From the mainstream media buildup leading up to the testimony, the great expectation was severe damage to the image and credibility of the Trump administration.
In that regard, Rush played an excerpt from a previous program, as follows:
RUSH ARCHIVE: “Who’s really an arm of who? Is the media really an arm of the Democrat Party or is the Democrat Party an arm of the media? I’ve been pondering this, ladies and gentlemen, and I actually think you could make the case that the Democrats are incidental to the media.”
RUSH: “The point being that everybody thinks the Democrats run the show. The Democrats are the power in Washington, they hold elective office, and the media operates in a supporting role to bolster them, to prop them up, to encourage them to go out and attack their opponents. And it suddenly — and I don’t know what caused this to happen. It hit me that it’s the other way around now. I mean, the Democrats are losing elections. Now, don’t get mad at me. This is undeniable. Democrats are losing elections, but you would not know it.
“That fact simply isn’t reflected in our modern news political coverage. If you didn’t know any better, if you just landed from Mars, you would think that there has been a coup and that a couple Republicans took over the country led by Donald Trump and they’re running it against the public will. And that the mass majority of the people are still in favor of Democrats, still wish Obama was president or wish Hillary was and that what we have here is an illegitimate governing minority. You would never know that the Democrats have been losing elections dramatically since 2010.”
“And that, to me, says that it is the media running the Democrats and not Democrats running the media, because there is simply no reflection of that reality in any of daily what is called news. And it actually isn’t news. What it is is the onward march of the leftist progressive agenda as led by the media.”
As for the hearing itself, according to FoxNews.com: “President Trump’s ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn took more hits at a Senate hearing Monday where former top Justice official Sally Yates testified she warned the Trump White House that Flynn could “essentially be blackmailed” by Moscow for having misled the VP about his Russia contacts.
“At the same hearing, testimony from another Obama official also challenged persistent allegations from some of the Trump administration’s fiercest critics about ‘collusion’ with Russia during the 2016 campaign.”
Despite media projections of discovery of Russian election collusion, when Clapper was asked by Senator Lindsey Graham if he stood by past assertions that he had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and if that assessment is still accurate, Clapper said: “It is.”
Admitting he was not initially aware of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, Clapper said if there was any evidence of collusion, it “didn’t reach the evidentiary bar” needed for an intelligence assessment issued earlier this year. He then further reiterated that his team could not corroborate the contents of an infamous anti-Trump dossier that was shared with officials earlier this year.”
Trump “blasted out a prebuttal ahead of Yates’ appearance, even suggesting the ex-Justice Department official leaked classified information, writing: “Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council.”
“He was likely referring to the Jan. 26 exchange in which Yates told [White House Counsel Don] McGahn about Flynn’s contacts with Russia. That meeting quickly made its way into news accounts, fed to reporters by anonymous sources.”
It’s at this point where Rush’s assessment of mainstream media influence has significant impact because: “Trump also has underscored that Flynn got a security clearance under the Obama administration and did so again on Monday. “General Flynn was given the highest security clearance by the Obama Administration – but the Fake News seldom likes talking about that,” Trump tweeted.”
Yates herself served in the Obama Justice Department then briefly acted as attorney general for Trump until he fired her for refusing to defend his initial travel ban.
She told the subcommittee that she first notified McGahn in late January about “Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, at a time when he apparently was relaying information to the contrary to Vice President Pence.” Further saying she’d provided a “fair amount of detail,” and that Flynn’s conduct was “problematic” in part because the “Russians knew about those contacts, and knew he had misled Pence about them.”
Coming back to Rush’s point regarding media influence on reportage, the Fox News story’s next sentence reads: “Yates' account raises more questions about how Flynn stayed on for more than two more weeks following that notification.”
Yet, on April 17, 2012, more than five years ago, it was Obama who nominated Flynn to be the 18th director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, while he lasted with Trump for only two weeks.
As far as the testimony itself is concerned, the following interchange regarding the immigration ban was found in an article by Joel B. Pollak @breitbart.com.
“Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was the first to question Yates:
“Cornyn: Ms. Yates, this is the first time that you’ve appeared before Congress since you left the Department of Justice, and I just wanted to ask you a question about your decision to refuse to defend the president’s executive order. In the letter that you sent to Congress, you point out that the executive order itself was drafted in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel, and you point out that the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed it to determine whether, in its view, the proposed executive order was lawful on its face, and properly drafted. Is it true that the Office of Legal Counsel did conclude it was lawful on its face, and properly drafed?
“Yates: Yes, they did. The Office of —
“Cornyn: And you overruled them?
“Yates: I did. The Office of Legal —
“Cornyn: What is your authority to overrule the office of legal counsel whether it comes to a legal determination?
"Yates: The Office of Legal Counsel has a narrow function and that is to look at the face of an executive order to determine purely on its face whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful. And, importantly, they do not look beyond the face of the executive order, for example, at statements that are made contemporaneously or prior to the execution of the E.O. that may bear on its intent and purpose. That office does not look at those factors. And in determining the constitutionality of this executive order, that was an important analysis to engage in, and one that I did.
“Cornyn: Well, Ms. Yates, I thought the Department of Justice had a long-standing tradition of defending a presidential action in court if there are reasonable arguments in its favor regardless whether they may prove to be ultimately persuasive — which, of course, is up to the courts to decide and not you, correct?
“Yates: It is correct, but not often times, but not always, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice will defend an president or an action of Congress if there is a reasonable argument to be made. But in this instance, all arguments have to be based on truth. Because we’re the Department of Justice. We’re not just a law firm. We’re the Department of Justice.
“Cornyn: You distinguish “the truth” from “lawful”?
“Yates: Yes, because in this instance, in looking at what the intent was of the executive order, which was derived, in part, from an analysis of facts outside the face of the order, that is part of what led to our conclusion that it was not lawful, yes.”Which is why she was asked to resign by Trump. Whereas deciding on her own as to what needs to be analyzed beyond the law itself to determine “intent” is purely political and certainly not within her job authority.
As far as Trump’s own intent is concerned, a reader TeachAZ, summarized the administrations goals accurately and concisely: “This [travel] ban was never on the website. "ban Muslims" was never or has ever been on the web site. The ban is on countries with little to no screening of their airline passengers (some happen to be populated by a majority of Muslims). Please send me the link where I can find the phrase "ban Muslims". Not one of your "news" sites - but one operated and controlled by POTUS.”
RUSH once again provided a very astute recap of the MSM’s perspective: “Breaking news right before the program, NBC: “Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Mike Flynn, Say Officials.” Now, up until moments ago, we thought it was Sally Yates who’s testifying before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Boy, the left, their tongues are on the sidewalk today panting.
(panting) Michael Flynn worked for Trump for three weeks (laughing), and they got rid of him before Trump’s transition ever really even got into gear. They got rid of him.
“But they’re still trying to tie Flynn to Trump because they’re still trying to tie the Russians to Trump. And Sally Yates is gonna be the next one with a bombshell to indicate whatever. She’s not gonna have a bombshell. She’s gonna have just enough to allow the media to continue this narrative that the Russians tampered, that the Russians have a closet secret deal with Trump, even though Dianne Feinstein… We played the sound bite for you last week of Dianne Feinstein being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. “Is there anything you can tell us?
“Have you seen any evidence whatsoever? (panting) Is there any evidence whatsoever that there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?” DiFi: “Not at this time.” End of story! No, it’s not the end of story because there is no story. There is a narrative that they are not going to let go, and it’s all oriented… Well, it’s not all. There are two things: Destroy Trump. But that is all part of preserving and maintaining the Obama legacy, which is really ratcheting up now with the Republican vote on repealing Obamacare.
“That has sent panic through every channel of the left.”
And then, a reader UlyssesEverettMcGill posted a comment quite appropriate as the closer for today’s posting: “I still want to know how the Russians rigged the election so Hillary would win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College.”
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment