The Inspector General’s report on the foreign intervention in the 2016 election is expected to come out in the next two weeks or so. Many of us are getting very impatient. Based on what the alternative media has been reporting for years now, Attorney General Barr and his investigating team are looking in all of the right places–Russia, Australia, Italy, Ukraine, and Britain. Those who took part on the scam and the investigation that followed are correct to be very uncomfortable about what is to come. The mainstream media is trying to blunt the impact of the information that will be made public.<\/p>\n
Yesterday Newsbusters<\/a> posted an article detailing exactly what is going on. It is a complicated article, so I suggest you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will provide a few highlights.<\/p>\n The article reports:<\/p>\n Once upon a time \u2014 in a galaxy far, far away \u2014 The New York Times<\/em> and The Washington Post<\/em> were the go-to papers when it came to uncovering political scandals. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Both papers made a point of running the Pentagon Papers, an internal and secret U.S. government history of \u00a0various presidents and their relevant Cabinet secretaries decision-making on American involvement in the Vietnam War. The Post<\/em>, of course, was also famous for its birddogging young reporters Woodward and Bernstein and their digging out the details of the Watergate scandal. In fact, movies have been made with Hollywood A-listers lionizing both The Post <\/em>and the journalists involved. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman starred in the Watergate movie (All the President\u2019s Men<\/em><\/a>), while Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep starred in the dramatic tale of the Post<\/em>\u2019s battles with government officials over \u00a0breaking the Pentagon Papers story (The Post<\/em>. )<\/strong><\/p>\n So it is with no little irony that today the two papers are leading the media charge to cover-up \u201cSpygate\u201d – the considerable scandal that is the the use of American intelligence agencies to spy on the political opponents of Obama and Clinton in 2016.<\/strong><\/p>\n The Wall Street Journal<\/em> has noticed<\/a>, saying this in an editorial titled: \u201cForeign Influence and Double Standards. Democrats want to stop Barr from investigating what happened in 2016.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The article also notes:<\/p>\n Over at the <\/a>Times<\/em><\/a>, that paper is busy running stories like this one by the virulent Trump-hater Michelle Goldberg. This jewel of political framing is titled: \u201cJust How Corrupt Is Bill Barr?\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Perhaps the real question should be: Just How Corrupt is The New York Times<\/em>?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n A perfect example of the game at play in this article is Goldberg citing one \u201cStephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law.\u201d I recall Stephen Gillers. In fact, I took a look at Gillers in my 2005 book The Borking Rebellion<\/em><\/a>, a recounting of the Senate confirmation of Bush nominee Judge D. Brooks Smith for the Third Circuit of Appeals. The Post<\/em> had asked Gillers for comment on a supposed ethics issue involving Judge Smith, presenting him, as does Goldberg today, as an above-it-all, strictly non-partisan legal ethics expert.<\/strong><\/p>\n In fact, in the Smith battle I uncovered the fact that Gillers was hardly a non-partisan. He had served as a consultant to a far left special interest group called the Community Rights Counsel. The CRC had issued a report harshly critical of the Judge, and The Post went to Gillers for comment, leaving out of their story Gillers own ties to the CRC, the very group whose report on Smith he was being asked to comment.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Goldberg plays the same game, citing Gillers as if he were some lofty non-partisan when, in fact, his background and record illustrate that he is anything but. Goldberg\u2019s presentation is, to borrow again from her title, corrupt.<\/strong><\/p>\n Andrew McCarthy at The National Review<\/a> noted recently:<\/p>\n The strategy here is obvious. The Democrats and their note-takers would like the public to believe that Barr\u2019s investigation is an adjunct of the Trump 2020 campaign \u2014 and a grossly improper one at that. The misimpression they seek to create is that Barr is putting the nation\u2019s law-enforcement powers in the service of Trump\u2019s reelection campaign, in the absence of any public interest. The hope is that this will delegitimize not only any information that emerges from Ukraine but the whole of the Justice Department\u2019s investigation of intelligence and law-enforcement abuses of power attendant to the 2016 election.<\/strong><\/p>\n If the people who used government and foreign resources to spy on a political opponent in 2016 are not held accountable, their actions will become the template for future political campaigns. This will destroy our republic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Inspector General’s report on the foreign intervention in the 2016 election is expected to come out in the next two weeks or so. Many of us are getting very impatient. Based on what the alternative media has been reporting … Continue reading