HOTHEADS IN CLEVELAND
If you’re a masochist, here’s
the entire debate on YouTube.
Here are five
“highlights”…
And for more entertaining background and commentary, the live blogs by PJ
Media and Townhall.com…
As for which candidate helped himself the most (and this is totally divorced
from issues like honesty, accuracy for a vision for America, which barely came
up), I hate to say it, but it’s probably Biden, by a hair. Both candidates have
already nailed down their bases. Trump voters will vote for Trump, and
Democrats would vote for a lampshade as long it wasn’t Trump. This debate
needed to sway whoever those unicorns are who remain undecided.
For that, Biden had the lowest bar to clear (proving he could be awake and
lucid for 90 minutes in the P.M. hours), and he cleared it, although he got
wobbly at times. Trump needed to strike a more controlled “presidential” tone
and prove he wasn’t the Twitter bully he’s depicted as, but his combativeness
only played into that image.
I know him personally, I’ve campaigned with him, and I’ve interviewed him
multiple times. I know that he's very intelligent and he can be charming,
thoughtful, gracious, and diplomatic. That was the Trump I wish had been at the
debate last night. Unfortunately, he brought his WWE persona (perhaps that’s
why Chris Wallace was as effective as a WWE referee.) Maybe he intended to
throw Biden off-kilter (which did happen at several points), but overall, I
think it hurt more than helped.
All the constant loud crosstalk also caused him to miss several big
opportunities and distracted from the moments where he did score on Biden. It
would’ve been more effective just to let Joe talk and then correct his multiple
whoppers clearly. One commentator said Biden came across as old and weak, and
Trump seemed to be heckling him. It wasn’t a good image for either of them.
In fact, the worst damage Biden suffered came not from attacks by Trump but
things he said (or questions he dodged) himself, and all the hubbub made it
easy to miss those. But I’m sure they’ll be excerpted for commercials. I also
hope nobody was playing a drinking game every time Biden said the word “plan,”
or you’re probably in the morgue now.
Trump inexplicably missed his chance to correct some of Biden’s repetition
of blatant lies about him (like the “very fine people” among the white nationalist's
fake news) and should have focused more on how his economy really is better for
all Americans than the Obama/Biden era. It was good that he mentioned they had
the slowest recovery since the Depression, but it would’ve been nice to mention
that he presided over the first rising wages in many years. He also missed an
opening by not laying into Biden’s claim that he would repeal the Trump tax cut
(which Dems always claim was “for the rich,” as they do for every tax cut, but
repealing it would actually put a big tax hike on the middle class) and raise
the capital gains tax by 7 points, both of which would slam the economy. And
his vow to create thousands of good-paying “green jobs” by spending trillions
of tax dollars should’ve given everyone a chilling sense of déjà vu.
Trump also should’ve been stronger in denouncing rightwing extremists. His
comment about the Proud Boys is already giving the media their anti-Trump
talking point. It’s ridiculous that he should constantly be asked to do this,
but he could’ve pointed out that he’s already done it repeatedly, including
when he “totally condemned” the ones in Charlottesville in the fake quote Biden
keeps repeating. He could have asked how many times he has to condemn rightwing
radicals before Biden finally condemns violent leftist radicals like Antifa who
actually are destroying our cities.
Speaking of that, one of Biden’s worst moments came when he claimed that
Antifa is not an organization, it’s “an idea.” So good news, Americans: your
cities aren’t being burned, your businesses looted and your cops killed by an
organized group of far-left radicals. That’s just being done by an amorphous
concept!
Biden also might have hurt himself with the far left in his base by
distancing himself from the Green New Deal (which he denied his “plan” was,
then immediately called it that) and the pact with Bernie. When he was asked
why, if he is the Democratic Party as he claimed, he didn’t call blue state
mayors and governors and tell them to call up the National Guard and stop the
rioting, his excuse that he’s just an out-of-office private citizen was
astonishingly weak.
And his silence spoke volumes, both when pressed on whether he would pack
the SCOTUS and name one police organization that has endorsed him. Biden
also didn’t come across as having a particularly presidential temperament. He
allowed himself to get angry and lash out, calling Trump a “liar,” “racist” and
“clown,” and telling him to “shut up,” which doesn’t show much respect for the
office. And his claim that the allegations of shady financial deals by his son
Hunter have been “debunked” was laughable. “Debunked” is another term I don’t
think Democrats understand. They keep applying it to topics they don’t want to
talk about without first going through the pesky step of actually debunking
them.
