit” one time and it’s just a one-joke set that stops being funny fairly quickly, but I can’t imagine that anybody can watch her for more than a minute or two without figuring out it’s a joke. Sad that even the broadest satire has to be plainly labeled as such for people to get that it’s a joke.

    Speaking of which, our host here having an “explainer” on QAnon that links to The Guardian should be a dead give-away that this post shouldn’t be taken seriously and yet I’m sure there are some here don’t realize it’s a tongue-in-cheek commentary on conspiracy nuts in general and not just the Russian Collusion conspiracy nuts. I suppose he could have linked to The Onion or The Babylon Bee to make the point more obvious, but I think we all know The Guardian is a joke site as well.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  32. However, in light of the failure, despite two years of highly-motivated investigation, to discover any evidence that wrongdoing by the president did take place, what is a better description to use?

    “In light of [inserts baseless statement] what is a better description to use?”

    How many times do I have to explain this? You have no basis to say Mueller failed to discover “any evidence” of wrongdoing by Trump. Barr’s letter makes it quite clear otherwise.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  33. if the discussion is based in semantics of how to describe the Mueller conclusions, then I’d like to know a better word or phrase to use than exonerate. If it’s not exoneration of these particular charges against the president, then what better to call it?

    Almost anything else, given that one of the few direct quotes we have from Mueller, on the issue of obstruction, is “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

    So use almost any phraseology other than the one you suggest, because the one you suggest is inaccurate beyond the shadow of a doubt.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  34. Any credible evidence…

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  35. the only conspiracy that is a threat is that by free traders trying to stop trump and bernie sanders in their partys.

    lany (1df872)

  36. You guys would sound much less ill-informed if you tried reading the source documents instead of the spin from those taking victory laps.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  37. Any credible evidence…

    You have no idea.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  38. Hopefully, soon we’ll get to see the salient parts of the report, and then appropriate mea culpas will ensue…

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  39. Sure I do.

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  40. Hopefully, soon we’ll get to see the salient parts of the report, and then appropriate mea culpas will ensue…

    Given that you can’t issue one even when I prove you are lying about the contents of the Barr letter, I doubt it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  41. (Yes, lying. You could have been innocently mistaken at first, but it’s been explained to you plenty of times and you still pretend to misunderstand. You are lying to my readers, Haiku.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  42. I’’ve posted the letter in the other thread… there’s a difference between credible evidence and that which is not.

    IMHO, Trump will not be impeached and will not be removed from office.

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  43. I’’ve posted the letter in the other thread… there’s a difference between credible evidence and that which is not.

    Yes, there is a difference. And you have no idea whether Mueller uncovered either kind of evidence, and yet you are lying to people and pretending that you know. You are revealing yourself to be fundamentally dishonest.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  44. I have no axe to grind

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  45. No 1 fan tried to kill 18 congressman, said fan was in communication with duckworth and durbin, hey that might be worth an investigation, naw we’re busy with political harassment, disguised as investigation,

    I remember when the Nunes memo was so highly regarded here, no only Schiff’s spin mattered,

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. “And you have no idea whether Mueller uncovered either kind of evidence, and yet you are lying to people and pretending that you know.“

    Do you have information that indicates that he has credible evidence that he has withheld for some reason?

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  47. I’’ve posted the letter in the other thread… there’s a difference between credible evidence and that which is not.

    IMHO, Trump will not be impeached and will not be removed from office.

    Barr’s summary did not say there was no credible evidence. He said there was not enough evidence…a very different thing.

    I agree that Trump will not be removed from office. You would need almost half of the GOP Senators to vote guilty. Won’t happen except in Seth Abramson’s dreams.

    Kishnevi (37d538)

  48. 50. I submit your posts, in this thread and others, as evidence to the contrary. Would it hold up in a court of law? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. 😉

    Gryph (08c844)

  49. I agree exonerated is not the right word. I’d go with “innocent”. As in, innocent until proven guilty. Which after a two year investigation there was not credible evidence of guilt, thus POTUS remains innocent.

    That the lawyers here seemingly invert the principles of basic rights is disconcerting.

    lee (6d3cf0)

  50. Didn’t Lee Smith post here several years back? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

    “It will take weeks for the elite pundit class to unravel all the possible implications and subtexts embedded in Robert Mueller’s final report on the charge that Donald Trump and his team colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election. The right claims that the report exonerates Trump fully, while the left contends there are lots of nuggets in the full text of the final report that may point to obstruction of justice, if not collusion.

    But here’s all you need to know about the special counsel probe:

    First, after nearly two years, the special counsel found no credible evidence of collusion. It found no credible evidence of a plot to obstruct justice, to hide evidence of collusion. The entire collusion theory, which has formed the center of elite political discourse for over two years now, has been publicly and definitely proclaimed to be a hoax by the very person on whom news organizations and their chosen “experts” and “high-level sources” had so loudly and insistently pinned their daily, even hourly, hopes of redemption.”

    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282448/system-fail

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  51. No, Smith has been linked here before, but it appears I had him confused with Lee Stranahan…

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  52. I’d like to know a better word or phrase to use than exonerate.

    The dictionary definition of exonerate carries with it an association with the final results of a proceeding. At some point, we’ll get more from the report but you won’t be able to use the word without pushback. If impeachment proceedings are brought and he’s not removed technically you should be able to use the word but you’ll probably still get pushback. If we don’t get to impeachment it might be added to the list of politically incorrect words or the list of dog whistle words.

    For now, though it still has value. If you want to find out where someone lands on the TDS spectrum you can say loud and proud that Trump was exonerated by Mueller. If you get a loud and proud ‘amen brother’ in response he might also believe in qanon. Any other response will require further steps to determine which type of unreconstructed communist you’re dealing with.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  53. koshnevi #53. barr says Mueller said he did not find any evidence that members of teh Trumpcampaign conspired or colluded with the Russian government in election interference activities (which would include, hacking, leaking and sock-puppeting.)

    That, of course, does not say that it didn’t happen, but he didn’t find anything.

    When it comes to obstruction, he encountered difficult legal and factual issues and gave arguments pro and con and left it to the Attorney General to determine whether any of the conduct described in the report, many of which, says Barr, took place in public view, constituted a crime.

    Among the points that Mueller noted was that “the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in any underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” but he said that was not determinative, although it had a bearing on the president’s intent.

    Barr and Rosenstein said they made a determination without taking into consideration any possible presidential immunity from prosection.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  54. 20 @ Vincent Giigante (March 29, 1928 – December 19, 2005) died ina federal prison hospital – his craziness was clearly fake, and consisted mostly of walking in the street in his pajamas.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gigante

    In 1969, Gigante started feigning mental illness to escape criminal prosecution. He escaped conviction on bribery charges by producing a number of prominent psychiatrists who testified that he was legally insane. The doctors said Gigante had schizophrenia, dementia, psychosis, and other disorders. Gigante allegedly enlisted his mother, and wife to help him in these deceptions. The government had many psychiatrists examine Gigante, including Thomas Gutheil from Harvard University, Donald Klein from Columbia University, William Reid from University of Texas, Wilford Van Gorp from Cornell University, Stanley Portnow from New York University, and Abraham Halpern from New York Medical College. These psychiatrists said that Gigante was neither competent to stand trial nor to be sentenced.[citation needed]

    Even when not under indictment, he prepared for inevitable charges (knowing the FBI was watching him). Almost every day he would return from his residence to his mother’s apartment at 225 Sullivan Street in Greenwich Village and emerge dressed in a bathrobe and pajamas or a windbreaker and shabby trousers. Accompanied by one or two bodyguards, he crossed the street to the Triangle Civic Improvement Association — a dingy storefront club that served as his headquarters—where he played pinochle and held whispered conversations with his associates.[1] Regular visitors to the Triangle included senior Genovese caporegimes Liborio Bellomo, John Ardito, Tino Fiumara, Ernest Muscarella and Daniel Leo. From Gigante’s 1990 indictment and after his incarceration, these men ran the crime family, with all major choices authorized by Gigante from his prison cell.

