For today’s Sunday Respite I have chosen “Somewhere in Time”
You may prefer watching this in full screen. Wishing you a wonderful day.
For today’s Sunday Respite I have chosen “Somewhere in Time”
You may prefer watching this in full screen. Wishing you a wonderful day.
Many are wondering just how the news media fell off the rails and became the democrat sycophants that they are today. I thought I would wander through my old stash of posts for a Saturday flashback and see what we could discern.
Ah yes, the glory days of the Obama administration when we started that long miserable road of “fundamentally transforming America.” Those were the days of us wearing tin foil. So they said.
October 25, 2014 — bunkerville |
The Internet is the last bastion of true free speech by the everyday Joe and Jane.
In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.
Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.
The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.
November 1, 2013
The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.
The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.
“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as a FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”
The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.
June 13, 2011 — bunkerville
June 5, 2011
McChesney strongly believes in government control of the medium and the message.
In a 2000 article — titled “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle” in Review, McChesney laid out his goal of using media as a tool for socialist change:
Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism…
In 2009, McChesney said the following about capitalism and the media:
- “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”
- “There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
- “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”
February 4, 2011
Under the terms of the FCC order approving Comcast’s takeover of NBCU, at least half of NBC’s 10 O&Os have to find a nonprofit news center with which to work within the next year. The order cites the KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org alliance as the model for what it would like to see in other NBC markets.
Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBC’s FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners.
There’s just one problem with this: Voice of San Diego is a member of INN (Investigative News Network) which is funded by the Open Society Institute, the URL of which is “www.soros.org.” Yes, these “non-profit” journalism centers are funded by George Soros. Full Story at Big Journalism
January 14, 2011 — bunkerville
“NBCU will strive to ensure the presentation of diverse viewpoints by seeking the expanded participation of minorities on its news and public affairs programming,” the companies promised in writing to black leaders. “To advance this goal, NBCU will consider suggestions from the African American Advisory Council of individuals who could be considered for such participation.”
The media giants also agreed to allow black leaders to have influence over NBC’s news programming. In addition to programming “diversity,” the Comcast and NBC Universal Memorandums of Understanding with different race-specific civil rights groups promise “diversity” in company employment, in supplier and vendor procurement and in “philanthropy and community investment.”
December 3, 2010
This is an abbreviated portion found over at CNS:
American journalism is in “grave peril,” FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says, and to bolster “traditional media,” he said the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcast station at relicensing time.
In a speech at the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York on Thursday, Copps also said station relicensing should happen every four years instead of the current eight.
“If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.”
Ever since Barack Obama became president, prominent conservatives have warned about liberal efforts to squelch conservative and Christian talk-radio.
October 26, 2010 — bunkerville
Schiller, a New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to “reinvent journalism.” That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the “Future of Journalism.” Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it “the new public media.”
With now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News, Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the government in general and NPR in particular. Keep Apologizing Vivian, we got your number , who explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009, it is public radio’s responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left by dying local television stations and newspapers
November 5, 2009 — bunkerville
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, after testifying at a congressional hearing on texting while driving Wednesday, was asked whether he agreed with Mark Lloyd’s views on the First Amendment. He refused to say if he agrees with the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Czar Mark Lloyd that freedom of speech is an “exaggeration” and that concerns about free speech serve only as a “distraction” from policy debates.
Instead of answering the question, Genachowski said he would rather focus on drivers who are distracted by text-messaging.
CNSNews.com: Your Chief Diversity Office, Mark Lloyd, wrote in 2006 that freedom of speech had become an exaggeration and that free speech concerns served to distract from policy debates. Do you agree with those statements?Genachowski: We’re here today to talk about distracted driving, and today is a day to focus attention on that issue and that’s what we’ve done.
In his book, Mark Lloyd said his approach to communications was inspired by left-wing radical Saul Alinsky.
“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork. From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance,” Lloyd wrote.
Alinksy, author of the book “Rules for Radicals,” wrote that his methods were intended to guide people intent on overturning the American system.
“’The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” Alinsky explained. “’Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Other than this, all is well in the swamp.
