Showing posts with label The New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The New York Times. Show all posts

Sunday, June 19, 2022

January 2, 2018: Trump's Button is Bigger and He's Ready to Incinerate a Million People

 

1/2/18: A fresh year brings fresh tweets. Starting 2018 the same way he ended 2017, Trump taps his inner fury. 



You could kill Kim Jong-un in a nuclear strike - and a million other people.


He still wants all his enemies – including those not charged with crimes – promptly locked up: 

Crooked Hillary Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, has been accused of disregarding basic security protocols. She put Classified Passwords into the hands of foreign agents. Remember sailors pictures on submarine? Jail! Deep State Justice Dept must finally act? Also on Comey & others.

 

In addition, all critics must bow at his feet: 

The Failing New York Times has a new publisher, A.G. Sulzberger. Congratulations! Here is a last chance for the Times to fulfill the vision of its Founder, Adolph Ochs, “to give the news impartially, without fear or FAVOR, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” Get...

 

....impartial journalists of a much higher standard, lose all of your phony and non-existent “sources,” and treat the President of the United States FAIRLY [emphasis added], so that the next time I (and the people) win, you won’t have to write an apology to your readers for a job poorly done! 

____________________ 

“I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”  

President Trump

____________________ 

 

Finally, angered by the fact the dictator of North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons ready at his fingertips, the President of the United States lets rip with this my-penis-is-bigger screed: 

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works! 

 

Does Trump realize the devastation that a single nuclear weapon might cause? Assuming we could decapitate the enemy regime with a sudden strike, an atomic bomb dropped on Pyongyang could incinerate a million men, women, and children in an instantaneous flash.

Michael Leiter, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, labels the tweet “infantile.” Trump’s national security team is working to “control the drunk,” Leiter says, and keep him from ramming the car “into a wall.”

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

May 1, 2018: A "Perjury Trap" Is Asking President Trump a Question and Listening to Him Lie

 

May 1, 2018: The sun rises over Washington. Trump wakes. Trump learns The New York Times has published an article about forty-nine questions the Mueller team would like him to answer. Trump tweets angrily. 

It’s what the man does: 

So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

 

The president tunes in to Fox News. This riles him further. He tweets again, “It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!” 

____________________ 

He lies with stunning abandon.

____________________ 

 

In reality, the president should be happy to see the questions in advance because every man, woman, and child on his legal team lives in fear he will have to testify under oath. The fear is that no matter how carefully they might prepare him to meet with Mueller’s team he won’t be able to avoid stepping into what his handlers call a “perjury trap.” 

A “perjury trap,” as far as Mr. Blogger can tell, is where you ask the Big Orange Buffoon questions about allegedly illegal activities, and he does what he always does. He lies with stunning abandon. 




Here we provide a list of some of the questions Mueller would like the President of the United States to answer –with helpful notes of explanation: 

What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016? 

When Flynn lied about what was discussed during the phone call, and lied to Vice President Jesus, not investigators, that was the cause of his removal as National Security Adviser.

 

What did you know about Sally Yates’s meetings about Mr. Flynn? 

Eighteen days passed between the time Yates informed the White House that Flynn had lied, and the time Flynn was fired.

 

After the resignation, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardons? 

As a former F.B.I. counsel recently explained, prosecutors like Mueller often ask the subject of investigation questions for which they know the answers. This is where Trump may trigger a “perjury trap.” 

Mueller has asked the courts to delay Flynn’s sentencing for at least sixty days. This would indicate a cooperating witness is yielding up information helpful to the prosecution.

 

What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said? 

This was the dinner, Trump alone with Comey, at Trump’s request, during which the F.B.I. director says the president wanted to know more about the Steele Dossier and said he needed “loyalty” from Comey.

 

What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said? 

Flynn had resigned the day before. According to Comey, the president first cleared the Oval Office of others, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Then he asked him to go easy on the investigation.

 

What did you know about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey’s testimony on March 20, 2017? 

Director Comey revealed publicly in testimony before Congress that members of the Trump campaign were being investigated.

 

What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials? 

According to the Times, Trump asked the nation’s top intelligence official, Dan Coats, “to pressure Mr. Comey to back off his investigation.”

 

What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo? 

In that interview, Trump complained that Comey had been “very, very good to Hillary Clinton…If he weren’t, she would be, right now, going to trial.” 

(Keep those comments in view. As Trump sees it, the law should be used to bludgeon opponents.)