Of course, nobody came out of this one unscathed. Chris
Wallace is also taking heat from both sides for allowing it to become an
uncontrolled shoutfest, although it’s not clear how he could’ve stopped it.
One Trump-supporting pundit who has more fortitude than I do watch it
again and claims to have counted over 35 interruptions of Trump by Wallace but
none of Biden.
In a way, it’s a sad reflection of where America is in 2020. Not even the
two Presidential candidates can talk for 90 minutes without yelling and calling
each other names. I think Ari Fleisher got it right when he said, “We’re not
electing gladiators and this shouldn’t be a food fight. I think this was a
train wreck tonight. Both candidates – too much interruption, too much
back-and-forth. And that’s just not good for the country...I just think when
you come to a debate you should air the differences, occasionally interrupt,
get the extra point in, poke your opponent, but this was way over the top
tonight, by both candidates.”
If there is another debate (and Dems are already pushing for Biden to refuse
to do any more), let’s hope it’s a Zoom conference. With a mute button.
REMEMBER SWINE FLU
Here’s
why Biden wants to talk about COVID-19 but not swine flu,
which happened under his and Obama’s watch, and which his own campaign health advisor said could’ve killed millions of Americans thanks to their lax
response, if it had happened to be more contagious. Well, a lot of people did
catch it (including my writer Laura Ainsworth, who’s still suffering from
scarred lungs years later) and some people did die of it…including 13 times
more children than have died of COVID-19.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
With liberal politicians such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom using their
magic pens to declare that all cars will be electric by 2035, it’s time for
someone to remind them that they claim to believe in “Science!” and not the
power of wishes. This
article points out that with the rapid advances in fuel
efficiency and emissions reduction – and the seldom-discussed massive costs,
pollution and environmental damage from building a whole new power generating
infrastructure to charge hundreds of millions of battery-powered cars – it’s
likely that by 2035, gas-powered cars could be more efficient and less
polluting than EVs. And they would cost far less, meaning people wouldn’t need
government subsidies to buy one.
The problem: all those scientific advances hinge on manufacturers knowing
that there will be a market for their cars so they will continue research and
development. But why would they put all that R&D money into improving a
product that politicians have already declared will be banned by 2035? In that
regard, liberals enacting their fantasy about magically-charged electric cars
into law may actually kill the development of a superior and less expensive
technology.
This is why it’s better to let markets make decisions than politicians who
know as much about automotive technology as they do about ethics.
MODERN DAY MIRACLE
Check
out this amazing story about a Columbian woman who
escaped from a viciously abusive partner, was missing for two years, and was
recently found alive, floating in the ocean over a mile off the coast. She had
been adrift for eight hours and was suffering from exhaustion and hypothermia,
but she was alive. She told her rescuers, “I was born again. God did not want
me to die.”
CORRECTION: REVEALED: SPECIAL COUNSEL PLAYED GAME OF "COLLUSION 'CLUE'"
(Correction: our
editor wishes to apologize for pulling a "Joe Biden" with Agent
BARNETT's name in this piece when it ran originally, adding that 3AM might have
been the time for performance-enhancing drugs. Also, Amy Coney Barrett had been
in the news all day. We promise never to refer to her as Amy Comey Barrett.
Please enjoy the corrected version in its entirety.)
I don’t know if Maria Bartiromo had something in her eye during this
weekend's edition of SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, but it sure looked like a small
tear running down her cheek as she reported that, according to her sources,
John Durham’s report on the “Trump/Russia” investigation would not be out until
after the election.
Durham’s office reportedly had concerns that delivering his conclusions this
close to the election would be considered too politicizing, but I strongly
disagree. I’m with Sen. Ron Johnson, who appeared on her show later in the
hour. We’ve long been saying that it’s the withholding of information until
after the election that should be seen as politicizing, not the releasing, as
voters deserve all the information they can get before casting their ballots.
Sen. Johnson said essentially the same thing on Sunday.
One of Bartiromo’s guests, Sen. Lindsay Graham, did have encouraging news:
the Senate Judiciary Committee intends to call William Barnett, the FBI agent
who opened the Michael Flynn case –- after being personally selected by Joe
Pientka, who supervised “Crossfire Hurricane” –- and learned over time that it
was all about “getting Trump.” Sean
Davis and Mollie Hemingway have a new report on the interview with Barnett
conducted just under two weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who was appointed
by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the special counsel’s handling of the
Michael Flynn case.
One thing that stood out to me in reading this was that Barnett said special
counsel agents would actually joke about it being a game of “Collusion ‘CLUE.’”