It’s the so-called “Rules” that get a person down. You know, that phone and pen that we thought we had gotten rid of with Trump coming into office. Look, I am no fan of bump stocks. Most people have not a clue as to what they do or don’t do. That is where the hazy part of it becomes a menace to gun owners.
Easy for the non-informed to conclude that while we are at it with the bump stocks, it must have something to do with “semi-automatic” weapons. You know, those nasty looking military type guns. Let’s go after them too. In truth, many hand guns and rifles used for sport are in fact “semi-automatic.”
But now we are talking confiscation. Really? That is the precedent we are going to set?
So how did we get here?
The Bump Stock Ban, which took effect on Tuesday, March 26th, 2019 was enacted by the Trump Administration to reclassify bump stock devices as machine guns, and therefore subject to regulation as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The transfer or possession of bump stocks became prohibited under this new amendment to the law, subject to penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.
In the days before the rule change reclassifying the stocks went into effect on March 26, RW was selling the devices for between $105 to $450, making the parts destroyed to comply with the prohibition worth millions. Under the rule, bump stock owners must either destroy the stocks or abandon them at an ATF office without reimbursement for their cost or value.
Nonetheless, a bevy of plaintiffs who are challenging the rule change in federal courts across the country has argued the ban may violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that private property can’t be taken for public use without compensation.
A federal judge in Washington D.C. last month responded to that argument that bump stock owners could resort to filing a lawsuit for damages from the government under the Tucker Act after the fact but that factor alone wasn’t enough to halt the ban.
Federal regulators last year estimated there could be as many 520,000 bump stocks in circulation. The ATF has posted instructions online so that owners can destroy their own stocks.
To comply with a Rule classifying bump stocks as untransferable machine guns, a Texas distributor sent their entire inventory of the now-banned devices to the scrappers.
Fort Worth-based RW Arms on Wednesday brought 60,000 bump stocks to American Shredder where they were destroyed under the supervision of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents. The retailer had acquired the remaining inventory of Texas-based bump stock maker Slide Fire Solutions, who had closed their doors last year as the federal government pursued a ban on the once-legal accessory.
A Texas-based retailer of now-banned bump stocks has transferred about 60,000 of the gun-related items to the federal government to be destroyed. (March 27)
One benefit that has occurred with the Smollett case in Chicago was the name George Soros came to the fore. George has been a very busy man with local and State elections these past years focusing on little appreciated obscure positions in State governments such as Secretarys of State. These are critical positions that handle elections. Lately he has moved on to District Attorneys.
One Tina Tchen who greased the skids for Smollett via Foxx.
Tchen is a close pal of Obama consigliere Valerie Jarrett and a longtime bag woman for Illinois Democrats
Tchen headed up the “Office of Public Engagement,” a murky outfit overseen by Jarrett that, among other things, had its hands in the Obama’s failed Chicago Crony-lympics bid and was in the middle of Obama administration efforts to recruit artists to advance their political agenda.
I pointed out in November 2009 that Tchen, a high-powered campaign finance bundler for Team Obama who personally raised more than $200,000 while a lawyer at Skadden Arps, is listed in White House visitor logs as having met there with none other than… George Soros.
Then we had State Attorney FOXX.
Left-wing billionaire mega-donor George Soros donated $408,000 in 2016 to a super PAC that supported Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, whose office prosecuted — and dropped — the Jussie Smollett case
George Soros, the billionaire of progressive-slash-socialist and globalist causes the world over, has been busy buying his way into local district attorney campaigns in the United States. He has found he can get a lot of bang for his bucks in these races.
Talk about trying to turn the judicial system into an activist camp for the left.
It’s one thing to exercise one’s First Amendment rights to support candidates with similar political leanings. It’s another thing entirely to try and collapse a limited government republic, from the bottom up, and implement, in its place, a judicial branch filled with people who twist the Bill of Rights into something it’s not, the Constitution into something it was never intended to be, and the rule of law into a mocking tool for far-left gain.
