Connect with us

Latest

Red Pill

News

Media in ‘drive by’ mode as they fail to take down Kavanaugh (VIDEO)

With nary a pause the media coverage switched back to Trump-Russia collusion and Trump taxes as attack continues apace.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,759 Views

The Democrats and the media lost on Thursday, as the seventh FBI investigation related to Judge Brett Kavanaugh turned up no corroboration of accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that the Judge sexually assaulted her in 1982.

To the logical thinker this comes as no surprise, simply because there is nowhere to go with a story without specific time, date, or place. However, the media and a whole lot of Americans threw logic out with God many years ago, so this news was greeted with the typical yelling and screaming. However, additionally, the embittered Democrat opposition to Brett Kavanaugh (and anything of Trump) took their accustomed place in front of the cameras and gave several very lame excuses as “statements” as to their reaction to the results of the FBI findings. Most lame was Chuck Schumer’s statement:

Both he and Diane Feinstein were stunningly partisan and illogical in their criticism of the report, saying that it was incomplete because the FBI did not interview either the Judge or Dr Ford.

But this is a moot point. The FBI had no need to interview these two because they already gave extensive testimony under oath. What the FBI check was purposed for was to attempt to corroborate “witness” accounts regarding the sexual assault allegations. For this, they interviewed the best friend of Dr Ford, other witnesses she referred to, and in addition, several more possible witnesses. The original agreement was for the FBI to interview four people, and they doubled that and then some. It didn’t change a thing.

It was resoundingly clear that the Democrat Senators lost their bid here. It was also abundantly clear to the media that this was lost as early as Thursday morning, for already the reports began to pivot with no further comment.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

The Guardian (UK) and CNN both ran reports about the Justice Department indicting seven new Russians as spies. The Guardian tried to put some zing into their story, placing the terms “Russian spies” and “chemical weapons” in the same sentence:

The US government has announced criminal charges against seven Russian intelligence officersdeclaring a “lengthy and wide-ranging conspiracy” ordered by the Kremlin to hack into private computers and networks around the world that aimed at a wide range of targets.

The announcement from the justice department’s national security division on Thursday comes after Dutch officials said they had disrupted a Russian cyberattack on the global chemical weapons watchdog.

Four of the officers were charged with targeting the watchdog…

(What does that even mean?)

All seven of the officers were indicted on cyber-hacking charges linked to the leaking of Olympic athletes’ drug test data, in an alleged attempt to undermine efforts to tackle Russian doping.

Russia’s GRU military intelligence was blamed for the failed operation in the Netherlands, which allegedly targeted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and was thwarted by Dutch military intelligence with the help of the UK. The international organization was investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the poisoning of former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in the English city of Salisbury in March.

This latest attempt to finger Russia is the second recent piece to point at the GRU, historically held to be far more brutal than the KGB during the Soviet era, but in modern times this sort of viewpoint doesn’t necessarily apply. Indeed, the photos in the Guardian’s article reveal people that look more like kids than evil communist henchmen.

In further news, New York City’s mayor Tom DeBlasio was reported to have joined the chorus call alleging that President Donald Trump’s father left his son more money than previously known, and that the Trump family hid this money in shell corporations and other tax-shelters.

This story, run by The New York Times (surprised?) and Time Magazine offers the reader the hopefully tantalizing notion that the real-estate mogul-turned-President is actually a swindler against the government of the country he is president of, by hiding money from the government. Here is a little of that story according to one of the Times pieces, co-written by David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, whose headline is so blatantly assertive we thought it should also be reproduced:

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father

The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s.

President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show.

In other words, this family was smart. Much of what is written is more opinion than fact, and follows the typical left-wing screed of class-envy. Perhaps this is intended to be the new attempt the separate Trump supporters from their man, but it is doubtful that this will work.

We would also like to note that “The equivalent of $413 million” is about $272 million in 1999 dollars. While significant, it certainly doesn’t look like Trump got a half-billion to start. And that of course is assuming this story is even true. The New York Times has not had the best reputation for telling the truth about anything Trump for a couple years now.)

The reason?

Kavanaugh.

The press and Democrat Party may have executed a supremely stunning overreach with their attempt to take down President Trump’s hand-picked appointee to the the US Supreme Court. Kavanaugh not only turned out to be clean, his case for confirmation seems to have been massively helped, not hurt, by his honesty in response to the withering blast of the mainstream media and Democrats.

He handled his “official” confirmation hearings with grace and aplomb, while remaining steely-eyed in focus on showing his qualification for the post. He handled the eleventh-hour smear hit with raw and righteous rage, defending his family and his name against one of the nastiest (but flimsiest) smear campaigns in recent history. His defense was unequivocal because he could be unequivocal, since he lived an upstanding life and spoke honestly about it.

