Connect with us

Media

NYT: Let bygones be bygones, as long as it’s Clinton and Uranium One

Published

on

New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker thinks it’s wrong for President Trump to ask the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One scandal. He thinks it’s okay to let bygones be bygones, as long as they are committed by Democrats.

Look at the quotes he included in his latest piece “Trump shatters longstanding norms by pressing for Clinton investigation.”

From Karen Dunn, one of the Obama White House lawyers and a Clinton adviser: “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.” From former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon: “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”

Trump Shatters Longstanding Norms by Pressing for Clinton Investigation | Peter Baker, New York Times

The request alone was enough to trigger a political backlash, as critics of Mr. Trump quickly decried what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic backwater nations where election losers are jailed by winners. The issue will almost certainly energize what was already shaping up to be a contentious hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning, when Mr. Sessions is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

He buried the lede of the substance of the Justice Department’s review many paragraphs down. In July, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the Justice Department asking them to look further into Uranium One (Baker doesn’t mention the timing here, only Trump’s tweets about it). In late September, the Judiciary Committee again requested the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Uranium One, since that investigation appears “to be outside the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.”

Finally, Baker closed the case all by himself.

Donors related to Uranium One and another company it acquired contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank for a speech. But there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton participated in the government approval of the deal, and her aides have noted that other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signed off on it as well. The company’s actual share of American uranium production has been 2 percent; the real benefit for Russia was securing far greater supplies of uranium from Kazakhstan.

Nothing to see here. Move along, because “there is no evidence.” That doesn’t mean “no evidence has been found,” or “investigators have turned up no evidence.” Baker is asserting that no evidence exists, therefore, no investigation is necessary.

Thank you to the New York Times for closing the case.

With Democrats in office, it’s okay for the Justice Department to help craft deals to funnel settlement slush fund money to liberal causes and away from conservatives. It’s okay for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton in a hush-hush private-plane on the tarmac confab just days before then-FBI Director James Comey recommended no prosecution for Hillary. It’s okay for the Obama White House to exert political pressure to end the Clinton email investigation before the election. It’s okay for the FBI to continue investigating Donald Trump’s Russia connections, paying the same operative used by Fusion GPS to compile the “Trump dossier,” and use secret FISA wiretaps against targets.

It’s okay for those FISA warrants and investigations to become the foundation of Robert Mueller’s cases against George Pappadopoulos, Carter Page and Robert Manafort. It’s okay for Mueller to strong-arm those indicted individuals (convicted, in Pappadopoulos’ case) in order to move further into President Trump’s inner circle. It’s okay to use Wikileaks-obtained documents to force release of White House communications, against the advice of White House counsel Don McGahn, to further the Russia investigation.

And it’s okay with the New York Times to continue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation despite the fact that no evidence of collusion has turned up yet (at least not leaked to the public yet, and we know if it existed, it would be leaked).

But when it comes to things that Hillary did and got away with (so far), it’s called “weaponizing” the Justice Department to revisit those things when the House Judiciary Committee has requested it.

It’s so nice to let bygones be bygones, when you’re an unabashed liberal pretending to be impartial.

Further reading

Goodlatte & Judiciary Republicans Renew Call for Second Special Counsel to Address Issues Outside the Scope of Mueller’s Investigation | U.S. House of Representatives

https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=978Recently, we wrote to you to request responses to those and other unanswered questions pertaining to the Clinton investigation. However, as the most recent Comey revelations make clear, ignoring this problem will not make it go away. Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?

Jeff Sessions considers investigating Hillary Clinton, others involved in Uranium One deal

http://noqreport.com/2017/11/13/jeff-sessions-considers-investigating-hillary-clinton-others-involved-uranium-one-deal/Update: President Trump Tweeted a teaser last night. Some are betting on it being and announcement about the investigation. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/930320191699017730 https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/930330913094885376 https://twitter.com/libbybakalar/status/930329180599861249 Original Story Reports out of DC indicate Attorney General Jeff Sessions is weighing the options for investigating the Obama-era Uranium One deal that gave a Russian-owned company partial control over our nuclear energy…

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media

Images of Franken ‘groping’ Huffington aren’t the same as his other acts of sexual misconduct

Published

on

Al Franken Arianna Huffington

The media has a tendency to pile on when a story has legs. One such story is Senator Al Franken’s sexual misconduct. The first two stories about him were appropriate. The most recent one about leaked photos from a shoot featuring him and Arianna Huffington don’t belong in the conversation.

The images, seen above, depict the former comedian groping the liberal media mogul. These are clearly inappropriate behaviors in most circumstances which is why they’re coming to light, but even Huffington acknowledges they were part of the shoot”

Newly surfaced pics show Al Franken grabbing Arianna Huffington’s breasts and butt

https://pagesix.com/2017/11/20/new-pics-show-al-franken-grabbing-arianna-huffingtons-breasts-and-butt/“The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post.

“Al and I did a comedic sketch for Bill Maher’s ‘Politically Incorrect’ called ‘Strange Bedfellows,’ in which the whole point, as the name makes clear, was that we were doing political commentary from bed. This shoot was looking back at the sketch, and we were obviously hamming it up for comedic effect.

“I’ve been great friends with Al and his wife Franni for over 20 years and there has never been anything remotely inappropriate in our interactions.”