In California alone:
He was referring to the big money that Soros, via his funding of progressive-minded California Justice & Publicly Safety PAC, is tossing into several local D.A. races. In Contra Costa, a Soros-tied PAC has kicked in $100,000-plus to support the leftist candidate; in Alameda County, more than $550,000 of Soros-tied money has gone to a hard-core civil rights attorney fighting for the comparatively conservative District Attorney Nancy O’Malley’s seat. Another $400,000 or so of Soros money’s gone toward the Sacramento County district attorney race.
But the real deal are the State Secretary offices. Think it doesn’t matter? Look what happened with having Mark Ritchie Secretary of State in Minnesota and the Al Franken win. Who is Mark Ritchie?
Ritchie in the 1990s had been a member of the now-defunct socialist New Party. Moreover, he has ideological ties to the Communist Party USA and has been described by communist Tim Wheeler as a “friend” of the Party.
It gave us Obamacare with the 60th vote.
Minnesota’s November election for U.S. Senate, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman finished 725 votes ahead of Democratic challenger Al Franken; the thin margin of victory, however, triggered an automatic recount. With Mark Ritchie presiding over the recount process during the ensuing weeks, Coleman’s lead gradually dwindled due to what journalist Matthew Vadum describes as a long series of “appalling irregularities” that invariably benefited Franken.
As USA Today reported at the time: “The political battle for control of the federal government has opened up a new front: the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”
The Secretary of State Project (SoSP) was established in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of secretary-of-state in selected swing, or battleground, states.
One of the principal duties of the secretary of state is to serve as the chief election officer who certifies candidates as well as election results in his or her state. The holder of this office, then, can potentially play a key role in determining the winner of a close election. Funding included George Soros. Other players were Mark Ritchie.
To establish “election protection” against similar disappointments in subsequent political races, SoSP in 2006 targeted its funding efforts on the secretary-of-state races in seven swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio.
Democrats emerged victorious in five of those seven elections, all except Colorado and Michigan. Politico.com would later characterize SoSP as “an administrative firewall” designed, “in anticipation of a photo-finish presidential election,” to protect Democrats’ “electoral interests in … the most important battleground states.”
In 2008, SoSP supported Democratic secretary-of-state candidates in Missouri, Montana, Oregon and West Virginia; all four Democrats won. These results represented yet another high return on a relatively small financial investment for SoSP.
All going as planned. George Soros sponsored this little number Foxx as DA. Purpose? To break down the final thin blue line and society as a whole. To create this very angst. It is the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven way. The latest shiny object to keep us off our toes and overwhelm the system.
Other than that, all’s well in the swamp.
Just when you think the swamp couldn’t get any deeper or more bizarre, up pops Chicago. . I would say Jussie did himself just fine. What a cast of characters. We have George Soros. The Obama clan. One Valerie Jarrett lurking out there some where. A presidential candidate by the name of Kamela Harris.
For more about them
And the unsung mystery heroes – unreported – the so-called “Nigerian Brothers.” Who without them there would be no story.
Jussie Smollett’s attorney, Patricia Browne Holmes, today said the Nigerian brothers committed the hate crime against her client. Tonight she said she has “no idea” what their motive could have been.
It’s interesting that after weeks of coverage of Jussie Smollett there has been little if any discussion of the background of the two participants in the faux attack. “Abel” and “Ola” Osundairo.
The narrative created is a couple of nice “kids” just coming forth doing the right thing. Choir boys. Doing all they can to make things right. Innocent bystanders in this theater of the absurd. Forget this whole thing wouldn’t have gone down without them.
Maybe Ola, nicknamed “Juice”, may have helped Jussie with a drug or two…for a price. Oh, by the way, Ola had a charge of attempted murder…stabbed a guy… but I am sure it was just a one-off.
I did hear one vague reference that one may have been on probation, but no reason mentioned.
So I scoured what was out there and came up with portions of the following sources:
Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo were unknown to most of the world until recently, when authorities revealed that the brothers — who are known as “Abel” and “Ola” — were intimately involved in the alleged bogus attack on “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett.
Public records paint a picture of two men in dire financial straits. Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo, 27, was also no stranger to violence.