In this game, he said, investigators choose any character, in any location,
conducting any activity, and pair this person with another character and
interpret it as evidence of collusion. Hilarious.
Barnett is essentially a whistleblower now –- not the kind Democrats like –-
and the transcript of his interview with Jensen, or at least the summary, was
obtained by Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and filed with Judge Emmet Sullivan. (If
Durham isn’t going to release any report before the election, we’re dependent
on this sort of process to get the facts out.)
Barnett said in his interview that there was never any basis for the
Trump/Russia “collusion” theory. He told DOJ investigators that “the handling
of the probes [Flynn and Paul Manafort] troubled him so much that he threatened
to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector
General in another."
In 2016, when Barnett was first assigned to the case, he thought that
reading through the evidence would give him a better understanding of why the
investigation into Trump’s “collusion” with Russia was launched. But after
about six weeks, he still couldn’t figure it out. He characterized their theory
as “groping.”
Barnett is the agent who moved to close the Flynn case due to a lack of
evidence. He’s the one who was told by Peter Strzok that the “7th Floor” wanted
to keep it open and that Flynn should be investigated for a Logan Act
violation. (Recall that then-Vice President Joe Biden was present at the
January 5 Oval Office meeting during which this was discussed and, according to
Sally Yates, was the one to bring up the Logan Act.) Barnett was not familiar
with the Logan Act –- who was? –- but after researching it, knew that it didn’t
apply to Flynn, who was not a private citizen but the incoming national
security adviser.
Read the Davis/Hemingway piece for details of how Barnett was cut out of
Strzok and Pientka’s “ambush” interview with Flynn. Apparently, Barnett was
left out of other meetings as well, as the Flynn probe was directed “from the
top down,” meaning all the direction was coming from senior officials. (My
speculation is that by then, they would've liked to have him off the case but
were worried about what he might say publicly.)
By February 2017, Barnett had had his fill and asked to be removed from the
case. In his interview, he said that the Flynn investigation “was problematic
and could result in an IG investigation.” (He didn’t need a crystal ball for
that one!)
Ironically, it was the supervision by top officials that had made him think
it must be legal, as uncomfortable as it made him. Barnett added that one
analyst who was “very skeptical of the Flynn collusion investigation” ---name
not provided, but it wasn’t Barnett --- was indeed removed from the Flynn
investigation. (Surely Jensen has interviewed that person.)
When the Flynn investigation was made part of Robert Mueller’s special
counsel probe in May 2017, Barnett told team member Jeannie Rhee that there
was “no evidence of a crime” committed by Flynn. She dismissed his concerns. He
said he didn’t want to be involved in the special counsel, but Peter Strzok
urged him to move over there. Davis and Hemingway report that Barnett “decided
to work at the special counsel office in the hope his perspective would keep
them from ‘group think.’”
Once Barnett was working with the special counsel, he could see the “group
think” in action --- what he characterized as “GET TRUMP.” The investigation
was run in the opposite way of how an FBI investigation would be. He said,
“There was always someone at SCO (special counsel’s office) who claimed to have
a lead on information that would prove the collusion, only to have the
information be a dead end.” It happened over and over.
Incidentally, Barnett never wiped his phone, though he testified that other
members of the special counsel would joke about wiping theirs.
The notes from Barnett’s interview ended with this: “Barnett believed the
prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”
It seems there might be much more behind Durham’s delay than we ever
imagined. RedState.com
has some interesting observations on that.
This report came in after Maria Bartiromo’s show, and I hope she’s had a
chance to read it. This writer doesn’t think that Jensen and Barr were prepared
for what has been revealed by Barnett about the political calculations involved
in the Russia Hoax investigation. There is speculation that Barr is extremely
upset that Mueller, now aging and perhaps fading a bit mentally, was being used
as cover by Andrew Weissmann and others to overstep wildly in their desire to
“get Trump.”
Something had to trigger Barr’s decision to have Barnett interviewed by
Jensen. It’s possible that this has to do with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s
(mis)handling of the Michael Flynn case, as it shows the case to be even more
obviously politically motivated than we knew. The message to Sullivan: “Sure,
you idiot, go ahead and keep this case open. The longer you keep it open, the
more we’ll reveal.”
And apparently, there is more. What we’ve seen has to do with “Crossfire
Razor,” the investigation into Flynn. The rest is known only to investigators.
It seems that the information that Jensen got from Agent Barnett may indeed be
a game-changer. Even so, it’s wrong to keep it under wraps, for whatever
reason, until after the election. Two words: interim report.
No comments:
Post a Comment