    In 1990, Gigante was arrested and charged with racketeering and murder; in 1997 he was brought to trial. During that time period, Gigante’s lawyers produced witness after witness who testified that Gigante was mentally ill and unfit to stand trial. The delay allowed Gigante’s legal team to use the “windows racket” case as a preview of the government’s case against Gigante. This gambit backfired when four high-ranking members of other families began to cooperate with the government in the early 1990s…

    …In June 1993, largely on the basis of these informers’ testimony, prosecutors won a superseding indictment that charged Gigante with helping orchestrate the windows racket, being the Genovese boss and ordering numerous murders…. On July 25, 1997, Gigante was convicted on eight counts of racketeering and conspiracy charges. Despite his lawyers’ and psychiatrists’ claims that he had been legally insane for more than 30 years, the jury convicted him on all but the murder charges, which carried a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. In December 1997, he was sentenced to 12 years in a federal prison by judge Jack B. Weinstein, who declared that Gigante had been “brought to bay in his declining years after decades of vicious criminal tyranny.”[1] While in prison, he was still in firm control of the Genovese family. While other mobsters were entrusted to run the day-to-day activities of the family, Gigante relayed orders to the crime family through his son, Andrew, who would visit him in prison.[9][10]

    In 2002, Gigante was indicted on charges of racketeering and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn alleged that Gigante continued to rule the Genovese family from prison, and also accused him of causing a seven-year delay in his previous trial by feigning insanity. Also indicted was his son Andrew, who was accused of delivering messages from Gigante to family leaders. Prosecutors also obtained evidence that Gigante had enlisted his wife, mistress, several of his children and Father Louis in his scheme to feign insanity.[11] Faced with this evidence, on April 7, 2003—the day the trial was due to start—Gigante pleaded guilty to obstructing justice. He admitted to intentionally delaying his previous racketeering trial and misleading numerous psychiatrists over the previous three decades about his mental state. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors dropped the racketeering charges that would have brought on a lengthy trial and assured that he would die in prison if convicted (he was 75 at the time). Instead, he had another three years added to his sentence.[1] ] New York Times organized-crime reporter and mob historian Selwyn Raab described Gigante’s plea deal as an “unprecedented capitulation” for a Mafia boss; it was almost unheard of for a boss to even consider pleading guilty. Gigante only agreed to the deal to ease the burden on his relatives. Andrew potentially faced 20 years in prison, but got two years and a $2 million fine. Another provision of the plea agreement stipulated that any relatives who helped in his deception—including his wife, mistress and [brother] Father Louis—would not be charged with obstruction of justice.[12]

    Wikipedia doesn’t knwo exactly what killed him.

    He experienced labored breathing, oxygen deprivation, swelling in the lower body and bouts of unconsciousness. He was moved from the Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Worth to Springfield, Missouri. In November 2005, Flora Edwards, his lawyer, sued officials at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri to transfer him to an acute care hospital. Transferred to a private medical facility, he rallied physically. In early December, he was transferred back to Springfield, where he died 10 days later on December ..

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  55. 55. The legal system does not find individuals “innocent.” It finds them “not guilty.” There is a tangible and philosophically important difference between those two concepts.

    Gryph (08c844)

  56. 62. I wonder if you could, considering that you seem to be a reflexive hobgoblin of Trump knob polishing, yourself.

    Gryph (08c844)

  57. 65- Not being a lawyer myself, maybe I have it all wrong, but I was always told the legal system was supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty. Not guilty=innocent.

    lee (6d3cf0)

  58. 66. That is an aphorism. No jury will hand down a verdict of “innocent.” It is always “not guilty.”