Court records show that Olabinjo Osundairo was charged with attempted murder in a 2011 stabbing that occurred in the 4200 block of North Ashland. That is less than a block from the home that police raided in the Smollett investigation, where they recovered personal effects, including cell phones, a source said.
Olabinjo Osundairo reached a plea deal with prosecutors and pleaded guilty to aggravated battery; he was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $674 fine. (Ed: It’s Chicago don’t forget.)
Court records show both men filed for bankruptcy in September 2016 and collectively owed more than $120,000 in student loans.
At the time, neither brother reported having a full-time job. Their monthly incomes, they said, were $160 and $142, which they earned from various odd jobs.
Abimbola Osundairo, in his bankruptcy filing, claimed an interest in investing. He reported that he owned four shares of a pharmaceutical company, one share of Berkshire Hathaway and one share of Alibaba, the Chinese e-commerce company. He valued the shares at $300 at the time, though a single share of Berkshire Hathaway was worth more than $200,000 at the time of the filing.
(Ed: Otherwise known as fraud. Heck doesn’t every guy in the hood have a share or two of Berkshire Hathaway?)
In 2017, Olabinjo Osundairo co-founded a home remodeling company. In his bio on the company’s website, he says he has three degrees, including a master’s degree in business and a bachelor’s degree in management. The other company co-founder could not be reached.
Abimbola Osundairo, 25, graduated from Lake View High School in Chicago, where he participated in football, track and field, soccer, and wrestling, before joining the football team at Quincy University in western Illinois, according to a football profile on the university’s website. Olabinjo Osundairo, 27, also was on the Quincy football team and had attended Latmos Comprehensive College in Lagos, Nigeria, according to his football profile.
The brothers are bodybuilders who have developed an online following and have dabbled in acting and at least one failed business venture, according to social media posts and news reports.
It appears that this is Ola’s Facebook though I have not been able to double confirm this, you decide:
In December 2018, Ola uploaded a picture of him and his brother modeling “Winter Face Masks” for $20 to Facebook. The pair also modeled hooded sweatshirts, vests and baseball caps with the logo “Team Abel,” which is Abel’s Instagram handle.
Ola and his brother were both football players at Quincy University, having also attended Lakeview High School in Chicago together. According to Ola’s official profile on the school’s website, he played a total of four games at varsity level during his time at the school between 2011 and 2014. In the 2013 season, Ola recorded a solo tackle. That profile describes Ola has having two brothers, one of whom, Abel, was a defensive back for the Quincy Hawks. The bio also says that Ola attended Latmos Comprehensive College in Lagos, Nigeria. The piece names their father as Lanre Osundairo.
More at Heavy
The clock is ticking:
Senior officials, including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap, will now have to answer to Judicial Watch.
back on January 16, 2019? Well, Ben Rhodes up and refused.
On Monday, a federal judge authorized conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to depose Obama’s speechwriter-turned-Iran-echo-chamber Ben Rhodes after he defied a court order to answer questions under oath.
Enter Mr. Rhodes: Who has a masters in fiction from NYU. An aspiring writer.
For some background on Rhodes a Foreign Policy post:
The profile of one Ben Rhodes running in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine is not unsympathetic, which makes it all the more devastating.
Perhaps the key sentence is this: “His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.”
Rhodes’ official title in the Obama administration was Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, and he played key roles in numerous foreign policy decisions. He took heat in 2016 when he boasted in a New York Times profile of creating an “echo chamber” to sell the Iran nuclear deal and mocked Washington, D.C., reporters.
Obama hack Ben Rhodes was ordered by Judge Royce Lamberth to answer questions under oath about the Benghazi scandal — but last week he defied the court order.
Even worse, the State Department and Justice Department were objecting to Judicial Watch who then sought an in-person interview with Mr. Rhodes – but Judicial Watch never backed down and won!
In January, Judicial Watch submitted a court-ordered discovery plan seeking depositions of Obama-era officials connected to the Benghazi scandal, including Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes.
The discovery plan stems from a December, 2018 ruling by Judge Royce Lamberth ordering the State Department and DOJ to submit discovery in three areas.