There is real sexual misconduct coming to light in rapid-fire lately. It’s natural for journalists to want to break news and get the clicks from interested readers, but we have to be more discerning in the media. This is a non-story. When it’s put out there as something that it’s not, it takes away from the real stories and reduces the perceived severity of true infractions.

Franken needs to address the real issues here. He needs to step down. Getting quotes from a feminist like Huffington that downplay his actions reflects negatively on actions he committed against other women.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

‘Ghost Guns’ prove that gun control can never work as promised

Published

on

By

Ghost Guns prove that gun control can never work as promised

The Rancho Tehama Shooting demonstrated that gun control only empowers the government and criminals while making the situation far worse for the innocent.

Last week the Leftist media came to the astounding realisation that criminals don’t obey the law and that they can make their own guns, negating any kind of control or confiscation regimes. Were the media knowledgeable on the subject, they would have been aware of these facts. So let us endeavour to educate them on the reality of guns and that they should be looking elsewhere if they truly want to ‘protect the children’.

The basic technology of firearms makes them easy to produce.

In simplest terms a firearm is merely a container for a chemical reaction that produces high pressure gas to apply force to a projectile. It essentially only has a few components, that being the chemical propellant, projectile, ignition source and the container itself. The technology grew out of the invention of gun powder more than a thousand years ago with the first cannons appearing more than 700 years ago.

The technology has advanced to where the propellant, projectile and ignition source are combined into a self-contained package called a cartridge that is activated by a firing mechanism. A gun that holds and fires one cartridge at a time is the simplest and easiest to produce. The primary innovations of this technology revolved around how these cartridges (or rounds) are placed and extracted from the container (i.e. the firing chamber and barrel) which enabled the firing of multiple shots. The earliest repeating firearms have multiple chambers and been around for 160 years. Mechanisms to extract and chamber a fresh round to be fired with one trigger pull are termed semi-automatic and when the mechanism does this on a continuous basis with one trigger pull it is an automatic firearm. (These have been around for over 100 years)

There is nothing really magical or mysterious about these relatively simple machines that were in fact the first internal combustion engines. Thus it is merely a case of obtaining a tube of sufficient strength and dimensions to hold and fire a cartridge, a system to change out them out and a firing mechanism. Over the years there have been plenty of examples of guns made from common materials and with 3D printers

Gun control can never work.

One of the biggest Utopian fantasies of the Left is that guns can somehow be taken from the people and everyone will live happily ever after. The problem with this kind of fanciful thinking is that it ignores the fact that one cannot ban the raw materials for making a gun so criminals will always have them. They have been made by inmates in high security correctional institutions around the world and by criminals on the street.
If inmates in high security prisons can somehow fashion guns out of common materials, how can one stop criminals from building them on the outside?

The Takeaway

No one should be under the illusion that the gun grabbers actually care about ‘gun safety’ or protecting the children. If that were the case they wouldn’t be working towards gun confiscation as their ultimate goal – and lying about it every step of the way. As has been demonstrated, these weapons can be easily replicated as in the California example. Even if they were able to fool people into turning in their guns, they would soon be at a severe disadvantage by those who ignore the law. The gun grabber fantasy is that a ‘gun-free’ nation would be progressive paradise, this has been shown to not be the case with gun crime having an 27% increase in UK this year.

If the Left really cared about the issue, they would forget about gun control and power it engenders to the government and concern themselves with criminal control instead.

Continue Reading

Media

The Glenn Thrush I knew

Published

on

The Glenn Thrush I knew

Today we have learned of allegations from several young women in journalism of inappropriate behavior and poor judgment – code words for possibly much, much worse –  by the New York Times’ White House correspondent, Glenn Thrush.

The Times has suspended Thrush pending its investigation.

I know Glenn Thrush.

Not from the hilarious lampooning of him in those recent Saturday Night Live skits, where Thrush (played by Bobby Moynihan) was the target of ridicule by Melissa McCarthy playing her unforgettable (and perhaps career-zenith) role of former White House spokesman Sean Spicer.

I know him from our days at the Brooklyn College Kingsman, where I was his news editor.

As I wrote back for our sister website The New Americana last year, I knew Glenn to be a liberal (and we butted heads quite often, as I was the campus conservative). But I also found Glenn to be objective, with the problem not one of liberal press bias but rather of conservative weakness in knowing how to deal with a properly-adversarial reporter. The targets of journalists’ inquiries rarely are prepared to handle them, in part because they expect reporters to be publicists instead of inquirers.

I never observed (but was not in a position to observe) inappropriate behavior by him. However, I acutely remember Glenn’s predilection for drinking to excess, even in years when he was barely of drinking age.

In fact, Glenn’s drinking helped steer me away from journalism, with its low-paying jobs, and into the decidedly higher-paying (and less prestigious) profession of law!

My thought was simple: I had no desire to drink away most of my meager journalism earnings in order to develop and foster contacts and soak up gossip from the indiscreet and inebriated.

As with so many of these allegations, we don’t (and we may never) know what really happened. It’s one person’s word against another (or several). What is likely is not the same as what was, or is.

One thing is sure, in my mind. When you drink beyond a certain point, you make yourself a target. That means that even if these allegations are false and he did nothing wrong, he did something wrong in a different sense, in that he was indiscreet and uncontrolled enough to make himself vulnerable. No matter what the truth of the allegations should prove to be, he put himself in a bad position.

If the allegations should prove true, then Glenn Thrush will be in a far worse position.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.