This truth was verified by the FBI and there is no way around it.

But what is left is a Democrat Party that has discredited itself. What is significant is that this time got the attention of the nation, and it probably got some people who traditionally vote Democrat to thinking a second time about this choice. It does appear to have galvanized Republican voters.

The press will be on to try to discourage this heat before November’s midterm elections. However, the Press and the Democrats cried wolf one too many times here, and only the most clever media manipulation and maneuvering will allow them to recover.

There are many that hope this happens, but probably now, many more that will not accept their stories going forward.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
10 Comments

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
am hantsGeorge Hartwelljohn vieiraTjoeSeraphim Hanisch Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
voza0db
Guest
voza0db

Forget Russia… They are already CHANGING – again – their FOCUS to CHINA!

They only talk about Russia if they want to impose new sanctions.

CHINA is now the MAIN TERRORIST trying to attack and divide the USofT

Sally Snyder
Guest
Sally Snyder

As shown in this article, there is one key reason why the Kavanaugh appointment is proving to be so controversial:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/10/ideological-polarization-in-united.html

With midterm elections looming, you can be certain that you will see many examples of how low the two mainstream American political parties will stoop to ensure that theirs is the voice for all of the United States.

A.F.
Guest
A.F.

A raper as Judge, only in America

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

There is no proof of rape or even an allegation. The claim is attempted.

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

What a crap analysis by a true partisan. As a conservative that has not “threw logic out with God many years ago” I don’t want Kavanaugh, not because of his alleged acts 30 years ago, but by the extreme partisanship that he showed in his written as well as verbal testimony. I’m not sure what the author has invested in Kavanaugh, but I see him as a man that can’t face his own wrongdoing and show any signs of repenting AT ALL. Puting him on the supreme court takes away the veneer of lack of bias…he clearly says he is.… Read more »

john vieira
Guest

Love it when the evil hangs itself….Kavanaugh will be confirmed and Democrats WILL lose big time come November

George Hartwell
Guest

Yes and it is happening all over the world that people are moving small ‘c’ conservative because the Left left social and economic issues and took up cultural-marxism. People are reacting to the destruction of our culture, morals, national identity and economy with this ‘enough is enough’ response. I call it the new conservative movement and built a FB page for ‘Canadians discussing the new conservative movement.’
Meantime Turley has provided 2 videos per day documenting this move worldwide.

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Not just the media.

“Fu*k. You. All. To. Hell”: Google Exec Threatens GOP Over Kavanaugh Confirmation… https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-08/fuk-you-all-hell-google-exec-threatens-gop-over-kavanaugh-confirmation

Doesn’t Soros invest heavily in Google?
Doesn’t Google work hand in hand with the Clinton Foundation, sector of the CIA?
Weren’t Google heavily involved in working with Crowdstrike, with old Ukrainian malware, blaming Russia for Clinton’s involvement in ‘Trump Dossier’?
Weren’t Google heavily connected to the Atlantic Council, NATO, plus, the Ukrainian Far Right Fascists.
Would Google have supported his words, if he had said the same about some Democrat supporter/member/idol?

Latest

FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview, did not warn of false statement consequences

Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 18.

Washington Examiner

Published

on

Via The Washington Examiner…


Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.

Citing McCabe’s account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn’s West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with Flynn to discuss Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

Within two hours, the agents were in Flynn’s office. According to the 302 report quoted in the Flynn sentencing document, the agents said Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” and offered the agents “a little tour” of his part of the White House.

“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

The agents had, of course, seen transcripts of Flynn’s wiretapped conversations with Russian then-ambassador Sergey Kislyak. “Before the interview, FBI officials had also decided that if ‘Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used … to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said … they would not confront him or talk him through it,'” the Flynn memo says, citing the FBI 302.

“One of the agents reported that Gen. Flynn was ‘unguarded’ during the interview and ‘clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,'” the Flynn memo says, again citing the 302.

Later in the memo, Flynn’s lawyers argue that the FBI treated Flynn differently from two other Trump-Russia figures who have pleaded guilty to and been sentenced for making false statements. One of them, Alexander Van der Zwaan, “was represented by counsel during the interview; he was interviewed at a time when there was a publicly disclosed, full-bore investigation regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election; and he was given a warning that it is a federal crime to lie during the interview,” according to the memo. The other, George Papadopoulos, “was specifically notified of the seriousness of the investigation…was warned that lying to investigators was a ‘federal offense’…had time to reflect on his answers…and met with the FBI the following month for a further set of interviews, accompanied by his counsel, and did not correct his false statements.”

The message of the sentencing memo is clear: Flynn, his lawyers suggest, was surprised, rushed, not warned of the context or seriousness of the questioning, and discouraged from having a lawyer present.