Judge Lamberth called Hillary Clinton’s use of the private email server “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”
Back in January we learn the breath-taking amount of info the Judge is allowing.
Via Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials, including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap, will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath.
The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)
Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:
- Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
- whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
- whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.
Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.
The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.
Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.”
This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”
The Judicial Watch piece is worth going over for the full read. A nice pick me up after yesterday.
‘The Final Year’ film exposes Obama team and their foreign policy naivety.
Ben Rhodes sputters incoherently at the end of “The Final Year,” the documentary about former President Barack Obama’s foreign policy team and their diplomatic efforts throughout 2016.
He’s rendered speechless by an event he says wasn’t going to happen during the film: The election of Donald Trump.
Yet throughout the documentary, he’s also flummoxed by finding out Vladimir Putin isn’t out to promote what the U.S. thinks Russia’s interests are, the media’s response to his pronouncement that they were stupid rubes suckered into promoting the Iran nuclear deal, people who think climate change isn’t a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism, and at one point, getting into the back seat of a van.
These moments and more are captured in Greg Barker’s hagiographic film about Rhodes, John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Obama himself as they circle the globe wondering why things aren’t going the way they’re supposed to be.
The Rough ‘Final Year’ of Ben Rhodes
In 1996 the US government interfered in Russia’s election so blatantly that it was boasted on the cover of Time magazine. . Oh what a tangled web this is. The outrage that Russia interfered in our election as reported by the Mueller report. The gnashing of teeth.
Let’s take a look at the dots. While this whole mess was laid at the feet of Trump I suggest it has been the Clinton’s – Bill and Hillary and their continued meddling in Russian politics that was the latest instigation to drive Putin to get even with them to the extent he did.
What many Russians, but few Americans, know is that 20 years before Russia tried to swing an American presidential election, America tried to swing a presidential election in Russia. The year was 1996. Boris Yeltsin was seeking a second term, and Bill Clinton desperately wanted to help. “I want this guy to win so bad,” he told Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, “it hurts.”
So the Clinton administration sprang into action. It lobbied the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10 billion loan, some of which Yeltsin distributed to woo voters. Upon arriving in a given city, he often announced, “My pockets are full.”
Three American political consultants—including Richard Dresner, a veteran of Clinton’s campaigns in Arkansas—went to work on Yeltsin’s reelection bid. Every week, Dresner sent the White House the Yeltsin campaign’s internal polling. And before traveling to meet Yeltsin in April, Clinton asked Dresner what he should say in Moscow to boost his buddy’s campaign.
President Bill Clinton meddled in Russian affairs in the 1990s and helped Boris Yeltsin get elected to a second term, political analyst Dick Morris told Newsmax TV.
“I think that Putin resented that, hated it, thought that it was an inappropriate intervention by Bill Clinton and I think he’s determined to take his revenge out on Hillary Clinton.” Quote from Dick Morris.
But the Clinton’s weren’t done with Putin. Not by a long shot, not Hillary:
In December 2011, Vladimir Putin came closer than he’s ever been to losing his hold on power. His decision that year to run for a third term as Russia’s President had inspired a massive protest movement against him. Demonstrations calling for him to resign were attracting hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Some of his closest allies had defected to the opposition, causing a split in the Kremlin elites, and Russian state media had begun to warn of a revolution in the making.
At a crisis meeting with his advisers on Dec. 8 of that year, the Russian leader chose to lay the blame on one meddling foreign diplomat: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“She set the tone for certain actors inside the country; she gave the signal,” Putin said of Clinton at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. “They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work.”
Five years later, the U.S. presidential elections may have given Putin his chance for getting even. According to Clinton’s campaign staff and a number of cyber-security experts, Russian hackers in the service of the Kremlin were behind last week’s leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee. (Written July 16, 2016)
So now we come full circle with this who dun it. Hillary was in the Russian Bull’s Eye…Trump happened to get elected. Oh, there is a lot more to this tale…stay tuned. By the way,
If the progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should have consulted liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan.
That’s no exaggeration. According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR.
The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
More The Federalist