    Gryph (08c844)

  59. Oops, last for 64..

    lee (6d3cf0)

  60. 67- Doesn’t change what I said. Not guilty=innocent in the eyes of the law, no?

    lee (6d3cf0)

  61. 69. No. If a prosecutor believes you are innocent of a crime, they drop the charges. No ethical prosecutor would bring charges or continue with a trial knowing that the defendant is innocent. Presumption of innocence is not the same thing as a “not guilty” verdict.

    Gryph (08c844)

  62. The presumption of innocence itself is an evidentiary burden. It doesn’t mean that a prosecutor believes that a defendant is innocent until the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.

    Gryph (08c844)

  63. How about if we agree on this?

    lee (6d3cf0)

  64. 73. Well yeah, that’s the definition I just gave you. Presumption of innocence is an evidentiary burden. It has nothing to do with a defendant’s good name (which is usually dragged through the mud in the process of a criminal trial regardless) or the beliefs of the prosecutor or presiding judge.

    Gryph (08c844)

  65. The case in question wasn’t even about prosecution. Mueller was an investigator, and didn’t even find the evidence to present to a prosecutor. I still maintain Trump is innocent due to lack of evidence of guilt.

    lee (6d3cf0)

  66. @66 Things do not mean what they used to mean.

    Putting the snark aside, Trump wasn’t found ‘not guilty’ so whether ‘not guilty’ means ‘innocent’ isn’t really the issue.

    Even if Trump got through impeachment I’m not sure that is a process that results in a ‘not guilty’ decision.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  67. Say someone with an ax to grind accuses you of a crime. You say “I’m innocent”, and the police, after investigating, say we find no evidence you committed a crime. Wouldn’t you be justified in saying “see, I told you I was innocent.”?

    lee (6d3cf0)

  68. Trump says he is going to close the U.S. Mexican border to all legal traffic next week, and keep it closed, unless Mexico agree to (somehow) stop Central Americans from reaching the U.S. border It actually might make sense t=for Mexico to pay for awall, since Trump says that will solve the problem.

    I think he is going to have another problem with Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  69. @3. Pfft.

    Chiefly Groucho. Occasionally Chico but Harpo never gets a word in edgewise.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. Britain is now scheduled to crash out of the European Union on April 12. Or else will have to stay in for maybe at least two years and take part in the elections to the European PArliament. Or the UK might render the EU dysfunctional.

    But Trump has found away to create something even more disruptive.

    All beause of the immigration issue. That’s the prob;em with Brexit, too, The UK wants a Brexit agreement it cannot have – and the han-up is almost theoretical as if they let any EU citizen move to the UK it wouldn’t make much difference, but they don’t want the implication they are racist., so May has this pledge to redce all immigration.

    Britain wants both a customs agreement (and a non-hard Irish border, and restrictions on immigration from the EU. It cannot have that, althugh it could have had it had it never joined. Free movement is now one of the underpinnings of the EU> Meanwhile Poland is losing people, ad gaining people from Ukraine (who can’t move elsewhere although soon they will be) and is denyying and hiding the number of Ukrainians in Poland.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  71. A big war is looming in the Middle East, if Iran wants one.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  72. The Q anon things seems to be a claim that there is Deep State, but some members of the Deep state are pro-Trump, and at least one of them who uses the name “Q” wants the public to know. There are all kinds of contradictory things said. Who’s behind it is not clear.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  73. @40. It doesn’t take a useless degree from Trump University to see there is a mountain of ‘credible evidence’ that the man is complete and total scumbag, Haiku.

    It is has been his life’s work.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. ^is/has been

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. From the Democrat Operatives With Bylines file…

    “It must be noted up front that there’s no evidence that the DNC put her up to doing this. It may be that Dafna Linzer, former WaPo reporter and current managing editor of politics for NBC and MSNBC, simply took it upon herself to do the DNC a solid.

    But even if so, that’s news too. Since when does the head of an allegedly independent news organization do a favor for a political party?

    Yashar Ali is a reporter who publishes in HuffPost and New York magazine. He’s respected in the field from what I know and not known as conservative, which may explain why Linzer allegedly felt comfortable dialing him up and asking him for a favor. You can read Ali’s entire Twitter thread about this by clicking here and scrolling, but the gist is that he got a tip yesterday about when the first Democratic presidential debates would be held hours before the DNC was set to formally announce it on MSNBC. He called the DNC to confirm that the info he had was correct; they asked him to delay his scoop for an hour or so while they called their state parties to formally notify them of the dates. No dice, he said. It was newsy and if he waited he risked being beaten to the scoop by someone else, possibly MSNBC.

    Lo and behold, within “two minutes” of hanging up with the DNC, says Ali, Dafna Linzer was on the line asking him to wait — not because MSNBC wanted to air the information first but because it’d be nice if he let the DNC talk to the state Democratic parties first. Why should the head of NBC News’s political coverage care what’s going on at the DNC? Good question. Ali wondered too.”

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/29/reporter-head-nbc-newss-political-coverage-tried-bully-scoop-behalf-dnc/

    Colonel Haiku (b209d4)

  76. I thought Q Anus was a hoax; from my view it’s a little bit too caricture and too physically close, i.e. “within hands out of my pocket” range.

    urbanleftbehind (1d6fde)

  77. QAnon claims to be a military intelligence operation with the goal of returning power to the citizens of the USA from a globalist deep state cabal of corrupt elites.

    Whether it is a true phenomenon or not, the idea has gained the support of patriots world wide.

    It’s kinda like the old PW idea that even if you don’t believe in the Christian creator in the Declaration of Independence, acceptance of the idea is the way to go of you want to promote classical liberalism, the Constitution, our representative republic, and western civilization.

    I don’t really see the downside of supporting the Q movement.

    lee (6d3cf0)

  78. 85- a different perspective.

    lee (6d3cf0)

  79. @90. The one and only perspective– from every angle: the man is a scumbag.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. @50. I have no axe to grind.

    Your sickle will do- to cross w/your hammer, Comrade.

    Helsinki.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. 91- Hey, chant whatever affirmations of your own virtues you got to to get you through the night, I won’t judge.

    92- OK, maybe I will…

    lee (6d3cf0)

  82. “Two years ago I predicted the attempt to nullify the 2016 election with the Russian collusion investigation would threaten both Trump and Obama:

    The most singular thing about Donald Trump’s wiretap accusation against Barack Obama is how he’s refusing to play the game of extremities — losing a Flynn here and getting a Sessions paralyzed there — and getting right into lethal range. Trump’s gone right past Schumer, ignored the surrogates and gone straight for the former president himself.
    This escalation represents a real threat to Obama. Suddenly everything is out of control. Nobody would have minded much if Trump had gone after one of Obama’s henchmen — which is probably what was expected — but none can foresee how an exchange of blades between principals will end. It is safe to say, however, that unless the combatants disengage, someone will get hurt. It will be a terrible moment for American political civility when a king lies on the political floor. The whole point of a peaceful transition of power is to prevent a clash between kings. Yet the very tragedy the electoral process is intended to prevent is happening before our eyes.

    Unfortunately, the prediction has now come true. “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Breitbart News exclusively on Tuesday that President Donald Trump told senators at the weekly GOP luncheon that he backs his call for an investigation into the origins of the Russia scandal “hoax” that Trump has now been cleared of by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.” In this scenario, the conspiracy was a plot to frame Trump and having failed, the next act is to hunt the conspirators.

    When asked specifically if former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice should be called to testify about their role in the matter—and be subpoenaed to force their testimony if they refuse to voluntarily comply—Paul said: “Absolutely.”
    “We have John Brennan, who lied to us, who spied on the Senate and tapped into Senate computers,” Paul said. “We have James Clapper who came before the Intelligence Committee and said they weren’t collecting all of our phone data. So both Brennan and Clapper have been known to lie in official testimony. They should be brought forward and asked what was their part? What was their role in ginning up this dossier? Amazingly, most media outlets wouldn’t even print the dossier because they thought it was so unsubstantiated. And then all of a sudden, the FBI gives it credence. There’s one interesting story out today that says still no one would print it, so then Comey gives it to President Trump and that’s when it’s been leaked and then we have a news story saying that this dossier had been given to the president and that became the hook or the story.”

    https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/continued-high-stakes/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. Recall Paul and Cruz filibustered brennan over the list of drone strikes.