That is all the sentencing document contains about the interview itself. In a footnote, Flynn’s lawyers noted that the government did not object to the quotations from the FBI 302 report.

In one striking detail, footnotes in the Flynn memo say the 302 report cited was dated Aug. 22, 2017 — nearly seven months after the Flynn interview. It is not clear why the report would be written so long after the interview itself.

The brief excerpts from the 302 used in the Flynn defense memo will likely spur more requests from Congress to see the original FBI documents. Both House and Senate investigating committees have demanded that the Justice Department allow them to see the Flynn 302, but have so far been refused.

In the memo, Flynn’s lawyers say that he made a “serious error in judgment” in the interview. Citing Flynn’s distinguished 30-plus year record of service in the U.S. Army, they ask the judge to go along with special counsel Robert Mueller’s recommendation that Flynn be spared any time in prison.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Macron offers crumbs to protestors in bid to save his globalist agenda (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 36.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at French President Macron’s pathetic display of leadership as he offers protestors little in the way of concessions while at the same time promising to crack down hard on any and all citizens who resort to violence.

Meanwhile France’s economy is set for a deep recession as French output and production grinds to a halt.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge


As if Brussels didn’t have its hands full already with Italy and the UK, the European Union will soon be forced to rationalize why one of its favorite core members is allowed to pursue populist measures to blow out its budget deficit to ease domestic unrest while another is threatened with fines potentially amounting to billions of euros.

When blaming Russia failed to quell the widespread anger elicited by his policies, French President Emmanuel Macron tried to appease the increasingly violent “yellow vests” protesters who have sacked his capital city by offering massive tax cuts that could blow the French budget out beyond the 3% budget threshold outlined in the bloc’s fiscal rules.

Given the concessions recently offered by Italy’s populists, Macron’s couldn’t have picked a worse time to challenge the bloc’s fiscal conventions. As Bloomberg pointed out, these rules will almost certainly set the Continent’s second largest economy on a collision course with Brussels. To be clear, Macron’s offered cuts come with a price tag of about €11 billion according to Les Echos, and will leave the country with a budget gap of 3.5% of GDP in 2019, with one government official said the deficit may be higher than 3.6%.

By comparison, Italy’s initial projections put its deficit target at 2.4%, a number which Europe has repeatedly refused to consider.

Macron’s promises of fiscal stimulus – which come on top of his government’s decision to delay the planned gas-tax hikes that helped inspire the protests – were part of a broader ‘mea culpa’ offered by Macron in a speech Monday night, where he also planned to hike France’s minimum wage.

Of course, when Brussels inevitably objects, perhaps Macron could just show them this video of French police tossing a wheelchair-bound protester to the ground.

Already, the Italians are complaining.  Speaking on Tuesday, Italian cabinet undersecretary Giancarlo Giorgetti said Italy hasn’t breached the EU deficit limit. “I repeat that from the Italian government there is a reasonable approach, if there is one also from the EU a solution will be found.”

“France has several times breached the 3% deficit. Italy hasn’t done it. They are different situations. There are many indicators to assess.”

Still, as one Guardian columnist pointed out in an op-ed published Tuesday morning, the fact that the gilets jaunes (yellow vest) organizers managed to pressure Macron to cave and grant concessions after just 4 weeks of protests will only embolden them to push for even more radical demands: The collapse of the government of the supremely unpopular Macron.

Then again, with Brussels now facing certain accusations of hypocrisy, the fact that Macron was pressured into the exact same populist measures for which Italy has been slammed, the French fiasco raises the odds that Rome can pass any deficit measure it wants with the EU now forced to quietly look away even as it jawbones all the way from the bank (i.e., the German taxpayers).

“Macron’s spending will encourage Salvini and Di Maio,” said Giovanni Orsina, head of the School of Government at Rome’s Luiss-Guido Carli University. “Macron was supposed to be the spearhead of pro-European forces, if he himself is forced to challenge EU rules, Salvini and Di Maio will jump on that to push their contention that those rules are wrong.”

While we look forward to how Brussels will square this circle, markets are less excited.

Exhausted from lurching from one extreme to another following conflicting headlines, traders are already asking if “France is the new Italy.” The reason: the French OAT curve has bear steepened this morning with 10Y yields rising as much as ~6bp, with the Bund/OAT spread reaching the widest since May 2017 and the French presidential election. Though well below the peaks of last year, further widening would push the gap into levels reserved for heightened political risk.

As Bloomberg macro analyst Michael Read notes this morning, it’s hard to see a specific near-term trigger blowing out the Bund/OAT spread but the trend looks likely to slowly drift higher.