 

Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role? 

There’s a better than fair chance investigators have already talked to witness about what Trump said and what his intent was in days leading up to the firing of Director Comey. Here again: a perjury trap waits if Trump lies.

 

What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia? 

It was during that famous interview that Trump said he was really going to fire Comey for one reason: the Russian investigation.

 

What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet? 

This was the tweet in which the president warned that Comey had better hope there were no tapes of their previous conversations. For context: Comey responded, “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.” Trump admitted later there were none.

 

What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions? 

Sessions has already met with Mueller’s investigators. Trump has never forgiven him for his recusal, which allowed Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, to appoint a Special Counsel.

 

When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting? 

Here may be the biggest “perjury trap” of all, one large enough to grab a grizzly and hold it fast. No one involved in this meeting (in June 2016) originally remembered it had been held. Then no one remembered what the true purpose of the meeting was. By the time the free press revealed that meeting, and that purpose, the president, his son Don Jr., and close advisers had crafted a phony cover story. They insisted the meeting was primarily about adoption, a claim, if made under oath today, which would merit a charge of perjury. 

It would be perjury Armageddon.



Both Don Sr. and Don Jr. lied about the meeting to the press.


 

What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails [related to this meeting]? 

Basically, why did you knowingly craft a cover story, regarding the June 2016 meeting, that you should have known, or did know, was a lie?

 

What communication did you have with Michael Cohen, Felix Sater, and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign? 

What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions? 

Those two questions – and several others – about a potentially massive deal to build a Trump Tower Moscow, hint at investigators’ interest in a quid pro quo, involving Trump campaign officials, and perhaps Trump himself, with agents of a hostile foreign power.

 

What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign? 

This is a new line of inquiry. It may indicate that Rick Gates, Manafort’s right-hand man, also known to be cooperating with the Mueller probe, could have spilled the tale of the dirty tricks of Team Trump 2016.

 

What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange, or WikiLeaks? 

(For more on Stone, jump to: 1/25/19.)

Saturday, June 4, 2022

July 28-29, 2018: The President Savages the Free Press - and His Fans Don't See the Danger

 

7/28/18: Trump heads for Bedminster, New Jersey to spend another weekend at one of his ritzy, private golf clubs.

___ 

 

7/29/18: Trump is still at Bedminster, but he’ll be back at the White House around 7:30 p.m., just in time to don his jammies, grab his remote, and watch TV. 

____________________ 

The president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.

____________________ 

 

Meanwhile, Horndog Rudy is making the Sunday talk show rounds. He insists that the tape of the president and Cohen talking about payoffs to a Playboy Bunny puts Trump in the clear. No laws were broken, Rudy claims. 

As for Cohen, who now plans to turn on his old boss, Giuliani calls him a “pathological manipulator.” 

Trump hired the guy. How terrible is Trump’s judgment??

 

*


Trump see's Jim Acosta as more of an enemy than Vladimir Putin.



“Dangerous and harmful to the country.” 

SINCE TRUMP has nothing much to do on a lazy Sunday, he decides to tweet about a meeting he had nine days earlier with A. G. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times. Here’s how the president describes the conversation: 

Had a very good and interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times. Spent much time talking about the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media & how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, “Enemy of the People.” Sad! 

 

Sad, it is. Just not for the reasons the president thinks. 

Trump’s fury, aimed squarely at the free press and the First Amendment, finally boils over. A series of four ominous tweets follows in rapid order. Once again, we’ll just dig out the key phrases: “the media – driven insane by their Trump Derangement Syndrome,” “Very unpatriotic!” I will not allow our great country to be sold out [emphasis added] by anti-Trump haters.” 

This marks the first time the president says he won’t allow the free press to continue to hold him to account. 

Sulzberger has seen enough. The New York Times has no choice but to respond. First, the paper notes, the meeting was held at the request of the White House. Second, discussion was off the record, as Trump requested. Now, the president has revealed the discussion and mischaracterized what was said. Sulzberger provides his side in a blunt statement, which should be quoted in full: 

My main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.

 

I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous [emphasis added throughout, unless otherwise noted].

 

I told him that although the phrase “fake news” is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists “the enemy of the people.” I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.

 

I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president’s rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press.

 

Throughout the conversation I emphasized that if President Trump, like previous presidents, was upset with coverage of his administration he was of course free to tell the world. I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair. Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.  


 

* 

HERE IT SEEMS WORTHWHILE to note that the president is not the first powerful leader who has made clear he would love to stifle critics. (See: 7/25/18.)  

Consider similar complaints about the free press from another powerful elected official. Reading an opposition newspaper, this leader explained, caused a “fury” to rise inside him. This paper was a “concentrated solution of lies,” a “delusive welter of words.” The enemy of the people was obvious: “the brutal daily press, shunning no villainy, employing every means of slander, lying with such a virtuosity that would bend iron beams, all in the gospel of a new humanity.” The free press was a “villainous poisoner” of the people’s minds. (See also: 7/4/18.) 

And when he came to power, that leader, Adolf Hitler, made it clear he would reshape the press to serve his needs. 

 

Forty-five tweets. 

BLOGGER’S NOTE: If you check Trump’s Twitter feed, as I did in early February 2020, you can see how many times the word “enemy” appears. The list is instructive. Before taking office, Trump used the word “enemy” to describe China seven times. So far, so good. Taliban and ISIS fighters were the “enemy,” as well (five mentions). Okay. Then, “Obama is our worst enemy.” 

Okay, nuts. 

It’s instructive what happens once Trump takes office. Suddenly, he has a new Enemies List. At one point, “McCain emboldens our enemy.” The Taliban is still our enemy – in a single tweet. Russia is never mentioned once. Nor is Kim Jong-un. Jay Powell, Trump’s own pick to head the Federal Reserve, is called an “enemy” twice. Jay Powell is worse than Kim Jong-un? 

President Trump does get it right on occasion. Assad and the Syrians he calls our “enemy” four times.

 

But who does he think is the great “enemy” today? What group threatens America most? Neo-Nazis? Sexual predators? Child traffickers? Russians bent on hacking the 2020 election? China, ever expanding its reach in the Pacific? 

No. In 45 tweets, the “Fake News” people are described as the “enemy of the people.” (God only knows how many times Trump has said the same on TV.) It is the greatest attack on a free press since the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, making it illegal for anyone to criticize the president or members of Congress. Perhaps Trump fans take all their other rights for granted, save only the Second Amendment and their right to say, “Merry Christmas” willy-nilly. History provides warning. We almost lost our freedoms in our nation’s infancy. The free press was nearly stifled less than a decade after the U.S. Constitution was adopted. 

Trump supporters fail to see it. Or they’re too busy cheering Trump’s attacks. Sadly, many of them are all in on the president’s attack. They believe what he shouts. They accept his fury. They insist Trump has every right to attack those who criticize him. But once you lose the free press – once our side loses it – and once they agree our side should lose it – you will never get it back. 

Not even for yourselves.


A few examples.


Sunday, May 8, 2022

August 18, 2019: Trump Lies - Was Never Michigan Man-of-the-Year

 

8/18/19: The president spends all day Sunday tweet-fuming. “Rigged, everything is rigged against me!” aides hear him say as they pass his bedroom during the day. The New York Times, Trump tweets, is pushing a “Racism Witch Hunt.” He hammers furiously at the buttons on his iPhone: “‘Journalism’ has reached a new low in the history of our Country. It is nothing more than an evil propaganda machine for the Democrat Party. The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very sick joke... #CROOKEDJOURNALISM.” Juan Williams, at Fox News, “is nasty and wrong.” Anthony Scaramucci, the man Trump once picked to be White House Chief of Communications, is now “a highly unstable ‘nut job.’” 

Trump wiles away the hours which lie heavy on his hands. He watches golf on TV, tweets, and alternates between self-pity and consoling himself with his elevated opinion of himself. “Well, I still have my award from Michigan, where I was declared the state’s ‘Man of the Year,’” he says, to no one, but himself. 


The shadows lengthen. Soon it’s dark. Bedtime approaches. Trump dons his Sponge Bob pajamas, climbs into bed – alone again – and reaches for a magazine on the nightstand. We know it was left there by mistake. The man hates to read. 

Newsweek,” he mumbles. “Shouldn’t I be on the cover?” 

He flips a few pages, and by pure bad luck lands on the story where reporters describe having searched all the records available. Trump, they say, has never been deemed Michigan’s “Man of the Year.” 

“RIGGGGGGGGGGD!” the president explodes. 

And a tough weekend comes to an end.



Trump did get something.



BLOGGER’S NOTE (5/8/22): In looking for further proof, I find a story quoting former GOP Congressman Dave Trott. At a dinner in 2013, for Oakland County, Michigan Republicans, he handed then-Citizen Donald a framed copy of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. 

He seems to believe that Trump never read it, and now uses the “award” as proof of his “Man-of-the-Year” status.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

October 29, 2019: President Trump Calls Decorated Veterans "Human Scum."

 

10/29/19: If Trump was relatively happy on Monday – not counting getting booed at the World Series – he was likely to end up in a funk by lunchtime Tuesday.

 

____________________ 

“Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace.” 

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

____________________

 

 

Late last night we learned that Lt. Colonel Alexander S. Vindman was planning to go before the House Intelligence Committee. Even if you’re following all the testimony in the impeachment inquiry (those portions which have leaked), Vindman’s name may be new to you. 

Yes. Yes. We know the leaks have almost all come from the Democratic side. 

We know. 

We also know, if Republicans had good information to leak, Rep. Devin Nunes would be on the phone, leaking to reporters and the White House like an octogenarian gentleman with weak bladder control.

 

* 

IN A PREPARED STATEMENT to lawmakers, already provided to the “Fake News” folks at The New York Times, Vindman appears ready to fire at least two torpedoes into the hull of the already-listing U.S.S. Trump. 

Lt. Col. Vindman is an immigrant. He and his family came to the United States as refugees when he was three. He grew up here and joined the U.S. Army. Vindman has served his adopted country for twenty years. He did a combat tour in Iraq and collected a Purple Heart after an IED exploded nearby. 

According to the Times, he will lay out his background in his prepared remarks: 

My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom [emphasis added, unless otherwise noted].

 

I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics.

 

As we have long since learned, any man (or woman) who believes in duty and honor is unlikely to be a friend of Donald J. Trump. So, we should expect to see Press Lacky Grisham come marching out in front of the cameras once again, to describe another war hero as “human scum.” That was the label she and her boss plastered on Ambassador Bill Taylor last week, a man who served as a combat officer and was wounded during the Vietnam War. 



Taylor, right, shed blood for this country.

No bone spurs for him.


“For over twenty years,” Lt. Col. Vindman plans to say, he served his country in “a non-partisan manner.” He has “done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.” 

He is prepared to describe communications involving top Trump administration figures and representatives of Ukraine. Vindman was listening on the crucial July 25 call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman will tell lawmakers he is “not the whistleblower.” Nor does he feel comfortable venturing a guess who that person might be. 

Like that mysterious whistleblower, however, he will say he had grave concerns on more than one occasion, regarding President Trump’s actions and those of his political pals. Like Dr. Fiona Hill, who has already testified and launched a torpedo of her own, Vindman was a member of the National Security Council. In that position he had first-hand knowledge of what was going on inside the White House.

 

“Since 2008,” he is prepared to say, 

Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to U.S. national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.

 

President Trump’s defenders have insisted since the start of the impeachment inquiry that he did nothing wrong. They have claimed he held up military aid to our ally out of concern about corruption in Ukraine. 

Colonel Vindman will not support that construct: 

In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy [alternate spelling] and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. 

 

“Outside influencers promoting a false narrative.” 

Vindman will tell members of the House Intelligence Committee that he joined the NSC in July 2018. In an apparent slap at Rudy Giuliani, he will explain that by spring of this year, he, 

became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency [that is, U.S. intelligence services]. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.

 

Lt. Col. Vindman was one of several members of the NSC who listened to an earlier, April 21, 2019, call between the two presidents. Vindman will say that that call went well. President Trump expressed a desire to work with President Zelenskyy and “extended an invitation to visit the White House.” 

In May, the colonel was one of several NSC members to attend Zelensky’s inauguration. The U.S. delegation came away impressed. Zelensky and his top aides seemed committed to cleaning up corruption and anxious to build a stronger relationship with the United States. 

On July 10, however, signs of serious trouble emerged. 

[That day] Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland also attended, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry. The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short.

 

Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma [the Ukrainian company for which Hunter Biden had worked]. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. 

 

“This would all undermine U.S. national security.” 

Dr. Hill entered the room and broached similar concerns. She, Bolton and Vindman were deeply troubled. Alarm grew exponentially with the call of July 25. Vindman will testify that he listened, as did colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. 

“As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said,” his prepared remarks will note. 

If the transcript is in the public record – and it’s a call memorandum, not a verbatim record of what was said – the reaction of patriots like Lt. Col. Vindman is what should shake Trump fans. 

I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.

 

He will end his prepared marks with this: 

The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace.

 

The colonel will then take questions from lawmakers and respond to the best of his recollection for as long they would like him to stay.

 

* 

IN OTHER WORDS, Vindman is expected to lay out the case that you could choose to work with the “free citizens” of Ukraine. You could support an ally that served as a bulwark, an ally that was fighting off the aggression of a dangerous Russian state. You could provide military aid and bolster U.S. security at the same time. 

Or you could do what the President of the United States did. Donald John Trump made it clear he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his son. He expected them to get it done if they wanted a meeting and military aid. He was pressing our ally to help him win election again. 

That’s the torpedo that should sink the U.S.S. Trump. It’s “Russia, if you’re listening,” with a 2020 twist.

 

BLOGGER’S NOTE: As it turns out, Vindman resigns from the U.S. Army in July 2020, after a promotion his superiors agree he earned is blocked by the president and some of his tools. Vindman’s crime? Testifying truthfully, during these hearings, to the best of his knowledge, under oath. 

Again, let’s be absolutely clear: Lt. Col. Vindman’s superiors said he had earned a promotion; but the president wanted to f**k with another decorated war hero. 

For no apparent reason, other than kinship, Lt. Col. Eugene Vindman’s earned promotion is also blocked by then-President Trump, but he sticks with the U.S. Army, and his promotion is eventually reinstated. 

That’s who Trump really is. Interested only in what and who serves his needs. A serial liar. Vindictive. And no real patriot at all.

Saturday, April 23, 2022

Kevin McCarthy Caught on Tape Telling the Truth Again

 

4/23/22: If you missed it, the free press, doing what the free press does best, kicked over a D.C. stone this week. All the little creatures scurried out, heading in various directions, seeking new dark places to hide.

 

 

____________________

 

Kevin McCarthy Caught on Tape Telling the Truth Again.

____________________

 

 

Thursday, The New York Times reported that in the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack on Capitol Hill, Rep. Kevin McCarthy told top Republican leaders, including Rep. Liz Cheney, that he was going to call then-President Trump and tell him he should resign. McCarthy, Cheney, and others, spoke by phone on January 10.

 

The ink had hardly dried on the printed page before McCarthy was out with a claim that the Times story was “totally false and wrong.” His spokesman chipped in with a bonus Ninth Commandment-breaker, insisting, “McCarthy never said he’d call Trump to say he should resign.” 

 

*

 

The “Fake News” people happened to have tape.

 

The problem for McCarthy – but not the problem for anyone who values truth – was that the “Fake News” people had tape. The New York Times countered McCarthy’s lie by making the tape available.

 

You don’t have to be a flaming liberal, as is this blogger, to quickly conclude that McCarthy was fabricating furiously (and as we shall see, this was not the first time he was caught telling the truth on tape). If you have eardrums that function, and a mind not clamped shut like a bear trap that missed catching facts, I urge you to listen to the tape. If you love this country, for God’s sake, listen.

 

Rachel Maddow was kind enough to play the tape on her Thursday night MSNBC show, providing graphics so viewers could read along.

 

At one point, Rep. Cheney (who doesn’t lie – and has therefore been drummed out of the Trumplican Party) asks if McCarthy thinks Trump might resign.

 

He responds:



"I've had a few discussions. My gut tells me no. I'm seriously
thinking of having that conversation with him tonight.
I haven't talked to him in a couple of days."


  

He continues:

 


"Um, from what I know of him, I mean you guys all know him too, do
you think he'd ever back away? But what I think I'm going to do, is I'm
going to call him."


 

 

McCarthy had already told his listeners that an impeachment resolution was coming – and might in fact be leveled against Trump, even after his time in office came to an end on January 20.

 

He explained:



"This, this is what I think, we know it'll pass the House. I think there's a 
chance it'll pass the Senate, even when he's gone. Um, and I think there's
a lot of different ramifications for that."


 

 

He assured everyone on the line that he hadn’t discussed the matter with the “Dem’s,” then added,

 


"Now, this is one personal fear I have. I do not want to get into any
conversation about Pence pardoning."


 

 

*

 

On that fateful day, it sounded like the nation might have hope.

 

Let me beg you, if you are a good American, if you truly care about free and fair elections: Listen closely to the tape. Play it again and again if you fail to catch the significance the first time. Four days after the riot on Capitol Hill, the Republican House Minority Leader wasn’t trying to blame some mysterious “Antifa” crew for the chaos. He wasn’t fuming about a stolen election. He was hoping that the man who fanned the flames of insurrection would resign. And he didn’t want to have to talk with Trump about getting a pardon from Vice President Mike Pence, if Mr. Pence were suddenly thrust into the presidential role.

 

Put yourself in McCarthy’s place – I mean before he starts lying. He believes the leader of his party, and the President of the United States, should resign. And he knows Trump may need a pardon.

 

When President Richard M. Nixon resigned in disgrace on August 8, 1974, he knew he had lost the support of his own party members in Congress, not just Democrats who had worked hard to uncover the truth. He knew he was going to be impeached – and removed from office. So he quit. One month later, he was pardoned by newly-installed President Gerald Ford, putting a merciful end to a black chapter in U.S. history, and ending Nixon’s career once and for all.

 

In the Watergate era, when confronted with overwhelming evidence, Republicans of good conscience faced up to a bitter truth. Their champion had repeatedly broken the law, and Nixon had to go.

 

On January 10, 2021, McCarthy faced a similar situation. He knew Trump had no business holding high office. He knew he should go. Only this was not the Watergate Era. Nor was this the Grand Old Party of the past, a party that stood proudly for conservative principles and values.

 

The Trumplicans are a party of cowards – McCarthy – McConnell – Rep. Jim Jordan, Senator Lindsey Graham, and so many others. For a brief moment, that day, McCarthy felt the tug of conscience and honor. A light of truth flickered in his mind – but in days ahead he snuffed it out.

 

On tape, on that fateful day, it sounded like the nation might have hope. McCarthy continued:

 


"Again, the only discussion I would have with him is that I think this will pass,
and it would be my recommendation you should resign. Um, I mean
that would be my take, but I don't think he would take it. But I don't know."


 

 

That’s what he said, speaking the truth, four days after the riot. The Times says they have more tape. “What he did is unacceptable,” McCarthy added, but not on this tape, referring to the president who had stoked the fire.

 

“Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it.”

 

Sen. McConnell’s cowardice is equally glaring. Reporters quote him, shortly after the attack, telling Republican allies, with a hint of relief, that, “The Democrats are going to take care of the son of a bitch for us.” He told supporters that he expected members of the party to help pass articles of impeachment, noting, “If this isn’t impeachable, I don’t know what is.”


 

Unfortunately, the GOP failed in the end. Mitch and most Republican senators lost their nerve. McCarthy went to Mar-a-Lago to grovel and grin. In February 2021, with many police officers battered by the mob still hospitalized, McConnell was asked in a Fox News interview if, should Trump run again in 2024, he would support him.

 

“Absolutely,” the coward said.

 

*

 

“I think there’s two people Putin pays.”

 

NOR SHOULD WE FORGET, this was not the first time Rep. McCarthy was caught on tape, speaking a critical truth.

 

In June 2016, when it looked unlikely that Trump would win the presidency, McCarthy offered the kind of honest assessment this liberal blogger might have made. “I think there’s two people Putin pays,” McCarthy told a gathering of fellow Republican lawmakers, “Rohrabacher and Trump.”

 

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was sometimes mocked in the press with the identifier, (R-Moscow), and labeled “Russia’s favorite congressman.”

 

In any case, the Washington Post soon had the story and printed it. McCarthy was just as quick six years ago to deny the truth.

 

But the free press – doing its job, which is to hold the powerful to account – said, we’ve got tapes.

 

McCarthy replied, in essence: “Okay, I said it. But I was joking.”

 

It was a joke – and the joke was on all of us, and on this great nation, and some of us, more ill-informed, elected Donald J. Trump.

 

The problem was that on tape, McCarthy was telling the truth. Democracy is not likely to survive if he becomes Speaker of the House in 2022, if McConnell is returned to Senate Majority Leader, and Trump wins a second term in 2024. McCarthy believed Trump was in Putin’s pocket in 2016. He and McConnell knew the election wasn’t stolen, and the attack on Capitol Hill was fomented by the president. They knew Trump deserved to be ousted from office. What they lacked  was the courage to put their careers at risk to protect fari elections, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

It’s right there on tape.

 

You just have to listen.



BLOGGER’S NOTE: For a slightly more detailed description of what happened, see my original post on McCarthy’s comments about who Putin paid, and scroll down till you find the entry for 7/13/18, or click the link where I separated it out just for today.