    Narciso (72ff69)

  84. Q Anon is some weird s**t. That they would attend Trump’s glee-club gatherings, and that his MAGA-hat wearing people would cheer on the Q Anoners, it’s of a piece. They’re all zero credibility.

    Paul Montagu (d49d0a)

  85. this Q thing sounds like something the uni-party has already created.
    Fear.
    lmao at these freaks and the people that are consumed with the b.s.

    mg (8cbc69)

  86. Oh, and Trump went to Michigan to lie, and of course the Q Anoners and his loyal supporters lapped that up.

    Paul Montagu (d49d0a)

  87. “Every Resistance fan in America is watching the clip below thinking, “We haven’t seen the collusion evidence yet. All we know is that Mueller couldn’t get to probable cause.”

    Right, we’ll see. But the fact that he couldn’t get to probable cause on collusion for anyone — not Trump, not Don Jr, not Mike Flynn, not even a guy like Paul Manafort who’s otherwise dripping with Russian sleaze — suggests this wasn’t a close evidentiary call.

    I’ve heard her point made often this week, that Russiagate true believers obviously hoped for the worst from all this even though it would have been ruinous for their country. True enough. If Mueller could prove that Trump had conspired with Putin to influence the 2016 campaign POTUS’s legitimacy would be shattered, America would be humiliated, the right would be in chaos, and the bottom would fall out of public faith in the integrity of presidential elections (to the extent it hasn’t already). It’d be a catastrophe. And yet it wasn’t joy that had Rachel Maddow’s voice cracking on Monday night after Bill Barr assured the country that the worst fortunately hadn’t come to pass. How come?”

    When you recognize that conspiracy theories are mini-religions, you see it’s a normal reaction. Look at the people who join doomsday cults that believe the world will end on a predetermined date, then somehow have to cope after that date comes and goes. The world isn’t ending! The greatest news of all, right? But they don’t treat it as great. There’s no rejoicing. They cry, and then they get to work on retconning their beliefs such that they were right all along except for the particular date on which they thought doomsday would arrive. Russiagate truthers will do this too, instinctively. It’s a hard thing to ask someone to embrace a religion, build a worldview around it, and then force them to reckon with it being exposed as false in an instant. How would you feel if your chosen faith were somehow debunked today? People hate to be wrong, especially about the things in which they’re most emotionally invested.

    Media types are chattering this morning about the prevalence of QAnon fans at Trump’s rally in Grand Rapids last night. If Trump went on TV and told the Q-bots to their faces that it’s all nonsense, there’s no Democratic-run international sex trafficking ring or whatever and he and Robert Mueller most definitely aren’t in cahoots, what would they say? Would they celebrate that their worst fears about America’s opposition party aren’t true?”

    “Every Resistance fan in America is watching the clip below thinking, “We haven’t seen the collusion evidence yet. All we know is that Mueller couldn’t get to probable cause.”

    Right, we’ll see. But the fact that he couldn’t get to probable cause on collusion for anyone — not Trump, not Don Jr, not Mike Flynn, not even a guy like Paul Manafort who’s otherwise dripping with Russian sleaze — suggests this wasn’t a close evidentiary call.

    I’ve heard her point made often this week, that Russiagate true believers obviously hoped for the worst from all this even though it would have been ruinous for their country. True enough. If Mueller could prove that Trump had conspired with Putin to influence the 2016 campaign POTUS’s legitimacy would be shattered, America would be humiliated, the right would be in chaos, and the bottom would fall out of public faith in the integrity of presidential elections (to the extent it hasn’t already). It’d be a catastrophe. And yet it wasn’t joy that had Rachel Maddow’s voice cracking on Monday night after Bill Barr assured the country that the worst fortunately hadn’t come to pass. How come?”