While Macron has to fight on both domestic and European fronts, he’ll need to keep peace at home to stay on top. Remember that we saw the 10Y spread widen to ~80bps around the May ’17 elections as concerns of a move toward the political fringe played out in the markets, and the French President’s popularity ratings already look far from rosy.

And just like that France may have solved the Italian crisis.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Watch: Democrat Chuck Schumer shows his East Coast elitism on live TV

Amazing moment in which the President exhibits “transparency in government” and shows the world who the Democrat leaders really are.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the reasons Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency was because of his pugnacious, “in your face” character he presented – and promised TO present – against Democrat policy decisions and “stupid government” in general.

One of the reasons President Donald Trump is reviled is because of his pugnacious, “in your face” character he presented – and promised TO present – in the American political scene.

In other words, there are two reactions to the same characteristic. On Tuesday, the President did something that probably cheered and delighted a great many Americans who witnessed this.

The Democrats have been unanimous in taking any chance to roast the President, or to call for his impeachment, or to incite violence against him. But Tuesday was President Trump’s turn. He invited the two Democrat leaders, presumptive incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and then, he turned the cameras on:

As Tucker Carlson notes, the body language from Schumer was fury. The old (something)-eating grin covered up humiliation, embarrassment and probably no small amount of fear, as this whole incident was filmed and broadcast openly and transparently to the American public. Nancy Pelosi was similarly agitated, and she expressed it later after this humiliation on camera, saying, “It’s like a manhood thing for him… As if manhood could ever be associated with him.”

She didn’t stop there. According to a report from the New York Daily News, the Queen Bee took the rhetoric a step below even her sense of dignity:

Pelosi stressed she made clear to Trump there isn’t enough support in Congress for a wall and speculated the President is refusing to back down because he’s scared to run away with his tail between his legs.

“I was trying to be the mom. I can’t explain it to you. It was so wild,” Pelosi said of the Oval Office meet, which was also attended by Vice President Pence and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “It goes to show you: you get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you.”

This represented the first salvo in a major spin-job for the ultra-liberal San Francisco Democrat. The rhetoric spun by Mrs. Pelosi and Chuck Schumer was desperate as they tried to deflect their humiliation and place it back on the President:

With reporters still present, Trump boasted during the Oval meeting he would be “proud” to shutdown the government if Congress doesn’t earmark cash for his wall before a Dec. 21 spending deadline.

Pelosi told Democrats that Trump’s boisterousness will be beneficial for them.

“The fact is we did get him to say, to fully own that the shutdown was his,” Pelosi said. “That was an accomplishment.”

The press tried to characterize this as a “Trump Tantrum”, saying things like this lede:

While “discussing” a budgetary agreement for the government, President Donald Trump crossed his arms and declared: “we will shut down the government if there is no wall.”

While the Democrats and the mainstream media in the US are sure to largely buy these interpretations of the event, the fact that this matter was televised live shows that the matter was entirely different, and this will be discomfiting to all but those Democrats and Trump-dislikers that will not look at reality.

There appears to be a twofold accomplishment for the President in this confrontation:

  1. The President revealed to his support base the real nature of the conversation with the Democrat leadership, because anyone watching this broadcast (and later, video clip) saw it unedited with their own eyes. They witnessed the pettiness of both Democrats and they witnessed a President completely comfortable and confident about the situation.
  2. President Trump probably made many of his supporters cheer with the commitment to shut down the government if he doesn’t get his border wall funding. This cheering is for both the strength shown about getting the wall finished and the promise to shut the government down, and further, Mr. Trump’s assertion that he would be “proud” to shut the government down, taking complete ownership willingly, reflects a sentiment that many of his supporters share.

The usual pattern is for the media, Democrats and even some Republicans to create a “scare” narrative about government shutdowns, about how doing this is a sure-fire path to chaos and suffering for the United States.

But the educated understanding of how shutdowns work reveals something completely different. Vital services never close. However, National Parks can close partly or completely, and some non-essential government agencies are shuttered. While this is an inconvenience for the employees furloughed during the shutdown, they eventually are re-compensated for the time lost, and are likely to receive help during the shutdown period if they need it. The impact on the nation is minimal, aside from the fact that the government stops spending money at the same frenetic pace as usual.

President Trump’s expression of willingness to do this action and his singling out of the Dem leadership gives the Democrats a real problem. Now the entire country sees their nature. As President Trump is a populist, this visceral display of Democrat opposition and pettiness will make at least some impact on the population, even that group of people who are not Trump fans.

The media reaction and that of the Democrats here show, amazingly, that after three years-plus of Donald Trump being a thorn in their side, they still do not understand how he works, and they also cannot match it against their expected “norms” of establishment behavior.

This may be a brilliant masterstroke, and it also may be followed up by more. The President relishes head-to-head conflict. The reactions of these congress members showed who they really are.

Let the games begin.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending