RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/13/julian-assange-crowdstrike-and-the

Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 presidential election is predicated on Russian intelligence having hacked the Democratic National Committee’s computers. Russia’s guilt is such an article of faith among our political class, that a Republican-controlled Congress imposed sanctions and President Trump signed on, substantially worsening relations with an important and potentially dangerous nation.

Outside the Acela Corridor, however, one finds more skepticism.

A lot of ordinary folks wonder why the DNC wouldn’t let any outside parties examine their server. Instead, the FBI accepted the word of CrowdStrike, a private contractor hired by the DNC, without any independent confirmation.

And a bunch of not so ordinary folks who know a thing or two about computers thinks there may be a simple explanation for the DNC’s unwillingness to let outsiders have a peek at the evidence: There isn’t any. The Russian hacking that’s caused so much division and turmoil at home and abroad never really happened. It was all a ruse concocted by CrowdStrike.

One such skeptic is an anonymous journalist and computer aficionado who goes by the pseudonym “Adam Carter.” Carter has spent the last couple of years cataloging evidence, unearthed by himself and others, that CrowdStrike engaged in a disinformation campaign, inventing not just a fake Russian hack but also a fake hacker called “Guccifer 2.0.” Much, but by no means all, of Carter’s evidence is technical. And he’s unquestionably found an inconsistency in the Russia narrative that ought to raise doubts in even the most computer illiterate congressman’s mind.

Julian Assange’s Threat
But first, why on earth would a private contractor hired by the DNC engage in such tactics? For motive, we need to go back to June 12, 2016, when Wikileaks founder Julian Assange made an announcement that was sure to worry Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers:

We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails pending publication.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/the_old_versus_the_new_left.html

When it comes to being anti-American, the left’s current incarnation is certainly no slouch compared to its older Marxist namesake

Politics often evolves in strange, unpredictable ways. For example, what white Southern Democrat in 1960 would have foreseen that within forty years, the South would be solidly Republican? And that black voters would help elect a black Democrat as president?

An even more extreme transformation has been the American left. In a nutshell, if a leftist from the 1930s were transported to the present via a time machine, he would not only fail to recognize today’s left, but would denounce it as a fraud, the antithesis of its historic mission and a traitor to the working class. If this time-traveler were to return to the 1930s and recount what he had observed, nobody would believe him. Surely, he would be told, the left could not have evolved into such a perversion of its historic mission, and this ludicrous time machine tale is just a cover-up for a week of binge-drinking.

To understand the left’s bizarre transformation, begin with Marxism’s central principle: the centrality of class – namely, the idea that the division between those owning the means of production (the capitalists) and all others explains everything from politics to art and science. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the left (i.e., the Communist Party) to keep class central and thus advance interests of workers (sometimes called the proletariat). To be sure, political necessity periodically counsels promoting a non-class agenda (recall the U.S. Communist Party’s foray into the 1931 racially charged Scottsboro Boys case), but these are temporary tactics and are always ultimately subordinated to advancing class interests. Promoting policies based on religion, ethnicity, sex, geography, race, and all else thus makes for counterproductive distractions.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/strzok-well-stop-it-text-was-response-to-trump-going-after-khizr-khan/

WASHINGTON — FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok told a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees today that a text to his then-lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page, about stopping candidate Donald Trump was anger expressed in response to Trump verbally going after Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan.

The Khans spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention to challenge Trump on comments he made on the campaign trail about restricting the entrance of Muslims into the country. Their son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in Baqubah, Iraq, on June 8, 2004, as he stopped a suicide bomber from driving into a compound.

In August 2016, Page texted Strzok, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The Justice Department’s inspector general determined that while texts between the two were inappropriate, investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.”

“I think it’s important when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America,” Strzok told the committee. “In terms of the text ‘we will stop it,’ you need to understand that was written late at night, off the cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States.”

“It was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process, for any candidate.”

Strzok said he took “great offense” at suggestions to the contrary.

The agent also called Trump an “idiot” in an August 2015 message and texted “God Hillary should win 100,000,000 – 0” after a March 2016 GOP debate. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-smears-begin-on-kavanaugh-1531438269

The political left is going to do whatever it can to defeat Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the smears have begun even earlier than usual. This week’s mud on the wall includes a claim of guilt by association when Mr. Kavanaugh was a law clerk 27 years ago.

In 1990-1991 Mr. Kavanaugh clerked for federal Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Kozinski retired in December after he was accused by several women, including a former federal judge, of harassing behavior such as groping and showing them pornography.

The McClatchy news service reported Wednesday that a left-wing outfit called Ultraviolet is circulating a six-page memo demanding that Senate Democrats investigate whether Mr. Kavanaugh knew about Mr. Kozinski’s behavior a quarter-century ago. Think of this as the claims in the Christopher Steele Russia dossier without the evidence.

The Ultraviolet sleaze-slingers have no evidence that Mr. Kavanaugh knew about Judge Kozinski’s behavior and no witnesses to anything of the sort. They merely have insinuations that in the age of social media can spread around the world before the truth can even get a hearing. We’re told that journalists from several news organizations are also trolling former Kozinski clerks to see if they can find someone who will say that Judge Kavanaugh knew something, or should have known, about Judge Kozinski’s behavior.

All of which caused the White House to issue a statement Thursday addressing the smears by ancient association that are by now circulating widely on the internet and in the press corps. “Prior to the public reports late last year [about Judge Kozinski], Judge Kavanaugh had never heard any allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment by Judge Kozinski,” White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

The White House also released a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee signed by 18 of Judge Kavanaugh’s former female clerks attesting to “our uniformly positive experiences with the Judge as a boss on issues of gender and equality in the workplace.” Amy Chua of Yale writes nearby of her rewarding experience placing law clerks with Judge Kavanaugh.

It used to be that the press required at least some evidence to report a story, but now a politically motivated group can write a memo without incriminating facts and get it reported as news. Fair-minded Americans should treat it as the drive-by innuendo it is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/facing-intense-gop-criticism-fbi-s-strzok-says-personal-views-n890876

Deepening tension between congressional Republicans and the Justice Department erupted in full public view Thursday, as a senior FBI agent sparred with lawmakers who suggested his bias against President Trump tainted the department’s Russia investigation.

Peter Strzok, the senior FBI official who oversaw the Hillary Clinton email investigation and helped lead the initial probe of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign strongly rejected claims that personal political views he shared with a colleague affected his official actions, while accusing Republicans of furthering Vladimir Putin’s goal of sowing discord in the U.S.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., noted that in August of 2016, within one week of the Justice Department’s decision to open the Russia probe, Page and Strzok exchanged messages that included “F Trump,” and Strzok saying: “I can protect our country at so many levels.”

“We’re not even a week into an investigation that you originated, approved, were the contact for, you hadn’t interviewed a single solitary soul until August the 11th, and you’re already promising to protect the country from that menace Donald Trump,” Gowdy said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/07/11/how-went-donald-trump-critic-president-trump-supporter-column/774925002/
I admit that I was wrong about Trump. He’s not a clown, and he is delivering on his promises.

Over the years, my caricatures of Donald Trump have evolved but not as much as my opinion of him.

When Trump announced he was running for president, I admit that I didn’t take this millionaire, hotel magnate, reality TV show celebrity as a serious candidate. I doubted his ability to do the job. So I drew him as a clown. In fact, my cartoons were as critical of him as many of my liberal cartoonist friends.

Then Trump started a war with the news media, tagging major news outlets as “fake news.” Ahem, I’m in the media.

And while Trump promised to pursue conservative policies, this conservative cartoonist doubted his sincerity. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that he was on the left.

In the crowded primary field, Trump got the most attention by being the loudest. His tweets could not be ignored by the media and resulted in Trump dominating news coverage.

I found his personal attacks sophomoric. I mean, calling his opponents “Low-energy Jeb,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” “Crazy Bernie” and “Crooked Hillary” was not presidential. It was childish, but it worked. He won and they lost.

In this braggadocios “I’m the greatest” culture, Trump became the Muhammad Ali of politicians. His claims of, “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created,” “I’m really rich,” “I’m very highly educated,” “I’m the best (fill in the blank)” stretched credulity but was certainly entertaining.