    When you recognize that conspiracy theories are mini-religions, you see it’s a normal reaction. Look at the people who join doomsday cults that believe the world will end on a predetermined date, then somehow have to cope after that date comes and goes. The world isn’t ending! The greatest news of all, right? But they don’t treat it as great. There’s no rejoicing. They cry, and then they get to work on retconning their beliefs such that they were right all along except for the particular date on which they thought doomsday would arrive. Russiagate truthers will do this too, instinctively. It’s a hard thing to ask someone to embrace a religion, build a worldview around it, and then force them to reckon with it being exposed as false in an instant. How would you feel if your chosen faith were somehow debunked today? People hate to be wrong, especially about the things in which they’re most emotionally invested.

    Media types are chattering this morning about the prevalence of QAnon fans at Trump’s rally in Grand Rapids last night. If Trump went on TV and told the Q-bots to their faces that it’s all nonsense, there’s no Democratic-run international sex trafficking ring or whatever and he and Robert Mueller most definitely aren’t in cahoots, what would they say? Would they celebrate that their worst fears about America’s opposition party aren’t true?”

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/29/mary-katharine-ham-shouldnt-treating-good-news-america-trump-didnt-collude-russia/https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/29/mary-katharine-ham-shouldnt-treating-good-news-america-trump-didnt-collude-russia/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  88. from the same outlet:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/2020-election-democrats-can-vote-to-end-the-myth-of-the-white-male-savior?ref=home

    now the basilisk has sought to get people fired for their political opinions, has been a predictable left platform,

    narciso (d1f714)

  89. Other than qanon happening on new media and russiagate happening on old is there really any material difference between the two?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  90. Hadn’t thought of it that way, that’s funny.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. All depends on whose ox gets gored.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. Colonel Haiku @99, quoting from one or more artivles at hotair:

    “Every Resistance fan in America is watching the clip below thinking, “We haven’t seen the collusion evidence yet. All we know is that Mueller couldn’t get to probable cause.”

    Right, we’ll see. But the fact that he couldn’t get to probable cause on collusion for anyone — not Trump, not Don Jr, not Mike Flynn, not even a guy like Paul Manafort who’s otherwise dripping with Russian sleaze — suggests this wasn’t a close evidentiary call.

    Very true about there not being a close evidentiary call, but the statement that he couldn’t get to probable cause on collusion for anyone is I think wrong. You have to read carefully what Atorney general William Barr wrote.

    First, the actual statement is:

    …the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government
    in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

    What are “these efforts?”

    Hacking, leaking and sockpuppeting to assist the Trump campaign. But, reading between the lines you can determine that there was collusion to assist the Trump campaign by sme unknown U.S. persons, not affilaited with the Trump campaign. This would not be the sockpuppeting by the Internet Research Agency, which is speciifically denied, and is highly unlikly to be the hacking, but would involve the dissemination of the leaks – specifically, to disguise its Russian origins. Maybe even actually deliver it to Wikileaks, and there was also dcleaks before.

    A second point is that this only says that neither Don Jr, nor Mike Flynn, not even Paul Manafort Manafort conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to assist the Trump campaign.

    But Don Jr. did take a meeting at which he believed the Russian government, or some people from Russia perhaps acting against the wishes of Putin, might tell him something that the chief prosecutor of Russia had discoverd. They didn’t, and since they didn’t, the Russia government didn’t assist the Trump campaign with that. Mike FLynn might have spread propaganda in favor of U.S. policy helpful to Russia to Donald Trump and others, but that did not help the campaign, but rather hurt it! And Paul Manafort giving polling data to someone from Russia helped Russia, but not the campaign. Maybe it helped Russia decide whether it was worth backing Trump, but Manafort did’t know this and therefore it cannot be called collusion (or conspiracy or coordination) with the Russian government collusion to assist the campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3577 secs.